IRIS: The Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) Core Protocol :: RFC3981
Network Working Group A. Newton
Request for Comments: 3981 VeriSign, Inc.
Category: Standards Track M. Sanz
DENIC eG
January 2005
IRIS: The Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) Core Protocol
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document describes an application layer client-server protocol
for a framework to represent the query and result operations of the
information services of Internet registries. Specified in the
Extensible Markup Language (XML), the protocol defines generic query
and result operations and a mechanism for extending these operations
for specific registry service needs.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Use of XML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. General Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Framework Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5. Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Protocol Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Exchange Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Request Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Response Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Extension Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.1. Derived Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2. Registry Type Identifier Requirements . . . . . 10
4.3.3. Entity Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.4. Names of Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
4.3.5. References to Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3.6. Temporary Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.7. Derived Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3.8. and Elements . . . . . . . 16
4.4. Relay Bags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Database Serialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Formal XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. The IRIS URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.1. URI Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.2. Transport Specific Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.3. URI Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.3.1. Registry Dependent Resolution . . . . . . . . . 38
7.3.2. Direct Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.3.3. Transport and Service Location . . . . . . . . . 39
7.4. IRIS URI Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8. Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8.1. Registry Definition Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8.2. Transport Mapping Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
9. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A. S-NAPTR and IRIS Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
A.1. Examples of S-NAPTR with IRIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
A.2. Using S-NAPTR for Cohabitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
B. IRIS Design Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
B.1. The Basic Premise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
B.2. The Lure of a Universal Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
B.3. Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
B.4. Lookups, Searches, and Entity Classes . . . . . . . . . 50
B.5. Entities References, Search Continuations, and Scope . . 50
C. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
1. Introduction
The specification outlined in this document is based on the
functional requirements described in CRISP [17].
1.1. Use of XML
This document describes the specification for the Internet Registry
Information Service (IRIS), an XML text protocol intended to describe
the query types and result types of various registry information
services. IRIS is specified by using the Extensible Markup Language
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
(XML) 1.0 as described in [2], XML Schema notation as described in
[4] and [5], and XML Namespaces as described in [3].
1.2. General Concepts
Each kind of Internet registry is identified by a registry type. The
identifier for a registry type is a Uniform Resource Name (URN) used
within the XML instances to identify the XML schema that formally
describes the set of queries, results, and entity classes allowed
within that type of registry.
The structure of these URNs makes no assumptions or restrictions on
the types of registries they identify. Therefore, IRIS may support
multiple registry types of a disparate or similar nature; it is only
a matter of definition. For instance, a single registry type may be
defined for domain name registries, and multiple registry types for
the various IP address registries.
A registry information server may handle queries and serve results
for multiple registry types. Each registry type that a particular
registry operator serves is a registry service instance.
IRIS and the XML schema formally describing IRIS do not specify any
registry, registry identifier, or knowledge of a particular service
instance or set of instances. IRIS is a specification for a
framework with which these registries can be defined, used and, in
some cases, interoperate. The framework merely specifies the
elements for registry identification and the elements that must be
used to derive queries and results.
This framework allows a registry type to define its own structure for
naming, entities, queries, etc., through the use of XML namespaces
and XML schemas (hence, a registry type MUST be identified by the
same URI that identifies its XML namespace). To be compliant, a
registry type's specification must extend from this framework.
The framework defines certain structures that can be common to all
registry types, such as references to entities, search continuations,
and entity classes. A registry type may declare its own definitions
for all of these, or it may mix its derived definitions with the base
definitions.
IRIS defines two types of referrals: an entity reference and a search
continuation. An entity reference indicates specific knowledge about
an individual entity, and a search continuation allows distributed
searches. Both referrals may span differing registry types and
instances. No assumptions or specifications are made about the
roots, bases, or meshes of entities.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
1.3. Framework Layers
The IRIS framework can be thought of as having three layers.
-----------------------------
Registry-Specific |domain | address | etc... |
-----------------------------
Common-Registry | IRIS |
-----------------------------
Application-Transport | beep | iris-lwz | etc... |
-----------------------------
In this figure, "beep" refers to the Blocks Extensible Exchange
Protocol (BEEP) (see [20]), and "iris-lwz" refers to a theoretical
UDP binding that uses compression.
The differing layers have the following responsibilities:
Registry-Specific :: defines queries, results, and entity classes
of a specific type of registry. Each specific type of registry is
identified by a URN.
Common-Registry :: defines base operations and semantics common to
all registry types such as search sets, result sets, and
referrals. It also defines the syntaxes for talking about
specific registry types.
Application-Transport :: defines the mechanisms for
authentication, message passing, connection and session
management, etc. It also defines the URI syntax specific to the
application-transport mechanism.
1.4. Definitions
For clarity, the following definitions are supplied:
o registry type -- A registry serving a specific function, such as a
domain registry or an address registry. Each type of registry is
assigned a URN.
o registry schema -- The definition for a registry type specifying
the queries, results, and entity classes.
o authority -- A reference to the server or set of servers
containing information.
o resolution method -- The technique used to locate an authority.
o entity class -- A group of entities with a common type or common
set of characteristics.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
o entity name -- The identifier used to refer to a single entity
within an entity class.
o entity reference -- A pointer to an entity composed of an
authority, an optional resolution method, a registry type, an
entity class, and an entity name. One type of entity reference is
the IRIS URI (defined in Section 7).
The terms "derivative", "derive", and "derivation" are used with the
same meaning for deriving one type of element from another as
specified in XML_SS [5].
1.5. Further Reading
Appendix B contains text answering the question, "Why IRIS?".
This document describes the structure at the core of IRIS. The
following documents describe the other aspects of IRIS relevant to
CRISP [17]: iris-beep [1] and iris-dreg [18].
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [8].
3. Protocol Identification
The root element of all request XML instances MUST be . The
root element of all response XML instances MUST be . These
elements identify the start of the IRIS elements, the XML namespace
used as the identifier for IRIS, and, optionally, the location of the
schema. These elements and the associated closing tag MUST be
applied to all requests and responses sent by both clients and
servers.
The use of the schema location attribute 'xsi:schemaLocation' is
OPTIONAL with respect to this specification, and IRIS implementations
MAY resolve it to retrieve the schema or MAY use a locally cached
version of the schema.
Versioning of the IRIS protocol is the responsibility of the
application-transport layer but MUST be associated with the XML
namespace [3] URI representing IRIS. A change in this URI indicates
a change of the underlying schema and, therefore, a new version of
the protocol (and vice versa).
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
4. Exchange Description
This section describes the request and response exchanges of the
protocol. 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 [8] to
describe the specification outside the scope of the formal XML
syntax. While reading this section, please reference Section 6 for
details on the formal XML syntax.
4.1. Request Format
A element contains an optional element and a set
of elements.
The elements enable a client to query a particular
registry type by using the URN identifying the registry type. This
can be found in one of its two children: and .
The element describes the lookup of an entity in a
specific registry. This element has three attributes:
'registryType', 'entityClass', and 'entityName'. The 'registryType'
attribute contains the registry identifier for the registry type in
which the lookup operation will take place. The 'entityClass'
attribute contains the token identifying the index for which the
lookup operation will take place, and the 'entityName' attribute
contains the name of the entity to look up.
The element is abstract and may not legally appear in an XML
instance. It provides the base type that registry schemas will use
to define derived query types. This derivation mechanism is
described in Section 4.3.
Each may also contain a element. When this element
appears as a child of , it MUST NOT contain the 'id'
attribute. For a description of the element, see Section 4.4.
The element may contain one child element of any XML
namespace. This child element allows a client to signal a server for
special states or processing. An example of one such child
element may be found in Section 4.3.8.
4.2. Response Format
The element contains an optional element, a set
of elements, and an optional element.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
The elements are responses to a request. The
contents of this element contain an element, an optional
element, and error elements, if applicable.
The children of the element are of the following types:
o is an abstract element and may not be legally placed in
an XML instance. It provides the base type to be used by registry
schemas to define derived result types. This derivation mechanism
is described in Section 4.3.
o is an element specifying an entity reference. See
Section 4.3.5.
o The element specifies a query referral. Its
one child is any element derived from (see Section 4.3.1).
To direct the query to a referent server, has
a mandatory 'authority' attribute and an optional 'resolution'
attribute. The element may also contain a
'bagRef' attribute. For a description of the 'bagRef' attribute,
see Section 4.4.
When following entity references and search continuations, clients
SHOULD only follow an or response once.
Failure to do so may result in the client process getting stuck in a
never-ending query loop, commonly known as a referral loop.
The element only contains elements, as
described above. This element allows a server to indicate to a
client results that were not specifically queried but that are
related to the queried results, thus enabling the client to display
this distinction to a user properly. The element use is
optional.
The following elements, which represent error conditions, may be
returned:
o -- The corresponding query requires
resources unobtainable by the server.
o -- A name given in a query is not syntactically
correct.
o -- Parameters of the corresponding query are not
semantically meaningful.
o -- The corresponding query is not supported by
this server.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
o -- The corresponding query requires more resources
than allowed.
o -- The name given in a query does not match a known
entity.
o -- The authentication given does not allow
access to a specific result entry.
o -- The contents of a bag were unrecognized. See
Section 4.4.
o -- The contents of a bag were not and never will
be acceptable. See Section 4.4.
o -- The contents of a bag were not acceptable at this
time. See Section 4.4.
o A derivative of , as described in Section 4.3.
The section is divided into the and
sections to allow easier processing and navigation of the results by
a client. Servers MUST return the direct answers to queries in the
element and MAY return results in the element
for which a reference has been made in the element. Results
in the element MUST have been referenced in the
, either as direct children of the element or as
deeper descendants of the element.
This serves two purposes. First, it may eliminate a requery by the
client for references contained in the element. Second, it
distinguishes between results that are a direct result of a query and
those that would have been returned had the client followed the
appropriate referrals, thus hinting how clients could process or
display the returned results. For instance, clients constructing
complex displays with tree navigation widgets will know that results
in the element should all be directly beneath the root node
of the tree, while results in the element are leaf nodes
of those produced from the element.
A element (child of ) is a response to a
element, and provides a means for a server to advise a
client of the effect of a element.
The element (child of ) is optional. It contains
elements, and the contents of each element constitute one
element in any XML namespace. Each element has an 'id'
attribute, which is referenced by the 'bagRef' attribute of entity
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
references () and search continuations
(). See Section 4.4.
4.3. Extension Framework
Because the IRIS schema defines only one query type, and two stand-
alone result types, and does not define a registry structure, it is
of limited use by itself. Extension of IRIS is accomplished through
the use of a base IRIS schema, as defined in XML_SD [4] and XML_SS
[5], and through extension of it by schemas constructed on top of
IRIS.
4.3.1. Derived Elements
The XML Schema definition of IRIS requires schemas of registry types
to derive element types from base types in the IRIS definition. The
registry schemas MUST derive elements to define typed queries and
results.
While the IRIS schema definition does not prohibit the derivation of
any elements, registry schemas SHOULD restrict the derivations to the
following types:
o -- As defined, this element contains no content and has no
valid attributes. It is abstract and therefore only its
derivatives appear in XML instances. Registry schemas derive from
this element to define the queries allowed.
o -- As defined, this element contains no content and has
five valid attributes: 'authority', 'resolution' (optional),
'registryType', 'entityClass', 'entityName', and
'temporaryReference' (optional, see Section 4.3.6). It is
abstract and therefore only its derivatives appear in XML
instances. Registry schemas derive from this element to define
results that may be returned from a query.
o -- As defined, this element is an instance of
. It contains the optional elements and
, which further describe the nature of the error.
o -- Identifies a reference to an entity. Registry schemas
SHOULD use elements derived from but MAY use
directly. The advantage of deriving from vs. direct use
is the chance to define the name of the element and to use that
name descriptively -- for instance, as the role the entity plays
with respect to another entity. See Section 4.3.5.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
o -- Indicates a reference to an entity that has indirect
association with a parent element representing an entity. This
element is derived from the element (Section 4.3.5).
Registry schemas MAY derive from this element or MAY use it
directly.
4.3.2. Registry Type Identifier Requirements
The identifier for a registry type and the XML namespace identifier
used by the XML Schema describing the registry MUST be the same.
These identifiers MUST be restricted to a URN [7] registered in the
'ns' class of the IANA registry governed by XML_URN [9]. These
identifiers are case insensitive.
This is a restriction on XML_NS [3], which specifies that an XML
namespace identifier is any valid URI [6].
These identifiers MAY be abbreviated to the part following the class
component and its separator of the URN. For example, the full URN
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dreg1" may be abbreviated to "dreg1".
In use with IRIS, this abbreviation MUST NOT be used inside of XML
instances in which the XML Schema [4] specifies the use of a URI for
schema identification or where XML_NS [3] specifies the use of a URI
for XML namespace identification.
4.3.3. Entity Classes
IRIS provides entity classes to help avoid collisions with entity
names within any given registry type. Their specification in queries
also allows server implementations to narrow search or lookup scopes
quickly to a single index.
For instance, the entity name "192.0.2.0" might refer to separate
entities in the "name-server" and "network" classes. The entity
"192.0.2.0" in the "name-server" class may refer to the name server
host that is also multi-homed by address 192.0.2.255 and known in DNS
as "ns.example.com", whereas the entity "192.0.2.0" in the "network"
class may refer to the network 192.0.2/30.
IRIS defines two default entity classes of "local" and "iris", which
MUST NOT be redefined. These entity classes MUST be valid in all
registry types.
The "local" class is reserved for entities defined locally by a
server operator and does not denote any particular type of entity. A
lookup in this entity class MAY result in an entity reference or
search continuation. For example, "iris:dreg1//example.com/local/
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
myhosts" may result in a search continuation yielding the nameservers
for example.com.
The "iris" class is reserved for entities specific to a particular
service instance. It MUST contain the following entity names (see
Section 4.3.4):
o "id", which yields a result of (see
Section 4.3.7.1).
o "limits", which yields a result of (see Section 4.3.7.2).
This entity class MAY contain other locally defined entities as
well.
The names of entity classes in a registry schema are of type token,
as defined by XML_SD [4]. Their case sensitivity MUST be defined by
the definition of the registry type. In general, they SHOULD be case
insensitive.
4.3.4. Names of Entities
The names of entities in a registry schema are of type token, as
defined by XML_SD [4].
Names of entities SHOULD be unique within an instance of any
particular entity class within a registry. Two entities SHOULD NOT
have the same name, but a single entity MAY be known by multiple
names. In situations where a single name may result in two entities,
the registry schema SHOULD make allowances by defining result types
that contain entity references to both entities (e.g., "example.com"
can refer to both the domain example.com and the host example.com).
However, this type of conflict SHOULD generally be avoided by the
proper use of entity classes.
The case sensitivity of entity names is dependent on the entity class
in which they reside. The definition of a registry type MUST specify
the case sensitivity for entity names. A registry type MAY define
the entity names of differing entity classes as having different case
sensitivity.
4.3.5. References to Entities
The element allows references to entities in result sets,
either as a direct child of or within a more complex
structure deriving from . The element is defined by
'entityType'. Registry schemas SHOULD define elements derived from
when referencing entities but may use the element
directly. Deriving a new element allows a registry schema to use the
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
name of the new element to signify the relationship the referenced
entity has with the referrer. A derivative of MUST NOT be
used as a substitute when the element is declared (such as
in the section of the ).
The element (and elements of type 'entityType') can have
child elements of with an optional 'language'
attribute. These are provided so that servers may provide clients
with a more human-friendly description of the entity reference. This
is often useful to users navigating referral structures.
The element (and its derivations) have the following
attributes:
o 'authority', 'resolution' (optional), 'registryType',
'entityClass', and 'entityName' -- These attributes specify where
the entity may be found.
o 'temporaryReference' -- This attribute is optional. See Section
4.3.6.
o 'referentType' -- This attribute contains the expected type of the
entity being referenced and may contain the word "ANY" or a
qualified XML name. Unlike the other attributes of , this
attribute is qualified and declared in the IRIS XML namespace.
Therefore it will also be qualified with the prefix associated
with the IRIS XML namespace (e.g., 'iris:referentType'). This
allows clients to recognize entity references using an element
derived from .
o 'bagRef' -- This attribute is optional. If present, it must
contain an XML identifier to a element in the section
of the result set. For a description of the 'bagRef' attribute,
see Section 4.4.
4.3.6. Temporary Entities
Instances may exist in which an entity reference needs to be
temporary. For example, a particular type of result may only have
one unique key. If that key contains semantic meaning that may not
be exposed to all users, a synthetic key will have to be substituted.
Furthermore, there may be times when data in the data store is not
normalized in the same manner as that expressed by the registry
schema. In the registry schema, objects of type A may reference
objects of type B. But in the data store, objects of type A may
contain objects of type B. Again, a synthetic key will have to be
temporarily produced.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
To support such use cases, results and entity references can be
declared temporary by using the 'temporaryReference' attribute. This
attribute is of type boolean [4] and has a default value of "false".
It is optional for derivatives and elements of type
'entityType'.
When this attribute is used, the entity reference data (e.g.,
'entityClass', 'entityName') is only valid within the response in
which it appears and may not be consistent with subsequent responses.
A server MUST include the referent of any temporary entity reference
in the section of the same
4.3.7. Derived Elements
The base IRIS framework contains three elements directly derived from
the element for use by any registry type.
4.3.7.1.
An example of a result:
example.com example.net example.org
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
iana@iana.org
The element is provided to allow IRIS clients
to reference IRIS service instances. It contains the following
elements:
o -- This element contains one or more
elements. Each element contains a URI authority
component for which the server has results. Although a server MAY
only return a partial list of its authority areas, depending on
operator policy, it MUST return the authority for which the client
has requested.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
o -- This element contains the name of the operator
of the server.
o -- These optional elements contain email addresses of the
operator of the service instance.
o -- These optional elements contain phone numbers of the
operator of the service instance.
o -- See Section 4.3.1 for its definition.
4.3.7.2.
An example of a result:
21525200215
The element provides a mechanism allowing a server to inform
a client of the limits it may encounter from overuse of the service.
The contents describe the service limitations to a client at the
current level of access. The contents of this element are as
follows:
o -- This element describes the total number of
queries that the server will accept. The children of this element
indicate this number per unit of time. The children are
, , , and . Each child
MUST only appear once as a child of , but more than
one child MAY be present. For example, a server could indicate
that it will accept 15 queries a minute but only 60 queries a day.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
o -- This element describes the total number of
results that the server will send to a client. The children of
this element indicate this number per unit of time in the same
manner as .
o -- This element describes the total number of
sessions that the server will accept from a client. The children
of this element indicate this number per unit of time in the same
manner as . The definition of a session is defined
the by application transport layer.
o -- This element describes other restrictions
that may only be expressible outside of the structured syntax of
the other child elements of . This element may have
optional child elements, each with a mandatory
'language' attribute.
o -- These elements are provided to reference other
entities, such as a (Section 4.3.7.3) describing a
published policy. See (Section 4.3.1).
All of these child elements are optional, and a server may express
that it has no limits by using a element with no content
(e.g., ).
4.3.7.3.
An example of a result:
Example.com is reserved according to RFC 2606.
The element is provided so that service operators may
make simple additions to other entities without deriving entirely new
registry types. Its definition allows service operators to reference
it from other entities (using, for instance, a element).
The is meant to represent name and value pairs of
strings, allowing each pair to be associated with a specific language
qualifier and an optional URI pointing to more information.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
Clients may easily display such information in a two-column table.
Applications using binary data or richer data structures are out of
scope for this element. When such usage scenarios arise, a client
will likely need specific knowledge to handle such data, thus calling
the need for a new registry type into question.
4.3.8. and Elements
The (Section 4.1) and (Section 4.2) elements
allow the client to request from the server special states for the
processing of queries. The intent of these elements is to allow
extensibility so that some jurisdictions may adopt policies for query
processing without requiring re-versioning of IRIS or any registry
type.
This document defines one control, , and its
requisite reaction, , for compliance with CRISP
[17].
When a client sends an control, it is only
asking the server to check to see whether adequate permissions are
available to execute the queries in the associated request. A server
MUST respond to this control with a element.
The element provides a server with a standard
means to respond to controls (it may be used by other controls, but
this is left to their definition). It contains four children:
o -- the processing or state needed by the control
has been accepted.
o -- the processing or state needed by the control
has been denied (a transient failure).
o -- the processing or state needed by the control
cannot be activated (a permanent failure).
o -- the control is not recognized (a
permanent failure).
If is rejected, then the server MUST return
all appropriate result sets (i.e., for every search set in the
request), but all result sets MUST be empty of results and MUST
contain no errors (a reaction is not part of a result set and is
therefore not a result set error). This control applies to all
search sets or none of them; therefore a server MUST issue a
rejection if cannot be accepted for all search
sets in a request.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
An example of an IRIS XML exchange using these elements follows:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S: It is illegal to use information from this service
S: for the purposes of sending unsolicited bulk email.
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
4.4. Relay Bags
IRIS employs bags to allow a server to relay information to a
referent server via the client. These bags are generated by the
queried server, passed to the client as opaque data, and then passed
to the referent server for processing. The contents of the bags are
not defined by IRIS, and the client MUST NOT make any assumptions
about the contents of a bag when relaying it from one server to
another.
When a server returns a result set to a client, the
element may contain a child element. This child element
contains one or more elements. Each of these MUST contain an
'id' attribute containing the XML data type ID. Entity references
and search continuations that have to specify a bag to be used when
they are followed MUST have a 'bagRef' attribute containing the XML
data type IDREF. See Section 4.2. This allows the response to
specify a bag only once but allows each entity reference or search
continuation (in all result sets) to have a distinct bag, as needed.
When following an entity reference or search continuation that
specifies the use of a bag, the client MUST include the referenced
bag in the search set as a child of the element. See
Section 4.1.
See Section 4.2 for the list of errors a server may return to a
client when a bag is received. A server MUST NOT ignore a bag when
it is received. In case a bag cannot be recognized or accepted, one
of the errors from Section 4.2 MUST be returned.
An example of an IRIS XML exchange using these elements follows:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
C:
C:
C:
C:
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
C:
C:
C:
C:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S: Acceptable Usage Policy
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S: AAAAB3NzaC1yc2EAAAABIwAAAIEA0ddD+W3Agl0Lel98G1r77fZ
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
5. Database Serialization
This section describes a method for serializing IRIS registry
entities. The descriptions contained within this section refer to
XML elements and attributes and their relation to this serialization
process. These descriptions also contain specifications outside the
scope of the formal XML syntax. This section will use terms defined
by RFC 2119 [8] to describe these. While reading this section,
please reference Section 6 for needed details on the formal XML
syntax.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
A database of IRIS entities can be serialized to file storage with
XML [2] by using the IRIS defined element. This
element contains element derivatives and
elements.
Derivatives of the element are entities. Servers loading
these entities MUST place the entity in the entity classes specified
by the elements 'registryType', 'entityClass', and 'entityName'
attributes and in any entity classes the entities may apply according
to explicitly defined children of that element. For instance, if a
registry type has two entity classes "foo" and "bar" and a
derivative has the attributes entityClass="foo" and entityName="one"
and a child element two, the server is to enter that
entity into the entity class "foo" as the name "one" and into the
entity class "bar" as the name "two".
Servers loading entities as serialized derivatives of the
element MAY translate the authority attribute. Servers will likely
have to do this if the authority for the entity has changed.
elements allow the serialization of explicit
entity references and search continuations. This element has a child
element containing the 'authority', 'resolution' (optional),
'registryType', 'entityClass', and 'entityName' attributes. The
attributes of this element are used to signify the entity that can be
referenced to yield this referral.
As mentioned above, there may be times when a server needs to
translate the authority attribute of a loaded entity.
Implementations must also beware of this need for referrals. During
deserialization, servers MUST change the authority attribute of a
referral (either or elements derived from or
child of ) to contain a valid authority
of the server if the serialized attribute is empty. During
serialization, servers and their related processes MUST leave the
authority attribute empty for referrals in which the referent is an
entity for which the server answers queries.
The following is an example of serialized IRIS:
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
iana.org
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
dbarton@iana.org
Legal Notice
Please use the net wisely!
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
6. Formal XML Syntax
IRIS is specified in XML Schema notation. The formal syntax
presented here is a complete schema representation of IRIS suitable
for automated validation of IRIS XML instances.
Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) Schema v1
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
Figure 8
7. The IRIS URI
The IRIS URI has a very rigid structure. All IRIS URIs have the same
fields and look similar to users.
But the IRIS URIs are flexible because they allow different methods
to be employed to find servers and allow the use of multiple
transports (with BEEP being the default).
7.1. URI Definition
An IRIS URI [6] has the following general syntax.
iris:////
The full ABNF [11] follows, with certain values included from RFC
2396 [6] and RFC 2732 [15].
iris-uri = scheme ":" registry-urn "/"
[ resolution-method ] "/" authority
[ "/" entity-class "/" entity-name ]
scheme = "iris"
authority = // as specified by RFC2396
registry-urn = // as specified by IRIS
resolution-method = *(unreserved | escaped)
entity-class = *(unreserved | escaped)
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
entity-name = *(unreserved | escaped)
unreserved = // as specified by RFC2396
escaped = // as specified by RFC2396
An IRIS URI MUST NOT be a relative URI. The resolution method,
entity class, and entity name MUST be of the UTF-8 [12] character set
encoded with "application/x-www-form-urlencoded", as specified by
URL_ENC [14].
When the entity-class and entity-name components are not specified,
the defaults "iris" and "id" MUST be implied. For example,
"iris:dreg1//com" is interpreted as "iris:dreg1//com/iris/id".
When the resolution-method is not specified, the default is the
direct resolution method described in Section 7.3.2.
7.2. Transport Specific Schemes
The "iris" scheme name is not application transport specific. The
URI resolution process MAY determine the application transport. An
example of such a process is direct resolution (Section 7.3.2), which
uses the steps outlined in Section 7.3.3 to determine the application
transport.
A mapping between an application transport and IRIS MAY define a
scheme name signifying its use with the semantics of the IRIS URI.
The rules for determining which application transport to use are as
follows:
o If an application transport specific scheme name is present, the
application transport it signifies SHOULD be used if possible.
o If a client has a preferred transport and the resolution process
allows for its use, the client MAY use that application transport.
o Otherwise, the default application transport specified by IRIS-
BEEP [1] MUST be used.
7.3. URI Resolution
7.3.1. Registry Dependent Resolution
Interpretation and resolution of the authority component of an IRIS
URI may be altered with the specification of a resolution-method in
the URI. If no resolution-method component is specified in the URI,
the default is the direct resolution method (see Section 7.3.2).
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
Alternate resolution methods MAY be specified by registry types. The
identifiers for these methods MUST conform to the ABNF in Section
7.1.
7.3.2. Direct Resolution
In the direct resolution process, the authority component of an IRIS
URI may only contain a domain name, a domain name accompanied by a
port number, an IP address, or an IP address accompanied by a port
number. The authority component of the scheme indicates the server
or set of servers authoritatively responsible for a domain according
to records in DNS (Section 7.3.3) if a domain is specified. If an IP
address is specified, it indicates the specific server to be queried.
The rules for resolution are as follows:
o If the authority component is a domain name accompanied by a port
number as specified by RFC 2396, the domain name is converted to
an IP address via an A or AAAA record to the DNS.
o If the authority component is a domain name by itself, the
service/transport location (Section 7.3.3) process is used. If
this process produces no results, then the DNS is queried for the
A or AAAA RRs corresponding to the domain name, and the port
number used is the well-known port of the transport used according
to Section 7.2.
o If the authority component is an IP address, then the DNS is not
queried, and the IP address is used directly. If the port number
is present, it is used directly; otherwise, the port number used
is the well-known port of the transport used according to Section
7.2.
The use of an IPv6 address in the authority component MUST conform to
RFC 2732 [15].
7.3.3. Transport and Service Location
The direct resolution method (Section 7.3.2) uses the profiled use of
the NAPTR and SRV resource records defined in S-NAPTR [10] to
determine both the location of a set of servers for a given service
and the set of possible transports that may be used. It is
RECOMMENDED that any resolution method not making explicit use of the
direct resolution process should use S-NAPTR [10] in whatever process
it does define.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
S-NAPTR [10] requires an application service label. The direct
resolution method (Section 7.3.2) uses the abbreviated form of the
registry URN as the application service label. Other resolution
methods MAY specify other application service labels.
See Appendix A for sample uses of S-NAPTR.
7.4. IRIS URI Examples
Here are some examples of IRIS URIs and their meaning:
o iris:dreg1//example.com/domain/example.com
* Finds a server authoritative for "example.com" according to the
rules of direct resolution (Section 7.3.2).
* The server is asked for "example.com" in the "domain" index, or
entity class, of the "dreg1" registry.
o iris:dreg1//example.com
* Finds a server authoritative for "example.com" according to the
rules of direct resolution (Section 7.3.2).
* The server is asked for "id" in the "iris" index, or entity
class, of the "dreg1" registry.
o iris:dreg1//com/domain/example.com
* Finds a server authoritative for "com" according to the rules
of direct-resolution (Section 7.3.2).
* The server is asked for "example.com" in the "domain" index, or
entity class, of the "dreg1" registry.
o iris:dreg1//192.0.2.1:44/domain/example.com
* Following the rules of direct-resolution (Section 7.3.2), the
server at IP address 192.0.2.1 on port 44 is queried by using
BEEP.
* The server is asked for "example.com" in the "domain" index, or
entity class, of the "dreg1" registry.
o iris.lwz:dreg1//192.0.2.1:44/domain/example.com
* Following the rules of direct-resolution (Section 7.3.2), the
server at IP address 192.0.2.1 on port 44 is queried by using a
lightweight application transport.
* The server is asked for "example.com" in the "domain" index, or
entity class, of the "dreg1" registry.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
o iris.beep:dreg1//com/domain/example.com
* Finds a server authoritative for "com" according to the rules
of direct-resolution (Section 7.3.2).
* Uses the BEEP application transport.
* The server is asked for "example.com" in the "domain" index, or
entity class, of the "dreg1" registry.
o iris:dreg1/bottom/example.com/domain/example.com
* Finds a server authoritative for "example.com" according to the
rules of the resolution method 'bottom' as defined by the
registry type urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dreg1.
* The application transport used is determined by the 'bottom'
resolution method.
* The server is asked for "example.com" in the "domain" index, or
entity class, of the "dreg1" registry.
o iris.beep:dreg1/bottom/example.com/domain/example.com
* Finds a server authoritative for "example.com" according to the
rules of the resolution method 'bottom' as defined by the
registry type urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dreg1.
* Uses the BEEP application transport.
* The server is asked for "example.com" in the "domain" index, or
entity class, of the "dreg1" registry.
8. Checklists
8.1. Registry Definition Checklist
Specifications of registry types MUST include the following explicit
definitions:
o Formal XML syntax deriving from the IRIS XML.
o An identifying registry URN.
o Any registry specific resolution methods.
o A registration of the abbreviated registry URN as an application
service label for compliance with S-NAPTR [10]. Note that this is
a different IANA registry than the registry type URN IANA
registry.
o A list of well-known entity classes.
o A statement regarding the case sensitivity of the names in each
entity class.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
8.2. Transport Mapping Checklist
Specifications of transport mappings MUST include the following
explicit definitions:
o A URI scheme name specific to the transport.
o An application protocol label for compliance with S-NAPTR [10].
See Section 7.3.3. Note that although this is a different IANA
registry than the URI scheme name IANA registry, it is RECOMMENDED
that they be the same string of characters.
o The set of allowable character set encodings for the exchange of
XML (see Section 9).
o The set of security mechanisms.
9. Internationalization Considerations
IRIS is represented in XML. XML processors are obliged to recognize
both UTF-8 and UTF-16 [12] encodings. XML provides for mechanisms to
identify and use other character encodings by means of the "encoding"
attribute in the declaration. Absence of this attribute or a
byte order mark (BOM) indicates a default of UTF-8 [13] encoding.
Thus, for compatibility reasons and per RFC 2277 [16], use of UTF-8
[13] is RECOMMENDED with IRIS.
The complete list of character set encoding identifiers is maintained
by IANA at [21].
The application-transport layer MUST define a common set of character
set encodings to be understood by both client and server.
Localization of internationalized strings may require additional
information from the client. Entity definitions SHOULD use the
"language" type defined by XML_SD [4] to aid clients in the
localization process. See Section 4.3.7.3 for an example.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
10. IANA Considerations
This document uses a proposed XML namespace and schema registry
specified in XML_URN [9]. Accordingly, the following registration
information is provided for the IANA:
o URN/URI:
* urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iris1
o Contact:
* Andrew Newton
* Marcos Sanz
o XML:
* The XML Schema specified in Section 6
11. Security Considerations
The IRIS XML layer provides no authentication or privacy facilities
of its own. It relies on the application-transport layer for all of
these abilities. Application-transports should explicitly define
their security mechanisms (see Section 8.2).
Referral IRIS registry results may contain entity lookups and search
continuations that result in a client query operation against another
registry service. Clients SHOULD NOT use authentication credentials
and mechanisms subject to replay attacks to conduct subsequent entity
lookups and search continuations.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[1] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Using the Internet Registry Information
Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol
(BEEP)", RFC 3983, January 2005.
[2] World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language (XML)
1.0", W3C XML, February 1998, .
[3] World Wide Web Consortium, "Namespaces in XML", W3C XML
Namespaces, January 1999, .
[4] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C
XML Schema, October 2000, .
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
[5] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C
XML Schema, October 2000, .
[6] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August
1998.
[7] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.
[8] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[9] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, January
2004.
[10] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-based Application Service
Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery
Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.
[11] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[12] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version 3", ISBN
0-201-61633-5, 2000, .
[13] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD
63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[14] Connolly, D. and L. Masinter, "The 'text/html' Media Type", RFC
2854, June 2000.
[15] Hinden, R., Carpenter, B., and L. Masinter, "Format for Literal
IPv6 Addresses in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.
[16] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages",
BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
12.2. Informative References
[17] Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP)
Requirements", RFC 3707, February 2004.
[18] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: A Domain Registry (dreg) Type
for the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS)", RFC 3982,
January 2005.
[19] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912, September
2004.
[20] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
3080, March 2001.
URIs
[21]
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
Appendix A. S-NAPTR and IRIS Uses
A.1. Example of S-NAPTR with IRIS
This section shows an example of S-NAPTR [10] use by IRIS. In this
example, there are two registry types: REGA and REGB. There are also
two IRIS application transports: iris-a and iris-b. Given this, the
use of S-NAPTR offers the following:
1. A means by which an operator can split the set of servers running
REGA from the set of servers running REGB. This is to say, the
operator is able to split out the set of servers serving up data
for REGA from the set of servers serving up data for REGB.
2. A means by which an operator can distinguish the set of servers
running iris-a from the set of servers running iris-b. This is to
say, the operator is able to split out the set of servers running
protocol iris-a serving REGA and REGB data from the set of servers
running protocol iris-b serving REGA and REGB data.
3. A means by which an operator can specify which set of the servers
to operate and which set of the above servers to delegate to
another operator.
To implement the first feature, the operator deploys the following in
his or her DNS zone:
example.com.
;; order pref flags service re replacement
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "REGA:iris-a:iris-b" "" rega.example.com
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "REGB:iris-a:iris-b" "" regb.example.com
To implement the second feature, the operator then adds the following
in their DNS zone:
rega.example.com.
;; order pref flags service re replacement
IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "REGA:iris-a" "" _iris-a._udp.example.com
regb.example.com.
IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "REGA:iris-b" "" _iris-b._tcp.example.com
_iris-a._udp.example.com.
;; pref weight port target
IN SRV 10 0 34 big-a.example.com.
IN SRV 20 0 34 small-a.example.com.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
_iris-b._tcp.example.com.
;; pref weight port target
IN SRV 10 0 34 big-b.example.com.
IN SRV 20 0 34 small-b.example.com.
Finally, an operator may decide to operate the REGA services while
delegating the REGB services to somebody else. Here is how that is
done:
example.com.
;; order pref flags service re replacement
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "REGA:iris-a:iris-b" "" rega.example.com
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "REGB:iris-a:iris-b" "" somebodyelse.com
Or the operator may decide to operate REGB services under the iris-a
protocol/transport while delegating the REGB services under the
iris-b protocol/transport to somebody else.
example.com.
;; order pref flags service re replacement
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "REGB:iris-a:iris-b" "" regb.example.com
IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "REGB:iris-a" "" _iris-a._udp.example.com
IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "REGB:iris-b" "" _iris-b._tcp.somebodyelse.com
_iris-a._udp.example.com.
;; pref weight port target
IN SRV 10 0 34 big-a.example.com.
IN SRV 20 0 34 small-a.example.com.
Note that while this last example is possible, it is probably not
advisable because of the operational issues involved in synchronizing
the data between example.com and somebodyelse.com. It is provided
here as an example of what is possible.
A.2. Using S-NAPTR for Cohabitation
Given the examples in Appendix A.1, the use of S-NAPTR could be part
of a transition strategy for cohabitation of protocols solving the
problems of CRISP [17].
For example, the type of data for domain information could be given
the application service label of "DREG1". Given this, the service
field of an S-NAPTR compliant NAPTR record could read
"DREG1:whois:iris-beep"
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
This service field conveys that domain data, as defined by CRISP, is
available via both the iris-beep protocol and the whois protocol.
The whois application protocol label refers to RFC 954 [19].
Appendix B. IRIS Design Philosophy
Beyond the concrete arguments that could be placed behind a
thoughtful analysis of the bits flying across the ether, there are
other abstract reasons for the development of IRIS. This section
attempts an explanation.
B.1. The Basic Premise
IRIS has been designed as a directory service for public-facing
registries of Internet resources. The basic premise is this:
o A client should be able to look up any single piece of data from
any type of registry. This lookup should involve a straight-
forward and consistent definition for finding the registry and
should entail a hit to a single data index in the registry.
o Anything more, such as searches up and down the DNS tree to find
the registry or searches across multiple indexes in a registry,
requires a client with special knowledge of the data relationships
contained within a registry.
Therefore, IRIS does the following:
o It specifies the basic schema language used by all registries to
specify their schemas.
o It provides the basic framework for a registry to make a
reference to an entity in another type of registry.
And, therefore, IRIS does not do the following:
o It does not specify a common query language across all types of
registries. A common query language imposed across multiple types
of registries usually results in the disabling of certain
functions by a server operator in order to meet acceptable levels
of performance, leaving a common query language that does not
commonly work.
o It does not impose any relationship between sets of data in any
type of registry, such as specifying a tree. There are many types
of Internet resources, and they do not all share the same style of
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
relationship with their contained sets of data. When it is not a
natural fit, an imposition of a common relationship is often a
concern and not a benefit.
B.2. The Lure of a Universal Client
The design premise of IRIS signifies that, for directory services,
there is no such thing as a universal client (or that if there is
one, it is commonly called the "web browser").
For IRIS, the closest thing to a universal client is one that may
"look up" data and may be able to display the data in a rudimentary
fashion. For a client to be able to "search" data or display it in a
truly user-friendly manner, it must have specific knowledge about the
type of data it is retrieving.
Attempts to outfit a universal client with a common query language
are also not very useful. A common query language may be applied to
a specific problem domain, which would require a user to have
expertise in both the common query language and the problem domain.
In the end, the outcome is usually the development of a client
specific to the problem domain but saddled with translation of the
user's desires and the lowest-common-denominator aspect of the query
language.
B.3. Server Considerations
As mentioned above, IRIS was designed for the directory service needs
of public-facing registries. In this light, certain aspects of more
generalized directory services are a hindrance in an environment that
does not have the same control and safety considerations as a managed
network.
For instance, a common query language can provide great flexibility
to both the power user and the abusive user. An abusive user could
easily submit a query across multiple indexes with partial values.
Such a query would have no utility other than to cause denial of
service to other users. To combat this, a service operator must
restrict the types of queries that cause harm to overall performance,
and this act obsoletes the benefit of a common query language.
Another consideration for server performance is the lack of a
required data relationship. Because sets of data often have
differing relationships, a one-size-fits-all approach does not fit
well with all types of registries. In addition, public-facing
services tend to have service level requirements that cannot
reasonably be met by transforming complete data stores from a native
format into a format enforcing an artificial set of relationships.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
To combat these issues, operators of public-facing services tend to
create their own custom query parsers and back-end data stores. But
doing so brings into question the use of a generalized directory
service.
Finally, IRIS is built upon a set of standard technological layers.
This allows service operators to switch components to meet the needs
of their particular environment.
B.4. Lookups, Searches, and Entity Classes
IRIS supports both lookups and searches. Conceptually, the
difference between the two is as follows:
A "lookup" is a single query with a discrete value on a single
index.
Anything more, such as partial value queries, queries across
multiple indexes, or multiple queries to a single index is a
"search".
Lookups are accomplished through the defined query .
This query specifies a discrete name, called the entity name, to be
queried in a single index, called the entity class. Therefore,
implementations may consider a type of registry to be composed of
multiple indexes, one for each defined entity class.
There are no standard searches in IRIS. Each type of registry
defines its own set of searches.
B.5. Entities References, Search Continuations, and Scope
Due to its effect on client behavior and the side effects such
behavior may have on servers, IRIS makes a clear distinction between
entity references () and search continuations
(). It is not an add-on, but a fundamental core
of the protocol.
The distinction is very important to a client:
"Go look over there and you will find what you seek." "Go look
over there and you may find what you seek, or you may find some
other stuff, or you may find nothing."
Finally, because IRIS makes no assumptions about and places no
requirements on the relationship of data in a registry, this also
extends to data of the same registry type spread across multiple
authority areas. This means that IRIS makes no requirements as to
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
the scope of entity references or search continuations. The scope is
determined by what the registry type needs and by what the registry
type allows a service operator.
Appendix C. Acknowledgments
The terminology used in this document to describe namespaces and
namespaces of namespaces is now much clearer thanks to the skillful
debate tactics of Leslie Daigle. Previously, it was much more
confusing. In addition, Leslie has provided great insight into the
details of URIs, URNs, and NAPTR/SRV resource records.
Many other technical complexities were proved unnecessary by David
Blacka and have been removed. And his IRIS implementation has helped
smooth out the rougher edges.
Authors' Addresses
Andrew L. Newton
VeriSign, Inc.
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, VA 20166
USA
Phone: +1 703 948 3382
EMail: anewton@verisignlabs.com; 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 Standards Track [Page 51]
RFC 3981 IRIS-Core January 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Newton & Sanz Standards Track [Page 52]
