Network Working Group A. Newton
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
Expires: April 3, 2003 October 3, 2002
Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements
draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-01
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 April 3, 2003.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). 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 domain registries and the
common base requirements for extending the use of these services for
other types of Internet registries.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
Table of Contents
1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Internet Registry Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Domain Name System Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 Domain Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2 Domain Registrars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Other Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1 Regional Internet Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2 Local Internet Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3 Internet Routing Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.4 Incident Coordination Contact Registries . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.5 Network Edge Resource Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Implementers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 End Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.1 Service Providers and Network Operators . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.2 Intellectual Property Holders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.3 Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4.4 Certificate Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.5 DNS Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4.6 Domain Registrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Other Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 Base Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.1 Mining Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.2 Minimal Technical Reinvention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.3 Standard and Extensible Schemas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.4 Level of Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.5 Client Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.6 Entity Referencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.7 Decentralization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.8 Query of Access Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.9 Authentication Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 Domain Specific Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.1 Contact Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2 Nameserver Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.3 Domain Registrant Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.4 Domain Information Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.5 Nameserver Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.6 Escrow Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.7 Domain Name Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.8 Result Set Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.9 DNS Label Referencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.10 Distribution for Domain Registry Types . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Feature Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1 Client Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2 Referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3 Common Referral Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4 Structured Queries and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
4.5 Existing Schema Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.6 Defined Schemas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.7 Serialization Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A. Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B.1 Forums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B.2 Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
B.3 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
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[4] 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[3], to fulfill other
needs, and proposals for the use of other technologies such as
LDAP[1] and XML.
The scope of the requirements captured in this document relate to
the directory services of Internet registries and their related
communities (Section 2.3,Section 2.4, and Section 2.5). This scoping
specifically targets the requirements of domain name registries
(Section 2.1) while acknowledging extensibility needs for possible
future support of the requirements for other registry (Section 2.2)
types. The requirements are of both the current use of these
directory services and the desired functionality based on input from
relevant forums (Appendix B.1). These requirements are not specific
to any protocol. Terms used in the definition of requirements in
this document may be found in the glossary (Appendix A).
The requirements captured in this document are for the purpose of
designing technical specifications. The words used in this document
for compliance with RFC2119[8] do not reference or specify policy
and speak only to the capabilities in the derived technology. The
scope of the requirements in this document are also restricted to
access of data from Internet registries. Requirements for
modification, addition, or provisioning of data in Internet
registries are out of scope.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
2. Internet Registry Communities
The Internet registries are composed of various communities which
provide scope for the requirements in this document. These
communities can be generalized into the following categories:
registries, registrars, implementers, end-users, and other actors.
2.1 Domain Name System Registries
2.1.1 Domain Registries
Domain registries are responsible for the registration of domains
for use with DNS[2] and forward lookups (i.e. does not include the
IN-ADDR.ARPA or IP6.ARPA domains). These registries have typically
served two main domain functions: as the registry for a gTLD or as a
registry for a ccTLD. In some instances, one entity will operate
multiple TLD's, both of the gTLD and ccTLD type. A gTLD or ccTLD
domain registry operator may be a governmental entity,
non-governmental, non-commercial entity, or a commercial entity.
Some ccTLD's have second-level domain registrations similar in
nature to gTLD's or have distinctly separate entities operating
second-level domain registries similar in nature to gTLD's within
the ccTLD.
Domain registries usually follow one of two models for conducting
registrations of domains. The "thick" model is the more traditional
model. In a "thick" domain registry, the registry contains both the
operational data for the domain and the contact or social data
(Appendix A) for the domain. In this model, the registry is
typically the interface to the domain registrant but may also
interface with the domain registrant through domain registrars. The
"thin" model domain registry contains only operational data for
domains. In the "thin" model, contact or social data for the domain
are maintained by a domain registrar.
Domain registries not described in this section (Section 2.1.1) are
not the subject of this document and may have requirements that are
out of scope for this subject matter.
2.1.2 Domain Registrars
Domain registrars accept domain registrations from registrants on
behalf of domain registries, both "thick" and "thin". In a "thin"
model registry/registrar system, a domain registrar maintains the
contact and social data of a domain while the registry maintains the
operational data of a domain. In a "thick" model registry/registrar
system, a domain registrar passes both the operational data and
contact data to the registry. Domain registrars may register a
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
domain on behalf of a registrant in more than one domain registry.
2.2 Other Registries
2.2.1 Regional Internet Registries
Regional Internet Registries (RIR's) administer the allocation of IP
address space and autonomous system numbers. Each RIR serves a
specific geographic region, and collectively they service the entire
Internet. Each RIR is a membership-based, non-profit organization
that facilitates and implements global addressing policy based on
the direction of their regional community.
2.2.2 Local Internet Registries
Local Internet Registries (LIR's) and National Internet Registries
(NIR's) are sub-registries of RIR's and coordinate the same
functions of the RIR's for smaller, more specific geographic
regions, sovereign nations, and localities.
2.2.3 Internet Routing Registries
Internet Routing Registries are routing policy databases. Their
purpose is to provide information helpful in administering Internet
routers. Frequently, the syntax and contents are defined by RPSL[5].
IRR's are operated by academic, commercial, governmental, and other
types of organizations, including several of the RIR's. The contents
of the databases vary and reflect the needs of the users directly
served (e.g. an ISP may look up route entries added by their
customers to decide whether to accept specific route advertisements
they receive).
Unlike RIR and domain registry data, IRR data is often duplicated
between separate organizations. The IRR data has the unique
characteristics of being largely available through other sources
(i.e. it is advertised by the Internet routing protocols) and most
often having a common data format, RPSL.
2.2.4 Incident Coordination Contact Registries
Incident coordination contact registries allow operators of network
resources such as network infrastructure, network names, or network
services to register contact information for the purpose of
providing a means of incident notification. Using this type of
registry, an operators of network resources are provided information
for contacting the operator of another network resource from which
an incident may be occurring.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
2.2.5 Network Edge Resource Registries
Network edge resource registries provide specific information about
"edge" resources. They are administered by the operators of the
resources. Examples of such registries are rwhois[3] servers
operated by networks to describe the assignment of address space
allocated by RIR's or LIR's and whois[4] servers operated by
networks to specifically announce routing policy of that network.
2.3 Implementers
Implementers of client software are often either affiliated with
large network operators, registry operators, or commercial entities
offering value-added services, or are general citizens of the
Internet. Much of the client software for use with the directory
services of Internet registries is either freely available, open
source, or both, or available as a service. Implementers of server
software are often affiliated with operators or commercial entities
specializing in the out-sourcing of development for Internet
registries.
2.4 End Users
2.4.1 Service Providers and Network Operators
Service providers and network operators provide connectivity,
routing, and naming services to many other entities, some commercial
and some non-commercial, both large and small. Their operational and
administrative staff often interact with Internet registries on
behalf of other end-users. Service providers and network operators
interact with all of the Internet registry operators outlined in
this document on a frequent and consistent basis. For example,
network operators use the directory services of Internet registries
to determine contact information for network resources that have
technical problems.
2.4.2 Intellectual Property Holders
Intellectual Property Holders have legal rights to the use of domain
names based on copyright and trademark laws of various governments.
They use the directory services of Internet registries, mostly
domain registries and registrars, for purposes of maintaining and
defending claims to domain names consistent with applicable laws and
regulations.
2.4.3 Law Enforcement
Law enforcement agencies use the directory services of Internet
registries to find information used to carry out the enforcement of
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
laws within their jurisdictions.
2.4.4 Certificate Authorities
Certificate authorities use the directory services of Internet
registries as part of their verification process when issuing
certificates for Internet named hosts.
2.4.5 DNS Users
Users of the Internet have client software that resolves domain
names to IP addresses. Often when trouble occurs in the resolution
process of DNS, these users trouble shoot system problems with the
aid of information from the directory services of Internet
registries.
2.4.6 Domain Registrants
Entities given authority over a domain via purchase, lease, or grant
from a domain registry, either directly or via the services of a
domain registrar.
2.5 Other Actors
Requirements must also consider the positions and policies of other
actors on the use of Internet registry directory services by other
actors. These actors include governments, non-governmental
policy-setting bodies, and other non-governmental organizations.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
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 access to its respective
customers, members, or other constituents. This section makes
reference to terms and definitions declared in Appendix A. This
section makes use of the term "service" to denote the set of
functions to be provided by, and the expected behavior of, software
built to meet these requirements in one or more protocols.
These requirements are for the purpose of designing a technical
specification. The words used in this section are for compliance
with RFC2119[8], do not reference or specify policy, and speak only
to the capabilities in the derived technology.
3.1 Base Functions
This section describes basic service requirements for an Internet
registry service for any of the registries (domain name registries
(Section 2.1) and other registries (Section 2.2)). Additional
requirements, specific to domain registries, are described in Domain
Specific Functions (Section 3.2).
3.1.1 Mining Prevention
The service MUST have a mechanism to limit the amount of data that
may be accessed. The service MAY have different limits for different
types of data, as well as for authenticated and non-authenticated
entities. The service SHOULD be capable of expressing to the client
these access limitations based on queries per session per unit of
time, queries per source IP address per unit of time, and total
queries from all client sessions per unit of time. The service
SHOULD be able to limit the amount of data based on the above types
of limitations.
3.1.2 Minimal Technical Reinvention
The service MUST NOT employ unique technology solutions for all
aspects and layers above the network and transport layers of the
total service solution and SHOULD make use of existing technology
standards where applicable. The service MUST employ the use of
network and transport layer standards as defined by the Internet
Engineering Task Force. The service MUST define one or more
transport mechanisms for mandatory implementation.
3.1.3 Standard and Extensible Schemas
The service MUST define standard schemas for the exchange of data
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
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
internationalized data element labels
3.1.4 Level of Access
The service MUST allow the classification of data as being either
privileged or non-privileged, for the purpose of restricting access
to privileged data. Note that this requirement makes no assumption
or prescription as to what data (social or operational) might be
considered privileged, but merely provides the ability to make the
classification as necessary.
The service MUST be capable of serving both privileged and
non-privileged data.
The service MUST be capable of authenticating privileged entities
and ensuring that only those entities have access to both privileged
and non-privileged data.
The service MUST be capable of providing access to non-privileged
data without requiring authentication of any type (i.e. anonymous
access).
3.1.5 Client Processing
The service MUST be capable of allowing machine parsable requests
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
The service MUST be decentralized in design and principle and MUST
NOT require the aggregation of data to a central repository, server,
or entity. The service MAY allow for the optional aggregation of
data indexes or hints. The service MUST NOT require aggregation of
data indexes or hints.
3.1.8 Query of Access Levels
If a query cannot yield a valid response due to insufficient
permissions, the service MUST provide the client with an error
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
response indicating this condition. The service SHOULD NOT provide a
mechanism allowing a client to determine if a query will be denied
before the query is submitted.
It is the intent of this requirement for clients to learn of
inadequate permission status for a query only after the query has
been submitted. Operating modes allowing a client to predetermine
the queries that will or will not be denied are not encouraged for
security considerations.
3.1.9 Authentication Distribution
The service MUST NOT require any Internet registries to participate
in any particular distributed authentication system. The service
SHOULD allow the participation by an Internet registry in
distributed authentication by many centralized authorities.
3.2 Domain Specific Functions
These functions describe requirements specifically needed by domain
registries (Section 2.1.1) and domain registrars (Section 2.1.2).
Requirements specific to other registries (Section 2.2) MUST be
specified separately. No compliant service entity is required to
support the functions required by every registry type.
3.2.1 Contact Lookup
The service MUST allow access to social data of contact entities
given a unique reference to the contact entity. The contact
information set MUST be able to express and represent the attributes
and allowable values of contact registration requests in domain
registration and provisioning protocols.
3.2.2 Nameserver Lookup
The service MUST allow access to operational and social data of a
nameserver given the fully-qualified host name or IP address of a
nameserver. The host information set MUST be able to express and
represent the attributes and allowable values of nameservers in
domain registration and provisioning protocols.
3.2.3 Domain Registrant Search
The service MUST provide the capability of searching for registrants
by exact name match or a reasonable name subset. This search must
comply with Section 3.2.8.
The service MUST provide a mechanism to distribute this search
across all applicable domain registries and registrars. The service
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
SHOULD have a means to narrow the scope of a search to a specific
TLD. The service MUST be able to specify to the client an empty
result set should the search yield no results.
3.2.4 Domain Information Lookup
The service MUST provide access to operational and social data
specific to a domain given the domain's fully qualified name (FQDN).
The service MUST be capable of supplying the following information
for this lookup:
o activation status
o registrant name and contact data
o hosting nameservers
o technical, billing or other entity types associated with the
domain and their relevant contact data, if any exist
o the name of or a reference to the registry delegating the domain
o the name of or a reference to the registrar for the domain, if
one exists
The domain information set MUST be able to express and represent the
attributes and allowable values of domain registration requests in
domain registration and provisioning protocols.
3.2.5 Nameserver Search
The service MAY allow the ability to list all domains hosted by a
specific nameserver given the fully-qualified host name or IP
address, if applicable, of the nameserver. The service MAY provide a
mechanism to distribute this search across all applicable domain
registries and registrars.
3.2.6 Escrow Support
The service MUST provide a means to escrow data of domain registrars
to an escrow entity using a common schema. This escrow capability
SHOULD be "off-line" and "out-of-band" from the normal operations of
the service.
3.2.7 Domain Name Search
The service MUST allow searching for domains by exact name match or
a reasonable subset of a domain name. This search SHOULD allow for
parameters and qualifiers designed to allow better matching of
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
internationalized domain names and SHOULD allow for both exact and
partial matching within the limits of internationalized domain
names. The service SHOULD NOT require special transformations of
internationalized domain names to accommodate this search. This
search MUST comply with Section 3.2.8.
The service MUST provide a mechanism to distribute this search
across all applicable domain registries and registrars. There should
be a means to narrow this search based on a TLD.
The search mechanism SHOULD provide for differences in domain names
between the native representation and the canonical form existing in
the registry.
3.2.8 Result Set Limits
The service MAY provide limits to the number of results from
searches and lookups to improve performance bottlenecks or comply
with Section 3.1.1. The service MUST be capable of providing to the
client an indication that a result set has been truncated or
limited. The service MUST be capable of distinguishing the cause of
this condition as either a mechanism to improve performance
bottlenecks, as specified above, or a means of compliance with
Section 3.1.1.
3.2.9 DNS Label Referencing
The service MUST use DNS[2] to determine the authoritative source of
information about domain names. It is the intention of this
requirement that a client be able to determine via DNS and query the
servers or set of servers of the domain registry delegating the
domain name, the domain registrar responsible for registering the
domain name if one is applicable, and the domain registrant of the
domain name. The service SHOULD provide procedures or mechanisms to
allow this determination if it cannot be done using DNS. This allows
the service to operate when an operator chooses not to take
advantage of DNS label referencing and during periods of transient
or erroneous state of DNS configuration.
3.2.10 Distribution for Domain Registry Types
The service MUST allow for the various registration distribution
models of domain registry types described in Section 2.1.1 while
complying with Section 3.1.7.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
4. Feature Requirements
Feature requirements describe the perceived need derived from the
functional requirements for specific technical criteria of the
directory service. This section makes references to terms and
definitions declared in Appendix A . This section uses the term
"service" to denote the set of features to be provided by, and the
expected behavior of, software built to meet these requirements in
one or more protocols.
These requirements are for the purpose of designing a technical
specification. The words used in this section are for compliance
with RFC2119[8], do not reference or specify policy, and speak only
to the capabilities in the derived technology.
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 service 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 service MUST provide a referral mechanism.
4.3 Common Referral Mechanism
To distribute queries for search continuation and to issue entity
references, the service 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
service MUST employ structured queries and responses.
4.5 Existing Schema Language
To provide structured queries and responses and allow for minimal
technological reinvention, the service MUST employ a pre-existing
schema language.
4.6 Defined Schemas
To provide for machine consumption as well as human consumption, the
service MUST define schemas for use by the structured queries and
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
responses.
4.7 Serialization Definition
To provide for data escrow and allow for minimal technological
reinvention, the service MUST employ a pre-existing serialization
specification.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
5. Internationalization Considerations
Requirements defined in this document MUST consider the best
practices spelled out in [6].
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
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.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
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.
In addition, 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.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
References
[1] Wahl, M., Howes, T. and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (v3)", RFC 2251, December 1997.
[2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[3] Williamson, S., Kosters, M., Blacka, D., Singh, J. and K.
Zeilstra, "Referral Whois (RWhois) Protocol V1.5", RFC 2167,
June 1997.
[4] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M. and E. Feinler, "NICNAME/WHOIS", RFC
954, October 1985.
[5] Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D. and M. Terpstra, "Routing
Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622, June 1999.
[6] Alvestrand, H.T., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
[7] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
2535, March 1999.
[8] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[9] <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/00dec/00dec-41.htm>
[10] <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01aug/51-40.htm>
[11] <http://www.uwho.verisignlabs.com/Final-WhoIsPanel-Aug15-Resume
.pdf>
[12] <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/minutes/min_
database.html>
[13] <http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0110/lookup.html>
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
Author's Address
Andrew L. Newton
VeriSign, Inc.
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, VA 20166
USA
Phone: +1 703 948 3382
EMail: anewton@verisignlabs.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
Appendix A. Glossary
o TLD: Initials for "top level domain." Referes to domains in
DNS[2]that are hierarchically at the level just beneath the root.
o ccTLD: Initials for "country code top level domain." TLD's which
use one of the two character country codes defined by ISO.
o gTLD: Initials for "generic top level domain." TLD's that do not
use one of the two character country codes defined by ISO.
o social 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 IRR: Initials for "Internet routing registry."
o authenticated entity: A person, or person acting on behalf of an
organization, who has provided validatable credentials of
identification via client software to the directory service of an
Internet registry.
o non-authenticated entity: A person, or person acting on behalf of
an organization, who has not provided validatable credentials of
identification via client software to the directory service of an
Internet registry.
o privileged entity: A person, or person acting on behalf of an
organization, with authorization to access data.
o non-privileged entity: A person, or person acting on behalf on an
organization, with no authorization to access data.
o privileged data: Data accessible by a privileged entities.
o non-privileged data: Data accessible by privileged entities and
non-privileged entities.
o forward lookup: a DNS lookup where a domain name is resolved to
an IP address.
o reverse lookup: a DNS lookup where an IP address is resolved to a
domain name.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
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 need. Data mining is often not a practice
welcomed by registry operators.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
B.1 Forums
The proceedings of the following public forums were used as input to
the scope and requirements for this document:
o whois BOF of the 49th IETF[9]; December 10-15, 2000; San Diego,
CA, USA
o whoisfix BOF of the 51st IETF[10]; August 5-10, 2001; London,
England
o First UWho Consultation[11]; August 15, 2001; Washington, DC, USA
o Second UWho Consultation; November 15, 2001; Marina del Rey, CA,
USA
o Third UWho Consultation; November 19, 2001; Washington, DC, USA
o DNR WG of RIPE 40, October 1-5, 2001; Praque, Czech Republic
o Database WG of RIPE 40[12]; October 1-5, 2001; Praque, Czech
Republic
o General Session of NANOG 23[13]; October 21-23; Oakland, CA, USA
o DNR WG of RIPE 41, January 14-18, 2002; Amsterdam, The Netherlands
o Database WG of RIPE 41, January 14-18, 2002; Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
o NANOG 24 Universal Whois BOF, February 10-12, 2002; Miami, Florida
o CENTR General Assembly, February 21-22, 2002; Rambouillet, France
o CRISP BOF of the 53rd IETF, March 17-22, 2002, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA
B.2 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/.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
B.3 Contributions
Comments, suggestions, and feedback of significant substance have
been provided by Leslie Daigle, Mark Kosters, Ted Hardie, Shane
Kerr, and Cathy Murphy.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft crisp-requirements October 2002
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). 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.
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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Newton Expires April 3, 2003 [Page 25]
