Requirements For Internet Registry Services
draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Murray Kucherawy | ||
| Last updated | 2012-01-31 (Latest revision 2011-08-09) | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02
Network Working Group M. Kucherawy
Internet-Draft Cloudmark
Intended status: Informational January 31, 2012
Expires: August 3, 2012
Requirements For Internet Registry Services
draft-kucherawy-weirds-requirements-02
Abstract
This document enumerates a base set of requirements that should be
included in any system that provides registration information for
Internet network entities, i.e., network assignments. Some of these,
in turn, will define requirements for registrars; this, however, is
an issue outside of the scope of this document.
It is hoped that this work will influnce the development of
requirements and specifications for domain name registries at some
point in the future.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 3, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Kucherawy Expires August 3, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft WHOIS Requirements January 2012
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Incorporated Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Public Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Kucherawy Expires August 3, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft WHOIS Requirements January 2012
1. Introduction
The ubiquitous [WHOIS] service can be used today to query for domain
name registration or network or subnetwork assignment information by
the general public. It is however a very simple protocol, whose
output is free-form and thus not amenable to machine parsing.
The CRISP working group created a workable and extensible standard
for replacing WHOIS, called [IRIS]. Unfortunately, IRIS has seen
little to no deployment for various reasons, mostly its complexity
compared to WHOIS and some political and technical inertia.
Thus, this effort confronts anew the need for a better service than
WHOIS provides, by first laying down a framework of requirements that
such a service needs to accommodate to become a viable alternative to
WHOIS.
2. Terminology and Definitions
This section defines terms used in the rest of the document.
2.1. Keywords
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 [KEYWORDS]. In
particular, since this is not a standards track document, these key
words are meant to describe requirements for those proposals for a
WHOIS replacement that seek standards track status.
2.2. Incorporated Requirements
Many of the requirements distilled from the input provided by various
communities in [CRISP] will apply to this effort as well. It is
certainly the case that the research presented there should be
considered prerequisite reading for this new work.
3. Requirements
This section enumerates the basic requirements of any WHOIS
replacement system.
3.1. Clients
The client-side requirements are as follows:
Kucherawy Expires August 3, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft WHOIS Requirements January 2012
1. To support internationalized values, a client SHOULD be able to
handle replies that contain data that are not exclusively 7-bit
clean.
2. A client SHOULD support caching of replies. It MAY apply its own
default and MAY use a time-to-live provided as part of the reply.
3. A client SHOULD be able to handle a reply that is effectively a
referral or redirect to another server.
4. A client MUST be able to decode a reply using a well-established
generic encoding mechanism such as XML or JSON. [We need to
choose one and standardize on it.]
3.2. Servers
The server-side requirements are as follows:
1. A server MUST be able to return internationalized data.
2. A server MUST be able to return a result that indicates to a
client that the answer sought is not available here, but can be
found elsewhere (i.e., a referral mechanism). The DNS has well-
established facilities for doing so and this effort might do well
to consider those methods.
3. A server SHOULD be able to provide class-of-service facilities
for different types of users. At least the following cases need
to be considered:
anonymous: Users with no prior arrangement for access to the
data; typically all available data will be provided in
response to a query, but the query rate may be severely
limited. No authentication is typically required. Some data
considered to be personally identifiable information MAY be
elided.
security: Users that have an interest in a specific subset of a
registration's data for the purpose of analysis and
correlation while evaluating the trustworthiness of the
source. Examples include email client evaluation, email
content evaluation, web site security, etc. The subset will
typically include creation/registration dates, assigned
nameserver names and IP addresses, registrar ID and registrant
ID. Users in this class would be required to authenticate in
some way, but such clients would not typically be subjected to
rate limiting given the prior arrangement.
Kucherawy Expires August 3, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft WHOIS Requirements January 2012
law enforcement: Users with a bona fide interest in as much
registration data, including change history, as is available.
Typically, queries would be rare but have extremely high
priority. These clients would definitely require
authentication and probably also require encryption.
4. A server MUST reply in a univerally standard format; free-form
replies MUST NOT be used, although the standard format may have
provisions for some fields that are free-form within it. In
particular:
* All date and/or time fields MUST be formatted as per
[DATETIME].
5. NOTE: The standard format is expected to be a significant portion
of the work on the way to describing a new overall WHOIS
specification. In any case, machine-parsability of replies is
crucial to the success of this work.
6. A server MUST provide a minimum set of data about a given query.
It is expected that this minimum set will be different for a
network allocation registry than a domain name registry, however
the following MUST be provided:
* The creation date/time of the record
* The date/time on which the record most recently changed
owners/registrants
* The date/time on which any other part of the record was
modified
* The identifier of the registrar that created the record
* The identifier of the registrant that created the record
* For network registration records, the size of the assigned
subnet in terms of a number of bits
7. A server MAY provide different output based on the nature of the
client, where such can be definitively determined.
4. IANA Considerations
This memo presents no actions for IANA. [RFC Editor: Please remove
this section prior to publication.]
Kucherawy Expires August 3, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft WHOIS Requirements January 2012
5. Security Considerations
This memo introduces an overall protocol model, but no implementation
details. Specific security considerations of the implementation(s)
that meet these requirements will be provided in their defining
documents.
6. Informative References
[CRISP] Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol
(CRISP) Requirements", RFC 3707, February 2004.
[DATETIME]
Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
[IRIS] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: The Internet Registry
Information Service (IRIS) Core Protocol", RFC 3981,
January 2005.
[KEYWORDS]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[WHOIS] Daigle, L., "WHOIS Protocol Specification", RFC 3912,
September 2004.
Appendix A. Public Discussion
Public discussion of this suite of memos takes place on the
weirds@ietf.org mailing list. See
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds.
Author's Address
Murray S. Kucherawy
Cloudmark
128 King St., 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
USA
Phone: +1 415 946 3800
Email: msk@cloudmark.com
Kucherawy Expires August 3, 2012 [Page 6]