Network Working Group V. Listman, Editor
Internet-Draft American Registry for Internet Numbers
Expires: January 25, 2004 July 25, 2003
Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Internet Resource
Number Requirements
draft-ietf-crisp-internet-resource-number-req-00
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 25, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Internet registries expose administrative and operational data via
varying directory services. This document defines functional
requirements for the directory services of Internet resource number
registries.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Requirements Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Requirements Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Internet Registry Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Regional Internet Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Other Internet Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Base Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1 Mining Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2 Minimal Technical Reinvention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.3 Standard and Extensible Schemas . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.3.1 Protocol Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.3.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.4 Level of Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.4.1 Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.4.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.5 Client Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.6 Entity Referencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.7 Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.7.1 Protocol Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.7.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.8 Authentication Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.8.1 Protocol Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.8.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.9 Base Error Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.10 Query Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.10.1 Protocol Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.10.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.11 Protocol and Schema Versioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.11.1 Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.11.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Internet Resource Number Specific Functions . . . . . . 10
3.2.1 Lookups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1.1 Protocol Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.1.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2 Searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2.1 Protocol Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3 Information Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3.1 Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3.1.1 IP Address Network Return Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3.1.2 Autonomous System Return Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.3.1.3 Contact Return Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.3.1.4 Organization Return Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.3.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.4 Result Set Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.4.1 Protocol Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
3.2.4.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.5 Distribution for Internet Resource Number
Registry Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.5.1 Protocol Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2.5.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.6 Data Omission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.6.1 Protocol Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.6.2 Service Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.7 Internationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.8 Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Feature Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1 Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2 Referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4 Structured Queries and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.1 Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B.2 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Intellectual Property Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The expansion and growth of the Internet has seen the registry
function of a traditionally centralized and managed Network
Information Center become the responsibility of various autonomous,
functionally disparate, and globally distributed Internet registries.
With the broadening number of Internet registries, the uses of their
administrative directory services have expanded from the original and
traditional use of the whois [5] protocol to include the use of whois
outside the scope of its specification, formal and informal
definitions of syntax, undocumented security mechanisms, the use of
other protocols, such as rwhois [4], to fulfill other needs, and
proposals for the use of other technologies such as LDAP [3] and XML.
1.2 Requirements Scope
The scope of the requirements captured in this document relate to the
directory services of Internet resource number registries and their
related communities (Section 2.1 and Section 2.2). Additional
communities are described in the Cross Registry Internet Service
Protocol (CRISP) Requirements draft [6]. These requirements are not
specific to any protocol. Terms used in the definition of the
requirements in this document may be found in the glossary
(Appendix A).
The scope of the requirements in this document is also restricted to
access of data from Internet registries. Requirements for
modification, addition, or provisioning of data in Internet
registries are out of scope.
1.3 Requirements Specification
The requirements captured in this document are for the purpose of
designing technical specifications. The words used in this document
for compliance with RFC2119 [2] do not reference or specify policy
and speak only to the capabilities in the derived technology. For
instance, this document may say that the protocol "MUST" support
certain features. An actual service operator is always free to
disable it (and then to return an error such as "permission denied".)
Requirements in this document specifying the capabilities of the
protocol required for proper interaction between a client and a
server will be specified with the "MUST/SHOULD" language of RFC2119
[2]. This document also contains language relating to the
interaction of a client with multiple servers to form a coherent,
cross-network service. Such service requirements will not be
described using RFC2119 language.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
While individual servers/service operators may not support all
features that the protocol can support, they must respect the
semantics of the protocol queries and responses. For example, a
server should not return referrals if it does not have referent data.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
2. Internet Registry Communities
The Internet registries are composed of various communities which
provide scope for the requirements in this document. This document
describes those communities specifically involved with Internet
resource number registration. Other communities are described in the
Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements draft
[6]. These descriptions are provided in this document for
informational purposes only.
2.1 Regional Internet Registries
Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) administer the allocation of IP
address space and autonomous system numbers. Each RIR serves
specific geographic regions, and collectively they service the entire
Internet. Each RIR is a membership-based, non-profit organization
that facilitates and implements addressing policy based on the
direction of their regional community.
2.2 Other Internet Registries
Local Internet Registries (LIRs), National Internet Registries (NIRs)
and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are registries of the RIRs and
coordinate the same functions of the RIRs for smaller, more specific
geographic regions, sovereign nations, localities, and business
regions.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
3. Functional Requirements
Functional requirements describe an overall need or process for which
the directory service is used by an Internet registry to fulfill its
obligations to provide information about their customers, members and
the resources they hold. This section describes requirements in the
manner specified in Section 1.3.
3.1 Base Functions
This section describes basic directory service protocol requirements
for Internet registries. Additional requirements, specific to
Internet resource number registries, are described in Internet
Resource Number Specific Functions (Section 3.2).
3.1.1 Mining Prevention
In order to prevent the inappropriate acquisition of data from an
Internet registry's directory service, servers may limit the amount
of data that may be returned in a fixed time period from a server to
a client. This will most likely be especially true for anonymous
access uses (see Section 3.1.4).
The limits placed on differing types of data or applied depending
upon access status will most likely differ from server to server
based on policy and need. Support for varying service models in the
effort to limit data and prevent data mining may or may not have a
direct impact on the client-to-server protocol, but MUST NOT be
prevented by the protocol.
3.1.2 Minimal Technical Reinvention
The protocol MUST NOT employ unique technology solutions for all
aspects and layers above the network and transport layers and SHOULD
make use of existing technology standards where applicable. The
protocol MUST employ the use of network and transport layer standards
as defined by the Internet Engineering Task Force. The protocol MUST
define one or more transport mechanisms for mandatory implementation.
3.1.3 Standard and Extensible Schemas
3.1.3.1 Protocol Requirement
The protocol MUST contain standard schemas for the exchange of data
needed to implement the functionality in this document. In addition,
there MUST be a means to allow the use of schemas not defined by the
needs of this document. Both types of schemas MUST use the same
schema language. The schemas MUST be able to express data elements
with identifying tags for the purpose of localization of the meaning
of the identifying tags.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
3.1.3.2 Service Description
The client-to-server protocol must define a standard set of data
structures or schemas to be used when exchanging information. It
must also possess the ability to allow for the use of newer data
structures that are currently nor foreseen by this specification. In
both cases, the description and specification of both types of data
structures or schemas must be done in the same way (i.e. the same
schema language).
The schemas must also be capable of "tagging" data with a unique
identifier. This identifier can then be used to localize the name of
that type of data. For instance, a piece of data may have the value
"Bob" and its type identified with the number "5.1". Client software
could use this to display "Name: Bob" in an English locale or
"Nombre: Bob" in a Spanish locale.
3.1.4 Level of Access
3.1.4.1 Protocol Requirement
The protocol MUST NOT prohibit an operator from granularly assigning
multiple types of access to data according to the policies of the
operator. The protocol MUST provide an authentication mechanism and
MUST NOT prohibit an operator from granting types of access based on
authentication.
The protocol MUST provide an anonymous access mechanism that may be
turned on or off based on the policy of an operator.
3.1.4.2 Service Description
Server operators may offer varying degrees of access depending on
policy and need. The following are some examples:
o users may be allowed access only to data for which they have a
relationship
o unauthenticated or anonymous access status may not yield any
contact information
o full access may be granted to a special group of authenticated
users
The types of access allowed by a server will most likely vary from
one operator to the next.
3.1.5 Client Processing
The protocol MUST be capable of allowing machine parsable requests
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
and responses.
3.1.6 Entity Referencing
There MUST be a mechanism for an entity contained within a server to
be referenced uniquely by an entry in another server.
3.1.7 Decentralization
3.1.7.1 Protocol Requirement
The protocol MUST NOT require the aggregation of data to a central
repository, server, or entity. The protocol MUST NOT require
aggregation of data indexes or hints to a central repository, server,
or entity.
3.1.7.2 Service Description
Some server operators may have a need to coordinate service in a mesh
or some other framework with other server operators. However, the
ability to operate a CRISP compliant server must not require this.
3.1.8 Authentication Distribution
3.1.8.1 Protocol Requirement
The protocol MUST NOT require any Internet registry to participate in
any authentication system. The protocol MUST NOT prohibit the
participation by an Internet registry in federated, distributed
authentication systems.
3.1.8.2 Service Description
Some server operators may have a need to delegate authentication to
another party or participate in a system where authentication
information is distributed. However, the ability to operate a CRISP
compliant server must not require this.
3.1.9 Base Error Responses
The protocol MUST be capable of returning the following types of non-
result or error responses to all lookups and searches:
o permission denied - a response indicating that the search or
lookup has failed due to insufficient authorization.
o not found - the desired results do not exist.
o insufficient resources - the search or lookup requires resources
that cannot be allocated.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
3.1.10 Query Distribution
3.1.10.1 Protocol Requirement
The protocol MUST NOT prohibit a server from participating in a query
distribution system.
3.1.10.2 Service Description
For lookups and searches requiring distribution of queries, the
client must be allowed to distribute these queries among the
participants in an established mesh of server operators. It is not a
requirement that the protocol enable the discovery of servers, but
cooperating servers should be able to intelligently handle
distribution with its established mesh. Individual server operators
will respond to all queries received according to their policies for
authentication, privacy, and performance.
However, the ability to operate a CRISP compliant server must not
require the participation in any query distribution system.
3.1.11 Protocol and Schema Versioning
3.1.11.1 Protocol Requirements
The protocol MUST provide a means by which the end-systems can either
identify or negotiate over the protocol version to be used for any
query or set of queries.
All resource-specific schemas MUST provide version identifier
attributes which uniquely and unambiguously identifies the version of
the schema being returned in the answer set to a query.
3.1.11.2 Service Description
The service should allow end-systems using different protocol
versions to fallback to a mutually supported protocol version. If
this is not possible, the service must provide a meaningful error
which indicates that this is the specific case.
The service must suggest negotiation and/or recovery mechanisms for
clients to use when an unknown schema version is received.
3.2 Internet Resource Number Specific Functions
These functions describe requirements specifically needed by Regional
Internet Registries (Section 2.1). No compliant server operator is
required to support the functions required by every registry type.
3.2.1 Lookups
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
Lookups are queries by unique identifiers resulting in zero or one
match.
3.2.1.1 Protocol Requirement
The protocol MUST be able to query for information relating to the
following kinds of objects:
1. IPv4 network address(es)
2. IPv6 network address(es)
3. Autonomous system number(s)
4. Contact
5. Organization
See Section 3.2.3 for the requirements regarding the expected return
values.
3.2.1.2 Service Description
These lookups are all single index queries, have a unique identifier
and should produce zero or only one entity.
Depending on the policy and need of an Internet registry, a server
operator may not allow all or any of these lookups to return part or
all of the information. See Section 3.2.3.
3.2.2 Searches
Searches are queries by attributes that may not be unique resulting
in zero, one or many matches.
3.2.2.1 Protocol Requirement
The protocol MUST contain the following search functions:
1. IPv4 address search given one or more contiguous IP address
numbers. This search SHOULD allow for both exact matching and
nested matching.
2. IPv6 address search given one or more contiguous IP address
numbers. This search SHOULD allow for both exact matching and
nested matching.
3. Autonomous system number search given one or more contiguous
numbers. This search SHOULD allow for both exact matching and
nested matching.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
4. Contact search by either exact name or partial name matching.
5. Organization search by either exact name or partial name matching.
See Section 3.2.3 for the requirements regarding the expected return
values.
3.2.2.2 Service Description
These searches may be multi-index queries and may produce zero, one
or many entities.
Depending on the policy and need of an Internet registry, a server
operator may not allow all or any of these searches to return part or
all of the information. See Section 3.1.4. Access to information
resulting from these searches may also be limited, depending on
policy, by quantity. Section 3.2.5 describes these types of
restrictions.
Some Internet registries may also be participating in a query
distribution system. See Section 3.1.10.
3.2.3 Information Sets
3.2.3.1 Protocol Requirements
The data sets for networks, autonomous systems, contacts, and
organizations MUST be able to express and represent the attributes
and allowable values of registered Internet resource number
registration and provisioning protocols.
The data set for networks, autonomous systems, organizations and
contacts MUST be able to express arbitrary textual information for
extensions on an individual operator basis. Examples of such
information are authorized use policies, extended status
notifications, marketing/for sale notices, and URI references to
other sources.
3.2.3.1.1 IP Address Network Return Values
The schema MUST be capable of expressing the following information
for IP address networks:
o range of IP addresses
o network type, for example, allocated or assigned
o contacts and the function/role served
o organization holding the address space
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
o reverse delegation information
o last updated date
o registry delegating the address space
3.2.3.1.2 Autonomous System Return Values
The schema MUST be capable of expressing the following information
for autonomous systems:
o range of autonomous system number(s)
o contacts and function/role served
o organization holding the resource
o last updated date
o registry delegating the resource
3.2.3.1.3 Contact Return Values
The schema MUST be capable of expressing the following information
for contacts:
o name of contact
o unique identifier
o postal address including country code
o telephone number(s), extension(s), and type
o e-mail address(es)
o last updated date
3.2.3.1.4 Organization Return Values
The schema MUST be capable of expressing the following information
for organizations:
o name of organization
o unique identifier
o postal address including country code
o contacts and function/role served
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 13]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
o last updated date
3.2.3.2 Service Description
It is not expected that every Internet registry supply all of the
information spelled out above, however the schemas employed by the
protocol must be capable of expressing this information should a
registry need to provide it.
The following sections describe requirements relative to the use of
schemas with respect to individual registry need and policy:
o Section 3.2.6
o Section 3.2.4
o Section 3.1.4
o Section 3.1.1
3.2.4 Result Set Limits
3.2.4.1 Protocol Requirement
The protocol MUST contain a feature, used at the discretion of a
server operator, to allow a server to express to a client a limit on
the number of results from searches and lookups. When returning
result sets, the protocol MUST be able to make the following
distinctions:
1. an empty result set.
2. a result set truncated for the purpose of improving performance
bottlenecks.
3. a result set truncated to comply with Section 3.1.1
3.2.4.2 Service Description
Client software will operate more usefully if it can understand
reasons for the truncation of result sets. Of course, some Internet
registries may not be able to expose their policies for the limiting
of result sets, but, when it is possible, clients will have a better
operational view. This may eliminate re-queries and other repeated
actions that are not desirable.
3.2.5 Distribution for Internet Resource Number Registry Types
3.2.5.1 Protocol Requirement
The protocol MUST NOT prohibit the distribution of data to exclude
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 14]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
any of the registry types stated in Section 2. The protocol MUST be
capable of expressing referrals and entity references between the
various registry types described in Section 2.
3.2.5.2 Service Description
An RIR will allocate IP address space to those registration entities
described in Section 2.2. These entities may be given the option to
store utilization within the RIR database, or establish their own
server to be referenced as needed. If the entity establishes their
own server, it must comple with the requirements of this document.
3.2.6 Data Omission
3.2.6.1 Protocol Requirement
When a value in an answer to a query cannot be given due to policy
constraints, the protocol MUST be capable of expressing the value in
one of three ways:
1. complete omission of the value without explanation
2. an indication that the value cannot be given due to insufficient
authorization
3. an indication that the value cannot be given due to privacy
constraints regardless of authorization status
The protocol MAY define other values for this purpose, but MUST
define values defined above at a minimum.
3.2.6.2 Service Description
Internet registries will have varying constraints regarding their
ability to expose certain types of data. Server operators must have
the ability to accommodate this need while client software will be
more useful when provided with proper explanations. Therefore,
depending on policy, a server operator has a choice between not
returning the data at all, signaling a permission error, or
indicating a privacy constraint.
3.2.7 Internationalization
The schema defining Internet number related resources MUST conform to
RFC 2277 [1] regarding textual data. In particular, the schema MUST
be able to indicate the charset and language in use with unstructured
textual data.
The protocol MAY be able to support multiple representations of
contact data, with these representations complying with the
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 15]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
requirements in Section 3.2.3. The protocol MUST be able to provide
contact data in UTF-8 and SHOULD be able to provide contact data in
US-ASCII, other character sets, and capable of specifying the
language of the data.
3.2.8 Privacy
The following sections describe requirements related to the privacy
of the data stored in the database:
o Section 3.1.4
o Section 3.1.1
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 16]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
4. Feature Requirements
Feature requirements describe the perceived need derived from the
functional requirements for specific technical criteria of the
directory service. This section describes requirements in the manner
specified in Section 1.3.
4.1 Client Authentication
Entities accessing the service (users) MUST be provided a mechanism
for passing credentials to a server for the purpose of
authentication. The protocol MUST provide a mechanism capable of
employing many authentication types and capable of extension for
future authentication types.
4.2 Referrals
To distribute queries for search continuations and to issue entity
references, the protocol MUST provide a referral mechanism.
4.3 Common Referral Mechanism
To distribute queries for search continuations and to issue entity
references, the protocol MUST define a common referral scheme and
syntax.
4.4 Structured Queries and Responses
To provide for machine consumption as well as human consumption, the
protocol MUST employ structured queries and responses.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 17]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
5. Internationalization Considerations
Requirements defined in this document MUST consider the best
practices spelled out in [1].
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 18]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
6. IANA Considerations
IANA consideration for any service meeting these requirements will
depend upon the technologies chosen and MUST be specified by any
document describing such a service.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 19]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
7. Security Considerations
This document contains requirements for the validation of
authenticated entities and the access of authenticated entities
compared with the access of non-authenticated entities. This
document does not define the mechanism for validation of
authenticated entities. Requirements defined in this document MUST
allow for the implementation of this mechanism according best common
practices.
The requirement in Section 3.1.4 must be weighed against other
requirements specifying search or lookup capabilities.
This document contains requirements for referrals and entity
references. Client implementations based on these requirements
SHOULD take proper care in the safe-guarding of credential
information when resolving referrals or entity references according
to best common practices.
This document contains requirements for the distribution of queries
among a mesh of participating service providers. Protocols proposed
to meet these requirements must be able to protect against the use of
that distribution system as a vector of distributed denial of service
attacks or unauthorized data mining.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 20]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
Normative References
[1] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages",
BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 21]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
Informative References
[3] Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
[4] Williamson, S., Kosters, M., Blacka, D., Singh, J. and K.
Zeilstra, "Referral Whois (RWhois) Protocol V1.5", RFC 2167,
June 1997.
[5] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M. and E. Feinler, "NICNAME/WHOIS", RFC
954, October 1985.
[6] Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP)
Requirements", draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-05, May 2003.
Editor's Address
Virginia Listman
American Registry for Internet Numbers
3635 Concorde Parkway, Suite 200
Chantilly, VA 20151
USA
Phone: +1 703 227 9870
EMail: ginny@arin.net
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 22]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
Appendix A. Glossary
o contact data: Data containing names and contact information (i.e.
postal addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses) of humans or
legal entities.
o operational data: Data necessary to the operation of networks and
network related services and items.
o RIR: Initials for "regional Internet registry."
o mining: In the context of this document, this term is specific to
data mining. This is a methodical process to obtain the contents
of directory service, usually as much as possible, not relevant to
any immediate operational Internet need. Data mining is often not
a practice welcomed by registry operators.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 23]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
B.1 Working Group
This document is a work item of the Cross-Registry Internet Service
Protocol (CRISP) Working Group in the Applications Area of the IETF.
Discussions for this working group are held on the email list ietf-
not43@lists.verisignlabs.com. To subscribe to this email list, send
email to ietf-not43-request@lists.verisignlabs.com with a subject
line of "subscribe". Archives of this list may be found out
http://lists.verisignlabs.com/pipermail/ietf-not43/.
B.2 Contributions
The contents of this document are the compiled requirements of the
four existing Regional Internet Registries: Asia Pacific Network
Information Centre (APNIC), the American Registry for Internet
Numbers (ARIN), the Latin American and Caribbean Internet Address
Registry (LACNIC) and Reseaux IP Europeens Network Coordination
Centre (RIPE NCC).
Specific comments, suggestions, and feedback of significant
substance have been provided by Tim Christensen, Shane Kerr, George
Michaelson, Cathy Murphy and Frederico Neves.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 24]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
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 assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 25]
Internet Draft crisp-internet-resource-number-requirements July 2003
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Listman, Editor Expires January 25, 2004 [Page 26]
