idnits 2.17.1 draft-mealling-rwhoisurl-00.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-25) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 145 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** There are 29 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 7 characters in excess of 72. ** There is 1 instance of lines with control characters in the document. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([1]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 59: '...spaces) MUST be escaped using the % me...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 85: '...query in 1.0, it MUST NOT to be used i...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Missing reference section? '1' on line 132 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC954' on line 80 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? '2' on line 135 looks like a reference Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT S. Williamson 2 draft-mealling-rwhoisurl-00.txt M. Mealling 3 Expires June 5, 1996 Network Solutions, Inc. 5 The RWhois Uniform Resource Locator 7 Status of this Memo 9 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 10 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its 11 areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also 12 distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 14 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 15 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 16 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts 17 as reference material or to cite them other than as work in 18 progress. 20 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check 21 the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts 22 Shadow Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), 23 nic.nordu.net (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or 24 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim). 26 1. Abstract 28 RWhois is an Internet directory access protocol that is defined in 29 RFC1714[1]. This document describes a format for an RWhois Uniform Resource 30 Locator that will allow Internet clients to have direct access to the RWhois 31 protocol. An RWhois URL will represent a single query to an RWhois server. 33 2. URL Definition 35 An RWhois URL begins with the protocol prefix "rwhois" and is defined by the 36 following ABNF grammar. 38 RWHOISURL = "rwhois://" [ SERVER ] "/" [ QUERY ] 40 SERVER = 1 *DNSCHAR *["." 1*DNSCHAR] [ ":" 1..65535 ] 42 QUERY = [ CLASS ] "?" TERMS 44 CLASS = 1*ALPHA 46 TERMS = a list of query terms as defined in RFC 1714 48 DNSCHAR = ALPHA/DIGIT/DASH 50 ALPHA = "a".."z"/"A".."Z" 52 DIGIT = 0..9 54 DASH = "-" 56 The RWhois prefix indicates an entry or entries residing in the RWhois 57 server running on the given hostname at the given port number as encoded in 58 SERVER. The default port is TCP port 4321. Any URL-illegal characters (e.g., 59 spaces) MUST be escaped using the % method described in RFC 1738. 61 The CLASS specifies the RWhois class to which the object(s) in question 62 belong. If the CLASS part of the URL is omitted, all data contained in the 63 server will be searched. Please note that this may cause unintended 64 ambiguities. Those developers encoding RWhois URLs should encode the CLASS 65 as much as possible. 67 Note that if the entry resides in the RWhois namespace, it should be 68 reachable from any RWhois server in that tree. If the SERVER part of the URL 69 is missing, it is assumed to be a local query. 71 3. RWhois Version 1.0 versus 1.5 Interoperability 73 This URL is meant to work with both the 1.0 and 1.5 versions of the RWhois 74 protocol. There are two issues that developers should be aware of when using 75 this URL. 77 * Output Display and Restriction Keywords 78 In RWhois Version 1.0 an additional pre-query term could be specified 79 that determined which values were returned to the client. These were 80 derived from the original whois [RFC954] specification and included 81 items like dump (#), SUMMARY ($), and FULL (=). Since a URL is used to 82 point to the instance of the object and not its representation, the 83 developer should determine what display type and restriction to use for 84 his/her particular application. Thus, even though this term is 85 considered part of the query in 1.0, it MUST NOT to be used in the URL 86 itself. 88 * Authority Areas 89 Version 1.5 has a much stronger concept of authority areas. Developers 90 should keep this in mind when encoding a particular URL so that no 91 ambiguity is encountered for similar objects in different authority 92 areas. 94 4. Examples 96 The following are some example RWhois URLs using the format defined above. 98 * An RWhois URL referring to the domain class objects that contain the 99 string "network solutions", available from the local RWhois server. 101 rwhois:///domain?network%20solutions 103 * An RWhois URL referring to the domain class containing the string 104 "network solutions" on a particular RWhois server. This URL corresponds 105 to a base object search of the domain class. 107 rwhois://netman1.netsol.com/domain?network%20solutions 109 * An RWhois URL referring to the set of entries found by querying the 110 local RWhois server and looking for a person with the name of "Scott 111 Williamson". Note the % encoded quotes and space. 113 rwhois:///person?name=%42scott%20williamson%42 115 5. Security Considerations 117 The RWhois URL format does not provide a way to specify the security 118 information to use when resolving the URL. It is expected that such requests 119 will either be unauthenticated or that the client will be able to negotiate 120 the security requirements. The security implications of resolving an RWhois 121 URL are the same as those of resolving any RWhois query. See the RFC 1714 122 for more details. 124 6. Prototype Implementation Availability 126 There is a prototype implementation available for the specification defined 127 in this document. It is the RWhois client, provided in both source and 128 binary forms. See for more details. 130 7. Bibliography 132 [1] Williamson, S., and Kosters, M., "RWhois Protocol", RFC 1714, March 133 1995. 135 [2] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform Resource 136 Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994. 138 8. Authors' Addresses 140 Scott Williamson Michael Mealling 141 505 Huntmar Park Dr. 505 Huntmar Park Dr. 142 Herndon, VA 22070 Herndon, VA 22070 143 Phone: (703) 742-4820 Phone: (770) 491-1379 144 email: scottw@rwhois.net email: michaelm@rwhois.net