Network Working Group M.M. Mealling
Internet-Draft Network Solutions, Inc.
Expires: January 12, 2001 July 14, 2000
Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
draft-ietf-urn-ddds-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 12, 2001.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes a the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System or
DDDS which, when applied to a unique string will produce a series of
rules that describe the various delegations that may exist based on
the syntax of that string. Since the DDDS is an abstract algorithm,
this specification does not define either an application or a rule
database.
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Components of a Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Substitution Expression Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3 The Complete Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Specifying An Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Specifying A Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1 An Automobile Parts Identification System . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2 A Document Identification Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
1. Introduction
The Dynamic Delegation Discovery System is used to map some unique
string to data stored within the DDDS by iteratively applying string
transformation rules until a terminal condition is reached. This
document describes the general algorithm, not any particular
application or usage scenario. It is up to other documents to
describe how they use the DDDS algorithms.
The DDDS's history is an evolution from work done by the Uniform
Resource Name Working Group. When Uniform Resource Names[1] were
originally formulated there was the desire to locate an
authoritative server for a URN which by design contained no
information about network locations. A system was formulated that
could use a database of rules that could be applied to a URN to find
out information about specific chunks of syntax. This system was
originally called the Resolver Discovery System[2] and only applied
to URNs.
Over time other systems began to apply this same algorithm and
infrastructure to other, non-URN related, systems. This caused some
of the underlying assumptions to change and need clarification. This
document, which is one of a series, is an update of those original
URN specifications in order to allow new applications and rule
databases to be developed in a standardized manner.
A direct result of these clarifications and generalizations is that
this document, along with [4] and [5], obsoletes RFC 2168[6] and
updates RFC 2276[2].
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Application Unique String
A string that is the target of the rewrite rules. Each possible
value of the string must be unique within the space for which it
is valid in order for the rewrite rules to apply.
Rewrite Rule
An object containing several pieces of data that, when combined
and applied to an Application Unique String, produces a new key
that exists in the Rule Database. Also simply known as a Rule.
First Well Known Rule
This is a rewrite rule that is defined by the application and not
actually in the Rule Database. It is used to produce the first
valid key.
Terminal Rule
This Rule is one where the Flags specify that the iterative
process is over and that the output of applying this Rule to the
Application Unique String will be the intended output of the
entire process.
Application
A set of protocols and specifications that specify actual values
for the various generalized parts of the DDDS algorithm. An
Application must define the syntax and semantics of the
Application Unique String, the First Well Known Rule, and which
Databases are valid for the Application.
Database
Any store of Rules such that a unique key can identify a set of
Rules that specify the delegation step used when that particular
Key is used.
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
3. The Algorithm
The DDDS algorithm is based on the concept of Rewrite Rules. These
rules are given unique Keys that are collected into a database that
is known as a DDDS Rule Database. A given Rule, when applied to an
Application Unique String, transforms that String into new Key that
can be used to retrieve a new Rule from the Rule Database. This new
rule is then re-applied to the original Application Unique String
and the cycle repeats itself until a terminating condition is
reached.
3.1 Components of a Rule
A Rule is made up of 4 pieces of information:
A Priority
Simply a number used to show which of two otherwise equal rules
may have precedence. This allows the database to express rules
that are equivalent but weighted for load balancing reasons.
A set of Flags
Flags are used to specify attributes of the rule that determine
if this rule is the last one to be applied. The last rule is
called the terminal rule and its output should be the intended
result for the application.
A description of Services
Services are used to specify attributes of a particular
delegation branch. For example, two rules may equally apply to a
specific delegation decision for a string. One rule can lead to a
terminal rule that produces information for use in high
availability environments while another may lead to an archival
service that may be slower but is more stable over long periods
of time.
A Substitution Expression
This is the actual string modification part of the rule. It is a
combination of a POSIX Extended Regular Expression[3] and a
replacement string similar to SED search-replace function. See
Section 3.2.
3.2 Substitution Expression Syntax
The syntax of the Substitution Expression part of the rule is a
sed-style substitution expression. True sed(1) substitution
expressions are not appropriate for use in this application for a
variety of reasons, therefore the contents of the regexp field MUST
follow this grammar:
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
subst_expr = delim-char ere delim-char repl delim-char *flags
delim-char = "/" / "!" / ... (Any non-digit or non-flag character.
All ocurances of a delim_char in a subst_expr must
be the same character.)
ere = POSIX Extended Regular Expression
repl = string / backref / repl string / repl backref
string = anychar escapeddelim / escapeddelim anychar
anychar = ; any character other than delim-char
escapeddelim = "\" delim-char
backref = "\" POS_DIGIT
flags = "i"
POS_DIGIT = "1" / "2" / "3" / "4" / "5" / "6" / "7" / "8" / "9"
The result of applying the substitution expression to the String
MUST result in a key which obeys the rules of the Database. Since it
is possible for the regular expression to be improperly specified,
such that a non-conforming key can be constructed, client software
SHOULD verify that the result is a legal database key before using
it.
Backref expressions in the repl portion of the substitution
expression are replaced by the (possibly empty) string of characters
enclosed by '(' and ')' in the ERE portion of the substitution
expression. N is a single digit from 1 through 9, inclusive. It
specifies the N'th backref expression, the one that begins with the
N'th '(' and continues to the matching ')'. For example, the ERE
(A(B(C)DE)(F)G)
has backref expressions:
\1 = ABCDEFG
\2 = BCDE
\3 = C
\4 = F
\5..\9 = error - no matching subexpression
The "i" flag indicates that the ERE matching SHALL be performed in a
case-insensitive fashion. Furthermore, any backref replacements MAY
be normalized to lower case when the "i" flag is given.
The first character in the substitution expression shall be used as
the character that delimits the components of the substitution
expression. There must be exactly three non-escaped occurrences of
the delimiter character in a substitution expression. Since escaped
occurrences of the delimiter character will be interpreted as
occurrences of that character, digits MUST NOT be used as
delimiters. Backrefs would be confused with literal digits were this
allowed. Similarly, if flags are specified in the substitution
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
expression, the delimiter character must not also be a flag
character.
3.3 The Complete Algorithm
The following is the exact DDDS algorithm:
1. The First Well Known Rule is applied to the Application Unique
String which produces a Key
2. That Application asks the Database for the ordered set of Rules
that are bound to that Key
3. The Substitution Expression of each Rule in the list of Rules is
applied to the String in the order in which they were received.
In some applications and/or databases the result set can express
the case where two or more Rules are considered equal. These
Rules are treated as the same Rule, each one possibly having a
Priority which is used to weight a random selection among the
equivalent Rules (this allows for Rules to 'load balance'
themselves).
4. The first/next Rule with a Substitution Expression that produces
anything other than the empty string is examined to see if the
parameters in the Services part of the Rule meet the
requirements of the Application.
5. If the parameters in the Service part of the Rule do not match
those required by the Application then go back to Step 4.
6. If the Flags part of the Rule designate that this Rule is
Terminal, then apply the Substitution Expression to the String
and then go to Step 8.
7. Apply the Substitution Expression to the String. The output of
this rewrite becomes the new Key. To begin the next iteration,
return to Step 2 and use this new Key as the Key in that step.
8. Notify the Application that the process has finished and provide
the Application with the Flags and Services part of the Rule
along with the output of the last Substitution Expression.
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
4. Specifying An Application
In order for this algorithm to have any usefulness, a specification
must be written describing an application and one or more databases.
In order to specify an application the following pieces of
information are required:
Application Unique String:
This is the original string that the rewrite rules will apply to.
The string must have some regular structure and be unique within
the application such that anyone applying Rules taken from the
same Database will end up with the same Keys. For example, the
URI Resolution application would define the Application Unique
String to be a URI.
No application is allowed to define an Application Unique String
such that the Key obtained by a rewrite rule is treated as the
Application Unique String for input to a new rule. This leads to
sendmail style rewrite rules which are fragile and error prone.
First Well Known Rule:
This is the first rule that, when applied to the Application
Unique String, produces the first valid Key. It can be expressed
in the same form as a Rule or it can be something more complex.
For example, the URI Resolution application might specify that
the rule is that the sequence of characters in the URI up to but
not including the first colon (the URI scheme) is the first Key.
Valid Databases:
The application can define which Databases are valid. For each
Database the Application must define how the First Well Known
Rule's output (the first Key) is turned into something that is
valid for that Database. For example, the URI Resolution
application could use the Domain Name System (DNS) as a Database.
The operation for turning this first Key into something that was
valid for the database would be to to turn it into some DNS-valid
domain-name.
Expected Output:
The Application must define what the expected output of the
Terminal Rule should be. For example, the URI Resolution
application is concerned with finding servers that contain
authoritative data about a given URI. Thus the output of the
terminal rule would be information (hosts, ports, protocols, etc)
that would be used to contact that authoritative server.
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
5. Specifying A Database
Additionally, any Application must have at least one corresponding
Database from which to retrieve the Rules. A Database specification
must include the following pieces of information:
General Specification:
The Database must have a general specification. This can
reference other standards (SQL, DNS, etc) or it can fully specify
a novel database system.
Lookup Procedure:
This specifies how a query is formulated and submitted to the
database. In the case of databases that are used for other
purposes (such as DNS), the specification must be clear as to how
a query is formulated specifically for the database to be a DDDS
database. For example, a DNS based Database must specify which
Resource Records or Query Types are used.
Key Format:
If any operations are needed in order to turn a Key into
something that is valid for the database then these must be
clearly defined. For example, in the case of a DNS database, the
Keys must be constructed as valid domain-names.
Rule Format:
The specification for the output format of a rule.
Rule Insertion Procedure:
A specification for how a Rule is inserted into the database.
This can include policy statements about whether or not a Rule is
allowed to be added.
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
6. Examples
The examples given here are for pedagogical purposes only. They are
specifically taken from fictious applications that have not been
specified in any published document.
6.1 An Automobile Parts Identification System
In this example imagine a system setup where by all automobile
manufacturers come together and create a standardized part numbering
system for the various parts (nuts, bolts, frames, instruments, etc)
that make up the automobile manufacturing and repair process. The
problem with such a system is that the auto industry is a very
distributed system where parts are built by various third parties
distributed around the world. In order to find information about a
given part a system must be able to find out who makes that part and
contact them about it.
To facilitate this distributed system the identification number
assigned to a part is assigned hierarchically such that the first 5
digits make up a parts manufacturer ID number. The next 3 digits are
an auto line identifier (Ford, Toyota, etc). The rest of the digits
are assigned by the parts manufacturer according to rules that the
manufacturer decides.
The auto industry decides to use the DDDS to create a distributed
information retrieval system that routes queries to the actual owner
of the data. The industry specifies a database and a query syntax
for retrieving rewrite rules (the APIDA Network) and then specifies
the Auto Parts Identification DDDS Application (APIDA).
The APIDA specification would define the following:
o Application Unique String: the part number
o First Well Known Rule: take the first 5 digits (the manufacturers
ID number) and use that as the Key
o Valid Databases: The APIDA Network
o Expected Output: EDIFAC information about the part
The APIDA Network Database specification would define the following:
o General Specification: a network of EDI enabled databases and
services that, when given a subcomponent of a part number will
return an XML encoded rewrite rule
o Lookup Procedure: following normal APIDA Network protocols, ask
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
the network for a rewrite rule for the Key.
o Key Format: no conversion is required
o Rule Format: see APIDA Network documentation for the XML DTD
o Rule Insertion Procedure: determined by the authority that has
control over each section of the part number. I.e. in order to
get a manufacturer ID you must be a member of the Auto Parts
Manufacturers Association
In order to illustrate how the system would work, imagine the part
number "4747301AB7D". The system would take the first 5 digits,
'47473' and ask the network for that Rewrite Rule. This Rule would
be provided by the parts manufacturers database and would allow the
manufacturer to either further sub-delegate the space or point the
querier directly at the EDIFAC information in the system.
In this example lets suppose that the manufacturer returns a Rule
that states that the next 3 digits should be used as part of a query
to their service in order to find a new Rule. This new Rule would
allow the parts manufacturer to further delegate the query to their
parts factories for each auto line. In our example part number the
number '01A' denotes the Toyota line of cars. The Rule that the
manufacturer returns further delegates the query to a supply house
in Japan. This rule also denotes that this Rule is terminal and thus
the result of this last query will be the actual information about
the part.
6.2 A Document Identification Service
This example is very similar to the last since the documents in this
system can simply be thought of as the auto part in the last
example. The difference here is that the information about the
document is kept very close to the author (usually on their
desktop). Thus there is the probability that the number of
delegations can be very deep. Also, in order to keep from having a
large flat space of authors, the authors are organized by
organizations and departments.
Let's suppose that the Application Unique String in this example
looks like the following:
The Application specification would look like this:
o Application Unique String: the Document ID string given above
o First Well Known Rule: the characters up to but not including the
first '-' is treated as the first Key.
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
o Valid Databases: the DIS LDAP Directory
o Expected Output: a record from an LDAP server containing
bibliographic information about the document in XML
The Database specification for the DIS LDAP Directory would look
like this:
o General Specification: the Database uses the LDAP directory
service. Each LDAP server has a record that contains the Rewrite
Rule. Rules refer to other LDAP servers using the LDAP URL scheme.
o Lookup Procedure: using standard LDAP queries, the client asks
the LDAP server for information about the Key.
o Key Format: no conversion is necessary.
o Rule Format: See the LDAP Rewrite Rule specification
o Rule Insertion Procedure: See the procedures published by the
entity that has authority over that section of the DIS tree. The
first section, the organization, is owned by the DIS Agency.
In this example, the first lookup is for the organization's Rule. At
that point the organization may point the client directly at some
large, organization wide database that contains the expected output.
Other organizations may decentralize this process so that Rules end
up delegating the query all the way down to the authors document
management environment of choice.
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
References
[1] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.
[2] Sollins, K., "Architectural Principles of Uniform Resource Name
Resolution", RFC 2276, January 1998.
[3] The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE
Standard for Information Technology - Portable Operating System
Interface (POSIX) - Part 2: Shell and Utilities (Vol. 1)", IEEE
Std 1003.2-1992, ISBN 1-55937-255-9, January 1993.
[4] Mealling, M.M., "A DDDS Database Using The Domain Name System",
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-00.txt, May
2000.
[5] Mealling, M.M., "URI Resolution using the Dynamic Delegation
Discovery System", Internet-Draft
draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-00.txt, July 2000.
[6] Danie1, R. and M. Mealling, "Resolution of Uniform Resource
Identifiers using the Domain Name System", RFC 2168, June 1997.
Author's Address
Michael Mealling
Network Solutions, Inc.
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 22070
US
Phone: +1 770 935 5492
EMail: michaelm@netsol.com
URI: http://www.netsol.com
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DDDS July 2000
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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 implmentation 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.
Mealling Expires January 12, 2001 [Page 14]
