Network Working Group E. Gunduz
Request for Comments: 4698 RIPE NCC
Category: Standards Track A. Newton
VeriSign, Inc.
S. Kerr
RIPE NCC
October 2006
IRIS: An Address Registry (areg) Type
for the Internet Registry Information Service
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 (2006).
Abstract
This document describes an IRIS registry schema for IP address and
Autonomous System Number information. The schema extends the
necessary query and result operations of IRIS to provide the
functional information service needs for syntaxes and results used by
Internet Protocol address registries.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Document Terminology ............................................3
3. Schema Description ..............................................3
3.1. Query Derivatives ..........................................4
3.1.1. Query ................................4
3.1.2. .................................4
3.1.3. and
................................5
3.1.4. .............................5
3.1.5. ..............................6
3.1.6. ....................................6
3.1.7. .....................................7
3.1.8. ..........................7
3.1.9. Contact Search Group ................................8
3.1.10. Common Search Group ................................8
3.1.11. Match Parameters ...................................8
3.2. Result Derivatives .........................................9
3.2.1. and Results .............9
3.2.2. Result ..........................10
3.2.3. Result ...................................11
3.2.4. Result ..............................12
3.2.5. Contact References .................................12
3.2.6. Common Result Child Elements .......................13
3.3. Support for ...........................13
4. Terminology for Nesting of Networks ............................14
5. Formal XML Syntax ..............................................18
6. BEEP Transport Compliance ......................................31
6.1. Message Pattern ...........................................31
6.2. Server Authentication .....................................31
7. URI Resolution .................................................31
7.1. Application Service Label .................................31
7.2. Operational Considerations ................................31
7.3. Top-Down Resolution .......................................31
8. Internationalization Considerations ............................32
9. IANA Considerations ............................................32
10. Security Considerations .......................................32
11. References ....................................................33
11.1. Normative References .....................................33
11.2. Informative References ...................................33
Appendix A. Privacy Considerations ................................34
Appendix B. Example Requests and Responses ........................34
B.1. Example 1 .................................................34
B.2. Example 2 .................................................36
Appendix C. Specificity Examples ..................................39
Appendix D. Contributors ..........................................46
Appendix E. Acknowledgements ......................................46
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
1. Introduction
An Internet address registry stores information about:
o address ranges
o autonomous system number ranges
o associated contacts and organizations
o name servers
This information is interrelated, and Internet address registries
store this information and the information's interrelationships in a
manner befitting the needs of each Internet address registry and its
constituents. This document specifies a method for accessing and
retrieving this information in a common XML format.
This document describes an IRIS namespace for Internet address
registries using an XML Schema [8] derived from and using the IRIS
[2] schema. This schema and registry type are provided to
demonstrate the extensibility of the IRIS framework beyond the use of
domains, a criteria defined in CRISP [4].
The schema given is this document is specified using the Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in XML [5], XML Schema
notation as described in XML_SD [7] and XML_SS [8], and XML
Namespaces as described in XML_NS [6].
Examples of client/server XML exchanges with this registry type are
available in Appendix B.
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 RFC 2119 [1].
3. Schema Description
IRIS requires the derivation of both query and result elements by a
registry schema. Descriptions for these follow.
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 [1] to describe the specification outside
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
the scope of the formal XML syntax. While reading this section,
please reference Section 5 for needed details on the formal XML
syntax.
3.1. Query Derivatives
3.1.1. Query
searches for contacts given search constraints.
The allowable search fields are handled by one of the elements in the
"contactSearchGroup" (see Section 3.1.9) or the element
. The element constrains the query
based on the organization ID (handle) associated with contacts. This
element is an "exactMatchParameter" (see Section 3.1.11).
This query also provides optional elements containing
language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about
the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use
this information in processing the query, such as tailoring
normalization routines to aid in more effective searches.
The client SHOULD pass the names unchanged to the server, and the
implementation of the server decides if the search is case sensitive
or not.
3.1.2.
searches for organizations given search
constraints.
The allowable search fields are handled by one of the elements in the
"commonSearchGroup" (see Section 3.1.10) or the element
. This element is an
"exactOrPartialMatchParameter" (see Section 3.1.11).
This query also provides optional elements containing
language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about
the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use
this information in processing the query, such as tailoring
normalization routines to aid in more effective searches.
The client SHOULD pass the names unchanged to the server, and the
implementation of the server decides if the search is case sensitive
or not.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
3.1.3. and
The and elements
allow searches by name of autonomous systems and networks,
respectively. Both have the same format.
The child element is an "exactOrPartialMatchParameter" (see
Section 3.1.11).
This query also provides optional elements containing
language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about
the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use
this information in processing the query, such as tailoring
normalization routines to aid in more effective searches.
The client SHOULD pass the names unchanged to the server, and the
implementation of the server decides if the search is case sensitive
or not.
3.1.4.
The element is a query for a network given a
related IP address or IP address range. It has the following child
elements:
o - has a child element containing the
starting IPv4 address of the network and an optional child of
containing the ending IPv4 address of the network. Clients
MUST convert any short-form notation to the fully-qualified
notation.
o - same as , but the child addresses
contain IPv6 addresses. Clients MUST convert any short-form
notation to the fully-qualified notation.
o - determines the network specificity for the search
(see Section 4). Valid values are "exact-match", "all-less-
specific", "one-level-less-specific", "all-more-specific", and
"one-level-more-specific". This element may have the optional
attribute 'allowEquivalences'. When it is set to "true", the
result set should include networks with equivalent starting and
ending addresses. The default value for 'allowEquivalences' is
"false".
The results from this query MUST be either or
results. More than one network result MAY be returned.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
3.1.5.
The element is a query for a network given a
the handle of a related network. It has the following child
elements:
o - specifies the network handle.
o - determines the network specificity for the search
(see Section 4). Valid values are "all-less-specifics", "one-
level-less-specifics", "all-more-specifics", and "one-level-more-
specifics".
The results from this query MUST be either or
results. More than one network result MAY be returned.
This query could be used to discover the parentage relationships
between networks that have the same starting and ending addresses.
The client SHOULD pass handles unchanged to the server, and the
implementation of the server decides if the search is case sensitive
or not.
3.1.6.
The element allows a search for autonomous systems
given an autonomous system number (ASN) range. It has the following
child elements:
o - specifies the start of the ASN range.
o - specifies the end of the ASN range.
o - determines the range specificity for the search
(see Section 4). Valid values are "exact-match", "all-less-
specific", "one-level-less-specific", "all-more-specific", and
"one-level-more-specific". This element may have the optional
attribute 'allowEquivalences'. When it is set to "true", the
result set should include ranges with equivalent starting and
ending numbers. The default value for 'allowEquivalences' is
"false".
The results from this query MUST be results. More
than one result MAY be returned.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
3.1.7.
The element allows a search for autonomous systems,
IP networks, and organizations on fields associated with that
entity's contact. The optional search element
MUST restrict the results to autonomous systems, IPv4 networks, IPv6
networks, or organizations using the values 'returnASs',
'returnIPv4Networks', 'returnIPv6Networks', and
'returnOrganizations', respectively.
The allowable search fields are handled with either the
element or one of the elements in the
"contactSearchGroup" (see Section 3.1.9). The
element allows for the entities to be selected based on the contact
having the specified contact handle, and it is an
"exactMatchParameter" type (see Section 3.1.11). The client SHOULD
pass these search fields unchanged to the server, and the
implementation of the server decides if the search is case sensitive
or not.
The query MAY also be constrained further using the optional
element. The contents of this element signify the role the contact
has with the entity. The allowable values for this element are
"adminContact", "nocContact", "techContact", "abuseContact", and
"otherContact".
This query also provides optional elements containing
language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about
the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use
this information in processing the query, such as tailoring
normalization routines to aid in more effective searches.
The results from this query MUST be results,
results, results, or
results. More than one result MAY be returned, and the results MAY
be of mixed types.
3.1.8.
The element allows a search for IP
networks based on their associated name servers. The
element contains the fully qualified domain name of the name server.
The optional search element MUST restrict the
results to IPv4 networks or IPv6 networks using the values
'returnIPv4Networks' and 'returnIPv6Networks', respectively.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
The results from this query MUST be or
results. More than one result MAY be returned, and the results MAY
be of mixed types.
3.1.9. Contact Search Group
Some of the queries above have similar query constraints for
searching on contacts. This section describes those common
parameters.
allows the query to be constrained based on the common
name of the contact. This constraint is an
"exactOrPartialMatchParameter" (see Section 3.1.11).
This group also contains all the members of the "commonSearchGroup"
(see Section 3.1.10).
3.1.10. Common Search Group
Some of the queries above have similar query constraints for
searching on contacts. This section describes those common
parameters.
constrains the query based on the e-mail address of the
contact. This constraint is a "domainResource" type (see
Section 3.1.11).
The , , , and elements restrict
the scope of the query based on the city, region, country, or postal
code of the contact, respectively. These constraints are all
"exactMatchParameter" types (see Section 3.1.11). The contents of
MUST be compliant with ISO 3166 [9] two-character country
codes.
3.1.11. Match Parameters
Some of the queries above have constraints that match strings using
matching parameters. This section describes those matching
parameters.
Elements of type "exactMatchParameter" will have one child element of
. The contents of this child element are to match
exactly in the use of the constraint.
Elements of type "partialMatchParameter" will have either a
child element with an optional child element
or an child element. The content of the
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
element specifies the beginning character sequence for the
constraint. The content of the element specifies the
ending character sequence for the constraint.
Elements of type "exactOrPartialMatchParameter" can have either the
child element allowed with the "exactMatchParameter" type or the
child elements allowed with the "partialMatchParameter" type.
Elements of type "domainResource" can have either the child element
allowed with the "exactMatchParameter" type or a child element of
. This parameter type is meant to match email, SIP,
Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), and other types of
"user@domain" addresses. When this parameter is specified with the
child element, the constraint is based on the whole
email address. When this parameter is specified with the
child element, the constraint is based on any email address within
the domain given. The MUST only contain a valid domain
name (i.e., no '@' symbol), and the matching SHOULD take place only
on the domain given (i.e., no partial matches with respect to
substrings or parent domains).
3.2. Result Derivatives
3.2.1. and Results
The and share a common definition of
'ipNetworkType'. It has the following child elements:
o contains the registry-unique assigned handle for
this network.
o contains a human-friendly name for the network.
o contains the first IP address of the network.
o contains the last IP address of the network.
o contains a string denoting the type of network.
o is an entity reference to a definition of the
values explained in a plain natural language. The referent MUST
be a as defined by [2].
o contains the domain name of a nameserver responsible
for reverse-DNS mapping for this network.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
o contains an entity reference to the organization
assigned this network. The referent MUST be an
(Section 3.2.4) result.
o One of the following:
* contains an entity reference to the parent network of
this network. The referent MUST be an
(Section 3.2.1) result if this reference is a child of
. The referent MUST be an
(Section 3.2.1) result if this reference is a child of
.
* signifies that this network has no parent network.
o Contact references (see Section 3.2.5).
o Common child elements (see Section 3.2.6).
3.2.2. Result
The element represents an assigned or allocated
autonomous system number range. It has the following children:
o contains a registry-unique assigned handle for this
autonomous system number range.
o contains an integer indicating the starting number
for the autonomous system number range.
o contains an integer indicating the ending number for
the autonomous system number range.
o contains a human-readable name for this autonomous system.
o contains an entity reference to the organization
assigned or allocated this autonomous system number range. The
referent MUST be an (Section 3.2.4) result.
o One of the following:
* contains an entity reference to the parent autonomous
system of this autonomous system. The referent MUST be an
(Section 3.2.2) result.
* signifies that this autonomous system has no parent
autonomous system.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
o Contact references (see Section 3.2.5).
o Common child elements (see Section 3.2.6).
3.2.3. Result
The element represents the registration of a point of
contact. It has the following child elements:
o contains the registry-unique assigned handle for
this contact.
o specifies the name of the contact.
o contains the email address for this contact.
o contains the sip address for this contact.
o contains an entity reference to the organization
associated with this contact. The referent MUST be an
(Section 3.2.4) result.
o contains information for reaching the contact via
postal mail. It is composed of the following child elements:
* contains the address for this contact.
* contains the city where this contact is located.
* contains the national region where this contact is
located.
* contains the postal code where this contact is
located.
* contains the country code where this contact is
located. This MUST be compliant with ISO 3166 [9]
two-character country codes.
o contains child elements describing the phone number of the
contact. The child elements are , , and
.
o Common child elements (see Section 3.2.6).
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
3.2.4. Result
The element represents an organization. It has the
following child elements:
o contains the name of the organization.
o contains a registry-unique identifier for this organization.
o contains the email address for this organization.
o contains a information for reaching the
organization via postal mail. It is composed of the following
child elements:
* contains the address for this organization.
* contains the city where this organization is located.
* contains the national region where this organization
is located.
* contains the postal code where this organization
is located.
* contains the country code where this organization is
located. This MUST be compliant with ISO 3166 [9]
two-character country codes.
o contains child elements describing the phone number of the
contact. The child elements are , , and
.
o Contact references (see Section 3.2.5).
o Common child elements (see Section 3.2.6).
3.2.5. Contact References
The registry schema defined in Section 5 normalizes out a group of
elements used to reference contacts. This group is used by many of
the result types for this registry. The group has the following
elements, each of which may appear as many times as needed. The
referent of each MUST be (Section 3.2.3) results.
o
o
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
o
o
o
3.2.6. Common Result Child Elements
The registry schema defined in Section 5 normalizes out a group of
common elements that are used most among the result types. The group
has the following elements:
o contains an entity reference to the
number resource registry of record. The referent MUST be an
(Section 3.2.4) result.
o contains the date of first registration.
o contains the date when the registration was last
updated.
o The element contains an entity reference specifying
an entity that is indirectly associated with this result object.
This element can be used for comments and remarks.
3.3. Support for
The following types of entity classes are recognized by the
query of IRIS for this registry:
o ipv4-handle - a registry-unique identifier specifying an IPv4
network. Queries with these names will yield a
result.
o ipv6-handle - a registry-unique identifier specifying an IPv6
network. Queries with these names will yield a
result.
o as-handle - a registry-unique identifier specifying an autonomous
system. It yields a result of .
o contact-handle - a registry-unique identifier of a contact.
Yields a result of .
o organization-id - a registry-unique identifier of an organization.
Yields a result of .
o The entity names of these entity classes are case insensitive.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
4. Terminology for Nesting of Networks
The following terms are defined for describing the nesting of IP
networks.
o More specific: Given two networks, A and B, A is more specific
than B if network B includes all space of network A, and if
network B is larger than network A.
o Less specific: Opposite of more specific. The network B is less
specific than network A if network A's space is completely
included in network B and if network A is smaller than network B.
o Most specific: Given a set of networks, the network or networks
that are more specific than zero or more specific of the other
networks in the set, and that are not less specific of any of the
networks in the set.
o Least specific: Given a set of networks, the network or networks
that are not more specific to any of the other networks in the
set.
Examples:
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Given the networks A, B, C, and D as follows: |
| |
| A |---------------------------------| |
| B |-----------------| |
| C |---------| |
| D |-------| |
| |
| |
| Network A is less specific than B, C, and D. |
| Network B is more specific than A. |
| Among these four networks, A is the least specific, |
| and C and D are the most specific. |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Nesting Example 1
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Given networks E, F, and G: |
| |
| E |----------| |
| F |--------------| |
| G |---| |
| |
| Networks E and F are least specific networks. |
| Networks F and G are most specific networks. |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: Nesting Example 2
The following definitions assume that there are no overlapping
networks in the database. A network overlaps with another one when
they encompass each other's space partially. Examples:
A |---------------------|
B |----------------------------|
Figure 3: Nesting Example 3
Here, networks A and B are overlapping networks because network A
encompasses network B's space partially, and network B encompasses
network A's space partially.
C |------------------|
D |---------|
Figure 4: Nesting Example 4
Here, networks C and D are NOT overlapping networks because even if
network D encompasses a part of network C's space, network C does not
encompass network D's space partially (it encompasses network D
completely).
The address directory can contain more than one network with the same
range. They are said to be exact match networks.
The parent/child relationship in the internet address directory is
unidirectional. That is, there might also be parent/child
relationship with exact match networks, but a network cannot be a
parent and a child of its exact match network at the same time.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
The following are nested matching searches:
(1) all less specifics search: Given a range, find all the networks
that contain that range (i.e., all less specifics and exact
matches). These networks are the networks that fulfill the
following condition:
(start(network) <= start(search)) AND (end(network) >= end(search))
(2) one-level less specifics search: Given a range, find only the
most specific network that contains that range (could be multiple
networks, but usually single). This is the set of networks from
(1), with the provision that no network in the return set is
contained by any other network in the set. If there are exact
match networks in the set from (1), they both must appear in the
result set. The result set may contain a network that is exact
match to the query range, if the search allows exact matches.
A |-------------------------------|
B |---------------------------|
C |-------|
Query |- - - - - - - - - -|
Figure 5: Nesting Example 5
In the above case, the query must return B.
A |-------------------------------|
B |---------------------------|
C |---------------------------|
D |-------|
Query |- - - - - - - - - -|
Figure 6: Nesting Example 6
Here, the query must return B and C (they are exact matches of
each other).
A |-------------------------------|
B |---------------------------|
C |---------------------------|
D |-------|
Query |- - - -|
Figure 7: Nesting Example 7
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
Here, the query must return B and C (they are exact matches of
each other). D must not be in the result set, as it is exact
match to the query if the search specifies that exact matches of
query range should not appear in the result set.
In Figure 7, if the search specifies that exact matches to the
query range are allowed in the result set, then only D must be
returned.
(3) all more specifics search: Given a range, find all the networks
that are fully within that range. The search contains a flag
that specifies if an exact match to the query range should appear
in the result set or not. Thus, the result set may or may not
contain the exact match to the query range, as instructed by the
search.
(start(network) >= start(search)) AND (end(network) <= end(search))
(4) one-level more specifics search: Given a range, find only the
least specific networks that are fully within that range. This
is the set of networks from (3), with the provision that no
network in the return set contains any other network in the
return set.
Query |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -|
A |------------------|
B |-------------------------|
C |--------|
D |---------|
Figure 8: Nesting Example 8
(5) exact match search: Given a range, find the networks that begin
and end on the same IP addresses as the range. That is, the
networks that fulfill the following condition:
(start(network) = start(search)) AND (end(network) = end(search))
(6) Given a range, find the exact match network if it exists, and if
it does not, perform the (2) search.
The following are parent-child relationship searches:
(7) Given a network handle, find the network that is the direct (one
level up) parent of the network with the given handle.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
(8) Given a network handle, find the network or networks that are
direct (one level down) children of the network with the handle
given.
5. Formal XML Syntax
This IP address registry is specified in the XML Schema notation.
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.
IP address registry schema derived from IRIS
schema
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
Figure 9
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
6. BEEP Transport Compliance
IRIS allows several extensions of the core capabilities. This
section outlines those extensions allowable by IRIS-BEEP [3].
6.1. Message Pattern
This registry type uses the default message pattern as described in
IRIS-BEEP [3].
6.2. Server Authentication
This registry type uses the default server authentication method as
described in IRIS-BEEP [3].
7. URI Resolution
7.1. Application Service Label
See Section 9 for the application service label registration.
7.2. Operational Considerations
Address registries do not have natural links to DNS. Using reverse
DNS tree presents problems for IP address delegation (for example,
delegations do not fall into byte boundaries, unlike reverse DNS),
and DNS does not currently contain any information regarding
autonomous system delegation.
Therefore, in order for the top-down resolution to operate properly,
it is requested that the IAB instruct IANA to insert and maintain a
NAPTR DNS resource record for areg.iris.arpa, as described in
Section 9.
7.3. Top-Down Resolution
The top-down alternative resolution method MUST be identified as
'top' in IRIS URIs.
The process for this condition is as follows:
1. The IRIS [2] direct-resolution process is tried against
areg.iris.arpa.
2. If the direct-resolution process yields no server for which a
connection can be made, then a negative response is returned, and
no further action is taken.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
It is RECOMMENDED that IRIS clients issuing AREG1 requests use the
'top' resolution method when no resolution method has been explicitly
given by a user. IRIS servers accepting AREG1 requests that seek
information for which they are not authoritative SHOULD refer clients
using the 'top' resolution method.
8. Internationalization Considerations
This document lays out no new considerations for internationalization
beyond those specified in IRIS [2].
9. IANA Considerations
The following URN has been registered with IANA according to the IANA
considerations defined in IRIS [2]:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:areg1
The following S-NAPTR application service label has been registered
with IANA according to the IANA considerations defined in IRIS [2]:
AREG1
Under instructions from the IAB, the IANA will create a new second
level domain under .arpa called iris (i.e., iris.arpa.). The
contents of this new domain are to be under the control of the IAB.
Under instructions from the IAB, the IANA will insert and maintain a
NAPTR DNS resource record in the iris.arpa. domain for the name
areg.iris.arpa. The initial contents for that record is:
areg.iris.arpa.
;; order pref flags service re replacement
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "AREG1:iris.xpc:iris.lwz" "" areg.nro.net
10. Security Considerations
This document lays out no new considerations for security precautions
beyond those specified in IRIS [2].
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: The Internet Registry Information
Service (IRIS) Core Protocol", RFC 3981, January 2005.
[3] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Using the Internet Registry Information
Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol
(BEEP)", RFC 3983, January 2005.
[4] Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP)
Requirements", RFC 3707, February 2004.
11.2. Informative References
[5] World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language (XML)
1.0", W3C XML, February 1998,
.
[6] World Wide Web Consortium, "Namespaces in XML", W3C XML
Namespaces, January 1999,
.
[7] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes",
W3C XML Schema, October 2000,
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S: JN560-RIR1
S:
S: Bob Smurd
S:
S:
S:
S: Organization X, Inc.
S:
S:
S:
S:
S: +1-703-555-5555
S: office
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
Figure 11: Example 1
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
B.2. Example 2
The following example shows a query to find the IP networks
containing a given address.
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
C: 192.0.2.134
C:
C:
C: one-level-less-specific
C:
C:
C:
C:
C:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S: NET-192-0-2-128-1
S:
S:
S: UU-192-0-2-D6
S:
S:
S: 192.0.2.128
S:
S:
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
S: 192.0.2.255
S:
S: reassigned
S:
S:
S: Organization X, Inc.
S:
S:
S:
S:
S: Smurd, Bob
S:
S:
S:
S: 2002-11-18T00:00:00-00:00
S:
S:
S: 2002-11-18T00:00:00-00:00
S:
S:
S:
S:
S: NET-192-0-2-0-2
S:
S:
S: UU-192-0-2-0-D5
S:
S:
S: 192.0.2.0
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
S:
S:
S: 192.0.2.255
S:
S: direct allocation
S: auth03.ns.example.org
S: auth00.ns.example.org
S:
S:
S: Organization Y, Inc.
S:
S:
S:
S: 2000-10-27T00:00:00-00:00
S:
S:
S: 2002-02-13T00:00:00-00:00
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
S: Addresses within this block are non-portable.
S:
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
S:
S:
S:
S:
S:
Figure 12: Example 2
Appendix C. Specificity Examples
This section includes examples to clarify specificity options for
network and ASN searches.
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Contents of the DB
Figure 13: Specificity Example 1
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query|- - - - - - - | 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
Exact match (1)
Result: C
Figure 14: Specificity Example 2
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query|- - - - - - - - | 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.12
Exact match (2)
Result: None
Figure 15: Specificity Example 3
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query|- - - - - - - - - | 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
All more specifics, allowEquivalences = false
Result: C, F, & G (A is not included; exact match)
Figure 16: Specificity Example 4
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query|- - - - - - - - - | 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
All more specifics, allowEquivalences = true
Result: A, C, F, & G (A is included; exact match)
Figure 17: Specificity Example 5
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query|- - - - - - - - - | 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
One level more specifics, allowEquivalences = false
Result: C
Figure 18: Specificity Example 6
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query|- - - - - - - - - | 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
One level more specifics, allowEquivalences = true
Result: A
Figure 19: Specificity Example 7
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query |- - | 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
All less specifics, allowEquivalences = true
Result: A, C, & G (G is included; exact match)
Figure 20: Specificity Example 8
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query |- - | 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
All less specifics, allowEquivalences = false
Result: A & C (G is not included; exact match)
Figure 21: Specificity Example 9
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query |- - | 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
One level less specifics, allowEquivalences = true
Result: G (the exact match)
Figure 22: Specificity Example 10
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query |- - | 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
One level less specifics, allowEquivalences = false
Result: C
Figure 23: Specificity Example 11
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query|- - - - - - | 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.8
One level less specifics, allowEquivalences = false or true
Result: C
Figure 24: Specificity Example 12
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query = E
Find parent (Query argument is a handle)
Result: D
Figure 25: Specificity Example 13
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
A |------------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.15
B |------------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.31
C |--------------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.9
D |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
E |---------------| 192.0.2.16 - 192.0.2.30
F |--------| 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.5
G |----| 192.0.2.6 - 192.0.2.9
Query = D
Find child (Query argument is a handle)
Result: E
Figure 26: Specificity Example 14
Appendix D. Contributors
David Blacka and Tim Christensen made substantial contributions to
this document.
Appendix E. Acknowledgements
Eric Hall, William Leibzon, April Marine, George Michaelson, Tim
Christensen Cathy Murphy, Andrei Robachevsky, Marcos Sanz, Frederico
Neves, Ted Hardie, and many others contributed constructively in the
mailing list discussions and IETF Meeting sessions.
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 2006
Authors' Addresses
Engin Gunduz
RIPE NCC
Singel 258
Amsterdam 1016AB
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 20 535 4444
EMail: e.gunduz@computer.org
Andrew L. Newton
VeriSign, Inc.
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, VA 20166
USA
Phone: +1 703 948 3382
EMail: andy@hxr.us
Shane W. Kerr
RIPE NCC
Singel 258
Amsterdam 1016AB
The Netherlands
Phone: +31 20 535 4444
EMail: shane@time-travellers.org
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 4698 IRIS Address Registry Type October 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Gunduz, et al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC, FYI, BCP