[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03                                                   
  INTERNET-DRAFT                                             Eric A. Hall
  Document: draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt                July 2003
  Expires: February, 2004
  Category: Standards-Track
                  Defining and Locating Contact Information
                 in the Federated Internet Registry Service
     Status of this Memo
     This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
     all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
     Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
     Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
     other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
     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
     The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
     The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
     Copyright Notice
     Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.
     This document defines LDAP schema and searching rules for contact
     persons, in support of the Federated Internet Registry Service
     (FIRS) described in [FIRS-ARCH] and [FIRS-CORE].
  Internet Draft   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt       July 2003
     Table of Contents
     1.   Introduction...............................................2
     2.   Prerequisites and Terminology..............................2
     3.   Naming Syntax..............................................3
     4.   Object Classes and Attributes..............................4
     5.   Query Processing Rules.....................................6
       5.1.  Query Pre-Processing....................................6
       5.2.  Query Bootstrapping.....................................7
       5.3.  LDAP Matching...........................................7
       5.4.  Example Query...........................................8
     6.   Security Considerations....................................8
     7.   IANA Considerations........................................9
     8.   Normative References.......................................9
     9.   Changes from Previous Versions............................10
     10.  Author's Addresses........................................11
     11.  Acknowledgments...........................................11
     12.  Full Copyright Statement..................................11
  1.      Introduction
     This specification defines the naming syntax, object classes,
     attributes, matching filters, and query processing rules for
     storing and locating contact persons in the FIRS service. Refer to
     [FIRS-ARCH] for information on the FIRS architecture and
     [FIRS-CORE] for the schema definitions and rules which govern the
     FIRS service as a whole.
     The definitions in this specification are intended to be used with
     FIRS. Their usage outside of FIRS is not prohibited, but any such
     usage is beyond this specification's scope of authority.
  2.      Prerequisites and Terminology
     The complete set of specifications in the FIRS collection
     cumulative define a structured and distributed information service
     using LDAPv3 for the data-formatting and transport functions. This
     specification should be read in the context of that set, which
     currently includes [FIRS-ARCH], [FIRS-CORE], [FIRS-DNS],
     The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
     in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
  Hall                  I-D Expires: February 2004             [page 2]

  Internet Draft   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt       July 2003
  3.      Naming Syntax
     The naming syntax for contact entries in FIRS MUST follow the form
     of "cn=<inetContactSyntax>,cn=inetResources,<partition>", where
     <inetContactSyntax> is an email address representing a contact
     resource, and where <partition> is a sequence of domainComponent
     relative distinguished names which identifies the scope of
     authority for the selected directory partition.
     The inetContactSyntax is unstructured, in that it uses
     standardized procedures to produce heavily-normalized email
     addresses rather than using structured syntax rules. The principle
     reason for this is due to conflicting syntax rules in different
     canonical email addressing rules, with these rules preventing the
     use of a common syntax.
     The normalization procedure produces UTF-8 [RFC2279] email
     addresses as output, with these domain names being suitable for
     direct comparisons, substring searches, and other lightweight
     comparisons. Servers tend to be more heavily-loaded than clients,
     and requiring the data to be normalized before it is used for
     comparison operations ensures that a broader range of comparison
     operations can be performed with minimal impact on those servers.
     This normalization procedure is as follows:
        a.  Email addresses MUST contain three elements, which are a
            localpart element, an "at" sign ("@") separator character,
            and a domain element.
        b.  The localpart element is currently unspecified, pending
            ongoing effort to internationalize this element. Subsequent
            versions of this specification may define specific handling
            rules for this element.
        c.  The domain element MUST be normalized according to the
            inetDnsDomainSyntax procedure defined in [FIRS-DNS].
     Once all of these steps have successfully completed, the email
     address can be stored in the directory or used as an assertion
     value. Any fatal error conditions encountered during these
     conversions MUST result in a local failure; FIRS-aware
     applications MUST NOT store or transmit non-normalized email
     addresses for any purposes.
  Hall                  I-D Expires: February 2004             [page 3]

  Internet Draft   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt       July 2003
     The inetContactSyntax syntax is as follows:
          ( NAME 'inetContactSyntax' DESC 'A
            fully-qualified email address.' )
     Note that the use of the "at" separator character is illegal as
     data in URLs, and these characters will be escaped before they are
     stored in a URL as data.
     Also note that UTF-8 characters use character codes which are
     frequently illegal as data in URLs, and many of those octet values
     will probably be escaped before they are stored in a URL as data.
  4.      Object Classes and Attributes
     Contact entries in FIRS MUST use the inetOrgPerson object class as
     defined in RFC 2798 [RFC2798], in addition to the mandatory object
     classes defined in [FIRS-CORE]. Contact entries MUST be treated as
     containers capable of holding subordinate entries. If an entry
     exists as a referral source, the entry MUST also be defined with
     the referral object class, in addition to the above requirements.
     The inetOrgPerson object class is a structural object class. The
     inetOrgPerson object class has three mandatory attributes (cn, sn,
     and objectClass), and has several optional attributes. Contact
     entries also inherit the attributes defined in the inetResources
     object class when they are used with FIRS.
     Refer to [RFC2798] for the inetOrgPerson schema definitions.
     Note that the "mail" attribute defined for use with the
     inetOrgPerson object class is restricted to seven-bit character
     codes and is typically interpreted as [US-ASCII], and is therefore
     not compatible with the inetContactSyntax rules defined in section
     3. As such, if the mail domain uses an internationalized domain
     name, the domain element of the mail attribute MUST be reduced to
     its ASCII-compatible form using the ToASCII process defined in
     [RFC3490], and MUST NOT use the UTF-8 encoding.
     Note that International postal regulations generally require that
     the recipient address on an envelope be provided in a language and
     charset which is native to the recipient's country, with the
     exception of the destination country name which should be provided
     in a language and charset that is native to the sender's country.
  Hall                  I-D Expires: February 2004             [page 4]

  Internet Draft   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt       July 2003
     This model ensures that the sender's post office will be able to
     route the mail to the recipient's country, while also ensuring
     that the destination country's post office will be able to perform
     local delivery. In order to facilitate this usage, the country
     attribute value MAY (encouraged) be localized to the local user's
     nomenclature for a country, but other postal address information
     SHOULD NOT be localized.
     Notwithstanding the above, it is ENCOURAGED that contact names be
     provided in English forms in order to facilitate inter-party
     communications, using the mechanisms offered by [RFC2596]. For
     example, the default contact entry for a person in Japan SHOULD be
     provided in the native form for that person, but an English form
     is also ENCOURAGED in order to allow non-Japanese users to
     properly address that person in subsequent communications. As
     stated in the preceding paragraph however, any postal
     communications for that person SHOULD use the native-language
     representation (at least on the envelope) in order to facilitate
     the delivery of postal mail.
     An example of the inetOrgPerson object class in use is shown in
     Figure 1 below. The example includes attributes from the
     inetOrgPerson, inetResources, and inetAssociatedResources object
  Hall                  I-D Expires: February 2004             [page 5]

  Internet Draft   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt       July 2003
          [top object class]
          [inetResources object class]
          [inetOrgPerson object class]
          [inetAssociatedResources object class]
          +-attribute: description
          | value: "Administrators for the example.com network."
          +-attribute: givenName
          | value: "Network"
          +-attribute: sn
          | value: "Administrators"
          +-attribute: mail
          | value: "admins@example.com"
          +-attribute: inetAssociatedDnsDomain
          | value: "example.com"
          | value: "2.0.192.in-addr.arpa"
          +-attribute: inetAssociatedIpv4Network
            value: ""
     Figure 1: The entry for the admins@example.com contact in the
     dc=netsol,dc=com partition.
  5.      Query Processing Rules
     Queries for contact entries have several special requirements, as
     discussed in the following sections.
     Refer to [FIRS-CORE] for general information about FIRS queries.
  5.1.    Query Pre-Processing
     Clients MUST ensure that the query input is normalized according
     to the rules specified in section 3 before the input is used as
     the assertion value to the resulting LDAP query.
     The authoritative partition for a contact entry is determined by
     mapping the domain element of a normalized email address to a
     sequence of domainComponent labels.
  Hall                  I-D Expires: February 2004             [page 6]

  Internet Draft   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt       July 2003
     Since the domainComponent attribute is restricted to seven-bit
     characters, the domain element MUST be converted to its IDNA form
     using the "ToASCII" conversion operation specified in [RFC3490],
     with the "UseSTD3ASCIIRules" flag disabled (FIRS applications MAY
     reuse the output from the conversion performed in step 3.c if the
     entire conversion process is known to have completed
     successfully). The resulting sequence of ASCII labels are used to
     form the domainComponent sequence which represents the
     authoritative partition for the email address.
     As a simple example, "admins@example.com" would be mapped to the
     "dc=example,dc=com" authoritative partition, with this partition
     being used to seed the query process.
  5.2.    Query Bootstrapping
     FIRS clients MUST use the bottom-up bootstrap model by default for
     contact queries. As such, the search base for default queries
     would be set to the complete sequence of domainComponent relative
     distinguished names of the authoritative partition.
     FIRS clients MAY use the targeted or top-down bootstrap models for
     queries if necessary or desirable. However, it is not likely that
     entries will be found for all possible contacts using these models
     (the "dc=com" partition is not likely to have entries for all of
     the possible contacts with mailboxes in the "com" hierarchy, for
     example). As such, the bottom-up bootstrap model will be the most
     useful in most cases, and MUST be used by default.
     Note that registration bodies can allocate email addresses within
     their own managed portion of the DNS namespace if predictability
     is at a premium. For example, a registrar could assign
     "user@registrar.com" email addresses to the contact entries that
     it creates, thereby ensuring that the contact entries are always
     locatable and managed.
  5.3.    LDAP Matching
     FIRS clients MUST specify equalityMatch matching filters in LDAP
     searches for contact entries.
     In order to ensure that all of the relevant entries are found
     (including any referrals), the search filters for these resources
     MUST specify the inetOrgPerson object class and the cn attribute.
     For example, "(&(objectclass=inetOrgPerson)
     (cn=admins@example.com))" with a search base of
  Hall                  I-D Expires: February 2004             [page 7]

  Internet Draft   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt       July 2003
     "cn=inetResources,dc=netsol,dc=com" would find all of the
     inetOrgPerson object class entries of "cn=admins@example.com" in
     the "dc=netsol,dc=com" partition.
     The matching filters defined in this specification MUST be
     supported by FIRS clients and servers. FIRS servers MAY support
     additional sub-string filters, soundex filters, or any other
     filters they wish (these may be required to support generic LDAP
     clients), although FIRS clients MUST NOT expect any additional
     filters to be available.
  5.4.    Example Query
     The following example assumes that the user has specified
     "admins@example.com" as the query value:
        a.  Normalize the input, which is "admins@example.com" in this
        b.  Determine the canonical authoritative partition, which is
            "dc=example,dc=com" in this case. By default, queries for
            contacts use the bottom-up model, meaning that the fully-
            qualified distinguished name of "dc=example,dc=com" will be
        c.  Determine the search base for the query, which will be
            "cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com" if the defaults are
        d.  Initiate a DNS lookup for the SRV resource records
            associated with "_ldap._tcp.example.com." For the purpose
            of this example, assume that this lookup succeeds, with the
            DNS response message indicating that "firs.example.com" is
            the preferred LDAP server.
        e.  Submit an LDAPv3 query to the specified server, using
            as the matching filter, "cn=inetResources,dc=example,
            dc=com" as the search base, and the global query defaults
            defined in [FIRS-CORE].
        f.  Assume that no referrals are received. Display the answer
            data which has been received and exit the query.
  6.      Security Considerations
  Hall                  I-D Expires: February 2004             [page 8]

  Internet Draft   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt       July 2003
     Security considerations are discussed in [FIRS-ARCH].
  7.      IANA Considerations
     IANA considerations are discussed in [FIRS-ARCH].
  8.      Normative References
          [FIRS-ARCH]   Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry
                         Service: Architecture and Implementation
                         Guide", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-01, July
          [FIRS-ASN]    Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Autonomous
                         System Numbers in the Federated Internet
                         Registry Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-asn-
                         01, July 2003.
          [FIRS-CONTCT] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Contact
                         Persons in the Federated Internet Registry
                         Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-01,
                         July 2003.
          [FIRS-CORE]   Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry
                         Service: Core Elements", draft-ietf-crisp-
                         firs-core-01, July 2003.
          [FIRS-DNS]    Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Domains in
                         the Federated Internet Registry Service",
                         draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dns-01, July 2003.
          [FIRS-DNSRR]  Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Resource
                         Records in the Federated Internet Registry
                         Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dnsrr-01, July
          [FIRS-IPV4]   Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv4 Address
                         Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry
                         Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv4-01, July
          [FIRS-IPV6]   Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv6 Address
                         Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry
                         Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv6-01, July
          [RFC2247]     Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R.,
                         and Sataluri, S. "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500
                         DNs", RFC 2247, January 1998.
  Hall                  I-D Expires: February 2004             [page 9]

  Internet Draft   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt       July 2003
          [RFC2251]     Wahl, M., Howes, T., and Kille, S.
                         "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)",
                         RFC 2251, December 1997.
          [RFC2252]     Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T., and Kille,
                         S. "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
                         (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252,
                         December 1997.
          [RFC2254]     Howes, T. "The String Representation of LDAP
                         Search Filters", RFC 2254, December 1997.
          [RFC2279]     Yergeau, F. "UTF-8, a transformation format of
                         ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
          [RFC2596]     Wahl, M., and Howes, T. "Use of Language Codes
                         in LDAP", RFC 2596, May 1999.
          [RFC2798]     Smith, M. "Definition of the inetOrgPerson
                         LDAP Object Class", RFC 2798, April 2000.
          [RFC3490]     Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and Costello, A.
                         "Internationalizing Domain Names in
                         Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.
          [US-ASCII]    Cerf, V. "ASCII format for Network
                         Interchange", RFC 20, October 1969.
  9.      Changes from Previous Versions
        *   Several clarifications and corrections have been made.
        *   Several attributes had their OIDs changed. NOTE THAT THIS
        *   Restructured the document set.
        *   "Attribute references" have been eliminated from the
            specification. All referential attributes now provide
            actual data instead of URL pointers to data. Clients that
            wish to retrieve these values will need to start new
            queries using the data values instead of URLs.
  Hall                  I-D Expires: February 2004            [page 10]

  Internet Draft   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt       July 2003
        *   Removed references to LDAPS (LDAP-over-SSL), which is not a
            standards-track protocol.
        *   Added a discussion on localization considerations.
        *   Moved attribute-specific security requirements to the
            Security section.
  10.     Author's Addresses
     Eric A. Hall
  11.     Acknowledgments
     Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
     Internet Society.
     Portions of this document were funded by VeriSign Labs.
     The first version of this specification was co-authored by Andrew
     Newton of Verisign Labs, and subsequent versions continue to be
     developed with his active participation.
  12.     Full Copyright Statement
     Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
     This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
     to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise
     explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared,
     copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without
     restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice
     and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative
     works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any
     way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the
     Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed
     for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
     procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards
     process must be followed, or as required to translate it into
     languages other than English.
     The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
     be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
  Hall                  I-D Expires: February 2004            [page 11]

  Internet Draft   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt       July 2003
     This document and the information contained herein is provided on
  Hall                  I-D Expires: February 2004            [page 12]