Network Working Group A. Newton Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track M. Sanz Expires: June 8, 2007 DENIC eG Dec 5, 2006 A Domain Availability Check (dchk) Registry Type for the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dchk-06 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 8, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 Abstract This document describes a lightweight domain availability service using the IRIS framework and the data model of the IRIS Domain Registry service. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. DCHK Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Schema Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1. The Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.2. Support for . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. DCHK Formal XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. BEEP Transport Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3.1. Message Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3.2. Server Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4. URI Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4.1. Application Service Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4.2. Bottom-Up Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4.3. Top-Down Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1. XML Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3. S-NAPTR Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.4. BEEP Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 21 Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 1. Introduction This document describes a lightweight service for checking the availability of domain names. This service is based on the IRIS framework and uses the data model defined by DREG2 [10]. By doing this, the domain availability service has the advantages provided by IRIS and DREG2, such as well-known methods for server navigation, structured queries and results, and layered extensibility. The use of IRIS for this service also allows seamless integration between the domain availability service and the service provided by DREG2. This allows a user to find the availability status of domain and reference the full registration information in DREG2. The data model in this service (called a registry schema in IRIS terms) is a strict subset of the DREG2 data model. This enables implementors to directly reuse DREG2 code paths and allows operators to deploy the service in either the same server processes as a DREG2 service (same host and port) or in a different server process (different port) or machine (different host). As an example, an operator may wish to deploy both types of service on the same set of machines. As time goes on, the operator may then decide to segregate the services, placing the domain availability service on one set of machines and the DREG2 service on a separate set of machines with a stricter set of controls. Either deployment scenario is transparent to the end user and always appear to be seamlessly complementary. When coupled with [11], this domain availability service is lightweight and extremely effecient for high-volume, public-facing service. Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 2. Document Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [2]. Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 3. DCHK Registry The data model used for the domain availability check (DCHK) service is a strict subset of the DREG2 data model. This section describes the DCHK registry type. 3.1. Schema Description References to XML elements with no namespace qualifier are from the schema defined in Section 3.2. References to elements and attributes with the "iris" XML namespace qualifier are from the schema defined in IRIS [6]. The descriptions contained within this section refer to XML elements and attributes and their relation to the exchange of data within the protocol. These descriptions also contain specifications outside the scope of the formal XML syntax. Therefore, this section will use terms defined by RFC 2119 [2] to describe the specification outside the scope of the formal XML syntax. While reading this section, please reference Section 3.2 for needed details on the formal XML syntax. 3.1.1. The Result An example of a result: example.com <domain> Example The result represents an instance of a domain assignment. The children of the element are as follows: o - the full name of the domain as it is in DNS. The contents of this element MUST be a domain name as specified by RFC 1035 [1]. o - the name of the domain in nameprep form if applicable. See RFC 3491 [3]. o - this element contains child elements representing domain status information. It defines the following status types: Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 * - available via DNS (either via delegation or direct publication) * - unavailable via DNS * - registrant assignment is in dispute * - renewal of domain registration * - period at the creation or activation of this domain (see RFC 3915 [5]) * - period at the renewal of this domain (see RFC 3915 [5]) * - period at the automatic renewal of this domain (see RFC 3915 [5]) * - period at the transfer of this domain (see RFC 3915 [5]) * - period at the redemption of this domain (see RFC 3915 [5]) * - change to previous status of this domain * - the domain is considered compliant according to a given policy specified by the substatus identifier. * - the domain is not considered compliant according to a given policy specified by the substatus identifier. * - the domain is reserved and is not available for registration under normal registration procedures. * - specifies the creation status of the domain in the registration system. * - specifies the deletion status of the domain in the registration system. * - specifies the transfer status of the domain from one responsible or owning entity in the registration system to another. Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 * - specifies the status of the domain as it relates to information in the domain being modified or having the ability to be modified. * - specifies a registration system specific status of the domain. o - an element containing an entity reference, the referent of which MUST be either a (Section 3.1.1) or a as defined by DREG2 [10]. The intent of this element is to point to the downstream registration reference. Therefore, if this is a result given back by a domain registry, it should point to the domain in the domain registrar or registrant service. o - an element containing the date and time of the creation of this domain o - an element containing the date and time of the initial delegation of this domain. o - an element containing the date and time of the expiration of this domain o - an element containing the date and time of the last actualization of the database that is source for this result o - an element containing an entity reference specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this domain. 3.1.1.1. Domain Status Type Each element of type 'domainStatusType' has the following composition: o - an optional child element containing the date applicable to creation of the status. o - an optional child element containing a service ticket identifier relevant to the status. o - zero or more child elements with text to describe the status in natural language. Each of these elements must have a 'language' attribute describing the language of the description element. Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 7] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 o - a child element indicating further status information. Values for this element are not defined by this specification. This child element has a required 'authority' attribute to indicate the origin of the specification of the value of this element. o 'actor' - an optional attribute indicating the acting entity for which this status is applied. The values may be "registry", "registrar" or "registrationServiceProvider". o 'disposition' - an optional attribute indicating the nature of this status. The values may be "pending" or "prohibited". o 'scope' - an optional attribute indicating the context or origin of the status value. 3.1.2. Support for The following types of entity classes are recognized by the query of IRIS for this registry: o domain-name - the fully qualified name of a domain. This a domain name as specified by RFC 1035 [1]. Yields a (Section 3.1.1) in the response. o idn - the fully qualified name of a domain in nameprep form (see RFC 3491 [3]). Yields a (Section 3.1.1) in the response. 3.2. DCHK Formal XML Syntax This registry schema is specified in the XML Schema notation (see [8] and [9]). The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation suitable for automated validation of an XML instance when combined with the formal schema syntax of IRIS. Domain availability check schema Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 8] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 derived from IRIS schema Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 9] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 12] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 Figure 2: dchk.xsd 3.3. BEEP Transport Compliance Though it is envisioned that a DCHK service will be deployed with a lightweight transport such as [11], it is still possible to use DCHK with the [7] transport. The use of this transport is completely at the discretion of the server operator. IRIS allows several extensions of the core capabilities. This section outlines those extensions allowable by IRIS-BEEP [7]. 3.3.1. Message Pattern This registry type uses the default message pattern as described in IRIS-BEEP [7]. 3.3.2. Server Authentication This registry type uses the default server authentication method as described in IRIS-BEEP [7]. 3.4. URI Resolution 3.4.1. Application Service Label The application service label associated with this registry type MUST be "DCHK1". This is the abbreviated form of the URN for this registry type, urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1. Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 13] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 3.4.2. Bottom-Up Resolution The bottom-up alternative resolution method MUST be identified as 'bottom' in IRIS URI's. Its process is identical to the 'bottom' process described by DREG2 [10]. 3.4.3. Top-Down Resolution The top-down alternative resolution method MUST be identified as 'top' in IRIS URI's. Its process is identical to the 'top' process described by DREG2 [10]. Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 14] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 4. Internationalization Considerations Implementers should be aware of considerations for internationalization in IRIS [6]. Clients needing to localize the data tags in this protocol should take note that localization is only needed on the names of XML elements and attributes with the exception of elements containing date and time information. The schema for this registry has been designed so that clients need not interpret the content of elements or attributes for localization, other than those elements containing date and time information. Clients should also make use of the elements provided in many of the results. Results containing internationalized data can be accompanied by these elements in order to aid better localization of the data by the user All date and time elements make use of the XML Schema [8] data type "dateTime". If their contents are Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) timestamps, they MUST be specified by using the capitalized 'Z' indicator (instead of 'z'). Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 15] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 5. IANA Considerations 5.1. XML Namespace Registration This document makes use of the XML registry specified in RFC 3688 [4]. Accordingly, the following registration information is provided for the IANA: o XML Namespace URN/URI: * urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1 o Contact: * Andrew Newton * Marcos Sanz o XML: * None. 5.2. XML Schema Registration This document makes use of the XML registry specified in RFC 3688 [4]. Accordingly, the following registration information is provided for the IANA: o XML Schema URN/URI: * urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1 o Contact: * Andrew Newton * Marcos Sanz o XML: * The XML Schema specified in Section 3.2 5.3. S-NAPTR Registration The following S-NAPTR application service label will need to be registered with IANA according to the IANA considerations defined in IRIS [6]: Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 16] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 DCHK1 5.4. BEEP Registration The following BEEP Profile URI is to be registeried with IANA, in addition to the registration provided in IRIS-BEEP [7]. http://iana.org/beep/iris1/dchk1 Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 17] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 6. Security Considerations Being a proper subset of DREG2 [10], the registry described in this document has the same security considerations. Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 18] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 7. References 7.1. Normative References [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [3] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 3491, March 2003. [4] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, January 2004. [5] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915, September 2004. [6] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: The Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) Core Protocol", RFC 3981, January 2005. [7] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Using the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 3983, January 2005. [8] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C XML Schema, October 2004, . [9] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C XML Schema, October 2004, . [10] Newton, A. and F. Neves, "Domain Registry Version 2 for the Internet Registry Information Service", draft-ietf-crisp-iris-dreg2-01 (work in progress), May 2006. 7.2. Informative References [11] Newton, A., "A Lightweight UDP Transport for IRIS", draft-ietf-crips-iris-lwz-06 (work in progress), January 2005. Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 19] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 Authors' Addresses Andrew L. Newton VeriSign, Inc. 21345 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 USA Phone: +1 703 948 3382 Email: andy@hxr.us URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/ Marcos Sanz DENIC eG Wiesenhuettenplatz 26 D-60329 Frankfurt Germany Email: sanz@denic.de URI: http://www.denic.de/ Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 20] Internet-Draft iris-dchk Dec 2006 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Newton & Sanz Expires June 8, 2007 [Page 21]