< draft-cridland-acap-vendor-registry-01.txt   draft-cridland-acap-vendor-registry-02.txt >
Network Working Group D. Cridland Network Working Group D. Cridland
Internet-Draft Isode Limited Internet-Draft Isode Limited
Intended status: Standards Track Aug 17, 2010 Updates: 2244 (if approved) Oct 22, 2010
Expires: February 18, 2011 Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 25, 2011
The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Application Configurations The Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) Application Configuration
Access Protocol (ACAP) Vendor Subtrees Registry Access Protocol (ACAP) Vendor Subtrees Registry
draft-cridland-acap-vendor-registry-01 draft-cridland-acap-vendor-registry-02
Abstract Abstract
The original ACAP specification included a vendor registry now used The original ACAP specification included a vendor registry now used
in other protocols. This document updates the description of this in other protocols. This document updates the description of this
registry, removing the need for a direct normative reference to ACAP, registry, removing the need for a direct normative reference to ACAP,
and removing ambiguity. and removing ambiguity.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 18, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 11
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Vendor Subtree Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. The Vendor Subtree Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Internationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Internationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Changes from RFC 2244 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Changes from RFC 2244 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Example Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Example Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Conventions used in this document 1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS]. document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].
Formal Syntax are to be considered normative, and are specified using Formal Syntax are to be considered normative, and are specified using
[ABNF]. Where a formal syntax and the prose are in conflict, the [ABNF]. Where a formal syntax and the prose are in conflict, the
formal syntax takes precedence. formal syntax takes precedence.
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
The [ACAP] specification includes the specification and creation of The [ACAP] specification includes the specification and creation of
the ACAP Vendor Registry, and this registry has subsequently been the ACAP Vendor Registry, and this registry has subsequently been
reused by several specifications, including both [ANNOTATE] and reused by several specifications, including both [ANNOTATE] and
[METADATA], and is proving to be a useful mechanism for namespacing [METADATA], and is proving to be a useful mechanism for namespacing
various names to within a specific vendor's scope. various names to within a specific vendor's scope.
The use of textual rather than numeric identifiers for vendors
benefits engineers and operators who are diagnosing protocol problems
by allowing them some possibility of identifying the origin of a
vendor attribute without having to look it up in a registry (although
that remains a necessary fallback). As such engineers and operators
already have to be familiar with international technical English to
diagnose textual protocol problems, the restriction to ASCII may help
and is not believed to harm that intended use. Exposure of vendor
attributes directly in end-user user interfaces was not an intended
use of the registry.
This document merely updates the registry to reduce ambiguity in the This document merely updates the registry to reduce ambiguity in the
original specification, and dissociates it from the original document original specification, and dissociates it from the original document
in all but name, allowing easier referencing. It replaces section in all but name, allowing easier referencing. It replaces section
7.4 and portions of section 4, particularly 4.3, of [ACAP]. 7.4 and portions of section 4, particularly 4.3, of [ACAP].
3. The Vendor Subtree Registry 3. The Vendor Subtree Registry
A Vendor Token is a UTF-8 string beginning with "vendor.", and A Vendor Token is a UTF-8 string beginning with "vendor.", and
followed by the name of the company or product. This name MUST NOT followed by the name of the company or product. This name MUST NOT
contain any slash character, period, or the percent and asterisk contain any slash character, period, or the percent and asterisk
skipping to change at page 3, line 48 skipping to change at page 4, line 14
3.1. Internationalization 3.1. Internationalization
Vendor Tokens are able to contain any valid Unicode codepoint, Vendor Tokens are able to contain any valid Unicode codepoint,
encoded as [UTF-8], except the special characters. Since the encoded as [UTF-8], except the special characters. Since the
publication of [ACAP], however, concerns have been raised on the publication of [ACAP], however, concerns have been raised on the
handling and comparison of full Unicode strings, and therefore this handling and comparison of full Unicode strings, and therefore this
specification restricts the current registrations to the ASCII subset specification restricts the current registrations to the ASCII subset
of UTF-8. of UTF-8.
Furthermore, characters such as control characters, whitespace, and Furthermore, characters such as ASCII control characters, most
quotes are likely to be confusing and have been similarly restricted. whitespace, and quotes are likely to be confusing and have been
similarly restricted.
Therefore, this document allows only ASCII letters, digits, the Therefore, this document allows only ASCII letters, digits, the
hyphen, and space to be used. hyphen, and space to be used (the <iana-vendor-tag> ABNF production
in Section 3.2).
At the time of publication of this document, no existing
registrations violate the new restricted syntax on characters allowed
in registrations. [ACAP] required all Vendor Tokens to be registered
with IANA, so the new restriction is not believed to introduce any
interoperability issue.
Finally, note that this document does not change the requirement on
processors to accept other non-ASCII Unicode codepoints in Vendor
Tokens (the <possible-vendor-tag> ABNF production in Section 3.2).
3.2. Formal Syntax 3.2. Formal Syntax
This syntax draws upon productions found within [ABNF] and [UTF-8]. This syntax draws upon productions found within [ABNF] and [UTF-8].
Productions replace those in section 4.3 of [ACAP]. Productions replace those in section 4.3 of [ACAP].
vendor-name = vendor-token ["." name-component] vendor-name = vendor-token *("." name-component)
name-component = *(name-char / UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4) name-component = *(name-char / UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4)
name-char = %x01-24 / %x26-29 / %x2B-2D / %x30-7F name-char = %x01-24 / %x26-29 / %x2B-2D / %x30-7F
;; ASCII-range characters not including ".", ;; ASCII-range characters not including ".",
;; "/", "%", or "*". ;; "/", "%", or "*".
vendor-token = "vendor." vendor-tag vendor-token = "vendor." vendor-tag
;; MUST be registered with IANA
vendor-tag = iana-vendor-tag / possible-vendor-tag vendor-tag = iana-vendor-tag / possible-vendor-tag
iana-vendor-tag = 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT / SP / "-") iana-vendor-tag = 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT / SP / "-")
;; This production represents ;; This production represents
;; allowed forms for current registrations. ;; allowed forms for registrations
;; under the rules specified in this
;; document.
possible-vendor-tag = name-component possible-vendor-tag = name-component
;; This production represents what ;; This production represents what
;; applications and specifications ;; applications and specifications
;; may encounter. ;; MUST be able to accept.
3.3. Examples 3.3. Examples
A company Example Ltd might register the Subtree "vendor.example". A company Example Ltd might register the Subtree "vendor.example".
This means it may use "vendor.example", or any name at all beginning This means it may use "vendor.example", or any name at all beginning
"vendor.example.", such as "vendor.example.product". "vendor.example.", such as "vendor.example.product".
These names might be used in several protocols, and are reserved in These names might be used in several protocols, and are reserved in
all the relevant protocols, so "vendor.example" might be an ACAP all the relevant protocols, so "vendor.example" might be an ACAP
dataset class name, and "/vendor/vendor.example" might be a tree of dataset class name, and "/vendor/vendor.example" might be a tree of
IMAP ANNOTATE entries. IMAP ANNOTATE entries.
Example Ltd is free to use either "vendor.example", and group Example Ltd is free to use either "vendor.example", and group
specific products under it using the relevant protocol's hierarchy - specific products under it using the relevant protocol's hierarchy -
perhaps "/shared/vendor/vendor.example/product", or using more perhaps "/shared/vendor/vendor.example/product", or using more
specific names, such as "/shared/vendor/vendor.example.product". specific names, such as "/shared/vendor/vendor.example.product".
Note that the solidus ("/") characters in the examples above are
protocol delimiters which are themselves not part of the vendor token
itself.
3.4. Changes from RFC 2244 3.4. Changes from RFC 2244
This non-normative section details changes from RFC 2244's original This non-normative section details changes from RFC 2244's original
specification of the registry. specification of the registry.
o UTF-8 names are restricted to ASCII o Vendor tokens are restricted to ASCII for registration purposes.
o Clarifications that "vendor.<company/product name>" means o Clarifications that "vendor.<company/product name>" means
"vendor.company name" or "vendor.product name" - "vendor.company/ "vendor.company name" or "vendor.product name" - "vendor.company/
product" is and always has been illegal. product" is and always has been illegal.
o Made "vendor.company" a name in its own right - RFC 2244 only o Made "vendor.company" a name in its own right - RFC 2244 only
refers to a prefix of "vendor.company.". refers to a prefix of "vendor.company.".
o Added example registration, in line with [EXAMPLES]. o Added example registration, in line with [EXAMPLES].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This specification updates the IANA registry named the ACAP Vendor This specification updates the IANA registry named the ACAP Vendor
Subtrees Registry. Subtrees Registry. IANA is requested to update the registry to point
at this document.
Vendors may reserve a portion of the ACAP namespace, which is also Vendors may reserve a portion of the ACAP namespace, which is also
used as the namespace for several other protocols, for private use. used as the namespace for several other protocols, for private use.
Vendor Names are reserved for use by that company or product, Vendor Names are reserved for use by that company or product,
wherever used, once registered. Registration is on a first come, wherever used, once registered. Registration is on a first come,
first served basis. Whenever possible, private attributes and first served basis. Whenever possible, private attributes and
classes should be eschewed in favour of improving interoperable classes should be eschewed in favour of improving interoperable
protocols. protocols.
Vendors may only use names conforming to iana-vendor-tag at the Vendors may only use names conforming to iana-vendor-tag at the
skipping to change at page 6, line 34 skipping to change at page 7, line 34
of ACAP for the initial creation of the registry. Thanks also to of ACAP for the initial creation of the registry. Thanks also to
Alexey Melnikov for advice on this revision. Alexey Melnikov for advice on this revision.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[ACAP] Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application
Configuration Access Protocol", RFC 2244, November 1997.
[KEYWORDS] [KEYWORDS]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO [UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003. 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[ACAP] Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application
Configuration Access Protocol", RFC 2244, November 1997.
[ANNOTATE] [ANNOTATE]
Daboo, C. and R. Gellens, "Internet Message Access Daboo, C. and R. Gellens, "Internet Message Access
Protocol - ANNOTATE Extension", RFC 5257, June 2008. Protocol - ANNOTATE Extension", RFC 5257, June 2008.
[EXAMPLES] [EXAMPLES]
Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999. Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[METADATA] [METADATA]
Daboo, C., "The IMAP METADATA Extension", RFC 5464, Daboo, C., "The IMAP METADATA Extension", RFC 5464,
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
28 lines changed or deleted 60 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/