Network Working Group A. Newton
Internet-Draft L. Daigle
Expires: December 11, 2003 VeriSign, Inc.
June 12, 2003
Cohabitation of the Nicname/Whois Protocol with the CRISP Protocol
draft-newton-whois-crisp-cohabitation-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 December 11, 2003.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes a method to allow an Internet registry
operate both a nicname/whois service side-by-side with a CRISP
service in a coherent and well understood manner. This document does
not attempt to alter the nicname/whois protocol to meet this goal,
nor does it attempt to make CRISP backwards-compatible with current
nicname/whois deployments.
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The NAPSTR Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Example uses of NAPSTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Server Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1 Direct Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2 Bottom-Up Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1 Bottom-Up for Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2 Bottom-Up for IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3 Top-Down Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.1 Top-Down for Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2 Top-Down for IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 18
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
1. Introduction
Many Internet registries operate nicname/whois services (RFC 954
[4]). However, nicname/whois is an old protocol and does not fulfill
many of the needs that Internet registries have acquired over the
last 20 years. To meet these new needs, Internet registries will
likely deploy a new protocol meeting the CRISP [1] requirements. So
it is likely that there will be a need for dual operations by some
Internet registries of both nicname/whois services and CRISP
compliant services.
This document describes a method to allow Internet registries a more
coherent approach to operating both protocols. This is accomplished
by the use of NAPSTR [3] to provide a unified means for both nicname/
whois clients and CRISP clients to find and negotiate which protocol
they are capable of using.
Because NAPSTR is a mapping at the DNS layer, this requires no
modification to the nicname/whois protocol itself. Clients not
embracing this approach will still be able to communicate with
current nicname/whois servers, and nicname/whois servers will require
no modification.
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
2. The NAPSTR Profile
NAPSTR [3] allows for the distinctions between types of services.
Because nicname/whois is used by various types of Internet
registries, NAPSTR could be used to distinguish between them.
Therefore, this document defines two NAPSTR application service
labels:
o XP-DN
o XP-IP
Because the service field, of which this label is just one of many
components, is limited to 32 characters, this label is purposefully
meaningful but short. Here, "XP" is short for "CRISP", "DN" is short
for "Domain Names", and "IP" is short for "Internet Protocol
Addresses".
The application service label indicating a service responsible for
domain names MUST be "XP-DN". The application service label
indicating a service responsible for Internet Protocol addresses MUST
be "XP-IP".
While nicname/whois is used for far more than just these two types of
services, this document only defines the use of NAPSTR for these
services. This does not preclude other documents from specifying
those services in the manner described here.
Finally, NAPSTR requires the registration of application protocol
labels to satisfy its use. The application protocol label for
nicname/whois [4] MUST be "whois". For the sake of describing
examples, this document will use the application protocol label
"crispy" to describe the protocol compliant with CRISP [1].
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
3. Example uses of NAPSTR
This section shows an example use of NAPSTR [3] as described by this
document in various scenarios. NAPSTR offers the following:
1. If an operator serves to clients both domain name registration
information and IP address registration information, NAPSTR
allows an operator to split out the set of servers running XP-DN
from the set of servers running XP-IP. This is to say, the
operator is able to split out the set of servers serving up data
for XP-DN from the set of servers serving up data for XP-IP.
2. NAPSTR allows an operator to specify which set of servers are
running whois from the set of servers running crispy. This is to
say, the operator is able to split out the set of servers running
protocol whois serving XP-DN and/or XP-IP data from the set of
servers running protocol crispy serving XP-DN and/or XP-IP data.
3. NAPSTR allows an operator to specify which set of the servers to
operate and which set of the above servers to delegate to another
operator.
To implement the first feature, the operator deploys the following in
their DNS zone:
example.com.
;; order pref flags service re replacement
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "XP-DN:whois:crispy" "" example.com.
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "XP-IP:whois:crispy" "" example.com.
To implement the second feature, the operator then adds the following
in their DNS zone:
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
example.com.
;; order pref flags service re replacement
IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "XP-DN:whois" "" _whois._tcp.example.com.
IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "XP-DN:crispy" "" _crispy._tcp.example.com.
_whois._tcp.example.com.
;; pref weight port target
IN SRV 10 0 34 big-whois.example.com.
IN SRV 20 0 34 small-whois.example.com.
_crispy._tcp.example.com.
;; pref weight port target
IN SRV 10 0 34 big-crispy.example.com.
IN SRV 20 0 34 small-crispy.example.com.
Finally, an operator may decide to operate the XP-DN services while
delegating the XP-IP services to somebody else. Here is how that is
done:
example.com.
;; order pref flags service re replacement
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "XP-DN:whois:crispy" "" example.com.
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "XP-IP:whois:crispy" "" somebodyelse.com.
Or the operator may decide to operate XP-IP services under the whois
protocol/transport while delegating the XP-IP services under the
crispy protocol/transport to somebody else.
example.com.
;; order pref flags service re replacement
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "XP-IP:whois:crispy" "" example.com.
IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "XP-IP:whois" "" _whois._tcp.example.com.
IN NAPTR 100 10 "s" "XP-IP:crispy" "" _crispy._tcp.somebodyelse.com.
_whois._tcp.example.com.
;; pref weight port target
IN SRV 10 0 34 big-whois.example.com.
IN SRV 20 0 34 small-whois.example.com.
Note that while this last example is possible, it is probably not
advisable because of the operational issues involved in synchronizing
the data between example.com and somebodyelse.com. It is provided
here as an example of what is possible.
The process used by the client to determine the address of a server
is as follows:
1. The client requests all the NAPTR records for the target DNS
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
label.
2. For the NAPSTR use of NAPTR RRs, the NAPTR regexp field will
always be empty. Therefore, the client ignores all NAPTR RRs
with anything in the regexp field, or flags that are not defined
for use in NAPSTR.
3. From the remaining NAPTR records, the client selects the
lowest-order NAPTR record with the desired application service
(e.g., "XP-DN"). An empty flag field indicates the next lookup
should be for a NAPTR record (as opposed to SRV, or A, etc...).
The replacement field is used as the label for which the NAPTR
records are retrieved.
4. From here, the client follows the NAPTR record for the
application service using the desired application protocol from
the original list of application protocols given for that service
type (e.g. "XP-DN:crispy").
5. Since the matching NAPTR record has "s" in the flag field, the
next lookup is for SRV records using the value of the replacement
field as the DNS label. The client selects the SRV records with
the appropriate priority and weight, and uses that to determine
the target of the next DNS lookup (for an A or AAAA record).
6. Once the client has determined the IP address of the server using
an A or AAAA record, the client attempts a connection for each
address record for each server name on the specified port with
the selected protocol. If the connection is refused, then the
client should repeat the previous step. If all SRV records from
the previous step are exhausted, then the client should signal an
exception state.
The text above gives a rough overview of how the NAPSTR resolution
works in this case. However, for a complete understanding of the
correct use of NAPTR records, which are defined in the context of the
Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS), the reader is required to
read the DDDS specification [7] and the definition of the NAPTR
record in [6].
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
4. Server Location
Coherency in the operation of these services through the use of
NAPSTR is not limited to the distinction of machines versus protocol
versus service. By using NAPSTR, clients are also given a better
means to find a server responsible for the data item in question, not
just a server responsible for answering that type of data. This can
be done in one of three manners: direct resolution, bottom-up
resolution, or reverese resolution.
4.1 Direct Resolution
Direct resolution is the manner used to find a responsible server for
an item of data that most closely matches the behaviour of typical
Internet clients.
The rules for direct resolution are:
o If the given item is a domain name accompanied by a port number,
the domain name is converted to an IP address via an A or AAAA
record to the DNS.
o If the given item is a domain name by itself, the NAPSTR profile
(Section 2) is used. If this produces no results, then the DNS is
queried for the A or AAAA RRs corresponding to the domain name and
the port number used is the well-known port for the transport
either picked by the user or as a preference of the client.
o If the given item is an IP address, then the DNS is not queried,
and the IP address is used directly. If the port number is
present, it is used directly; otherwise, the port number used is
the well-known port for the transport either picked by the user or
as a preference of the client.
4.2 Bottom-Up Resolution
Bottom-Up resolution is the manner used to find a responsible server
for an item of data that is closest to the registrant of the item of
data.
4.2.1 Bottom-Up for Domain Names
Bottom-up resolution for domains is as follows:
1. The direct resolution (Section 4.1) process is tried on the
domain name (e.g. "example.com" ).
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
2. If no records are found, then the left-most component of the
domain name is removed, and the first step is repeated again
(e.g. "com" ).
3. If all the components of the domain name are removed and no
records are found, then the DNS is queried for the A records
corresponding to the original domain name and the port used is
the well-known port for the transport either picked by the user
or as a preference of the client.
4.2.2 Bottom-Up for IP Addresses
Buttom-Up resolution for IP addresses is as follows:
1. The IP address is converted into a domain name appropriate for
the reverse DNS tree mapping. For instance, 64.83.37.226 is
226.37.83.64.in-addr.arpa.
2. The direct resolution (Section 4.1) process is tried on this
reverse-map domain name.
3. If no records are found, then the left-most component of the
reverse-map domain name is removed, and the second step is
repeated again (e.g. "37.83.64.in-addr.arpa" )
4. If all the components of the reverse-map domain name from step
one are removed and no records are found, then the original IP
address is used and the port number used is the well-known port
for the transport either picked by the user or as a preference of
the client.
4.3 Top-Down Resolution
Top-Down resolution is the manner used to find a responsible server
for an item of data that is furthest from the registrant of the item
of data.
4.3.1 Top-Down for Domain Names
Top-Down resolution for domains is as follows:
1. The domain name is reduced to its leftmost component. This is
always ".".
2. The direct resolution (Section 4.1) process is tried on the
domain name.
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
3. If no records are found, then the original component to the right
of the left-most component of the domain name is prepended, and
the second step is repeated again (e.g. if "." then "com", if
"com" then "example.com").
4. If all the components of the original domain are present and no
records are found, then the DNS is queried for the A records
corresponding to the original domain name and the port used is
the well-known port for the transport either picked by the user
or as a preference of the client.
4.3.2 Top-Down for IP Addresses
Top-Down resolution for IP addresses is as follows:
1. The IP address is converted into a domain name appropriate for
the reverse DNS tree mapping. For instance, 64.83.37.226 is
226.37.83.64.in-addr.arpa.
2. The reverse-map domain name is reduced to the appropriate least
two components (e.g. "in-addr.arpa").
3. The direct resolution (Section 4.1) process is tried on this
reverse-map domain name.
4. If no records are found, then the component in the original
reverse-map domain name to the right of the left-most component
of this reverse-map domain name is prepended, and the third step
is repeated (e.g. if "in-addr.arpa" then "64.in-addr.arpa", if
"64.in-addr.arpa" then "83.64.in-addr.arpa").
5. If all the components of the original reverse-map domain name
from step one are present and no records are found, then the
original IP address is used and the port number used is the
well-known port for the transport either picked by the user or as
a preference of the client.
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
5. Internationalization Considerations
This document introduces no new considerations for
internationalization. However, implementers should be aware that
nicname/whois [4] is not suitable for providing internationalized
data, and therefore should provide a CRISP [1] compliant server.
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
6. IANA Considerations
The following NAPSTR [3] application service labels will need to be
registered with the IANA:
1. XP-DN
2. XP-IP
The following NAPSTR [3] application protocol label will need to be
registered with the IANA:
1. whois
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
7. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new considerations for security.
However, implementers should be aware that nicname/whois [4] is not
suitable for providing authentication of users or servers, and
therefore should provide a CRISP [1] compliant server.
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
References
[1] Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP)
Requirements", draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-00 (work in
progress), August 2002.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[3] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-based Application Service
Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery
Service (DDDS)", draft-daigle-napstr-01 (work in progress),
November 2002.
[4] Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M. and E. Feinler, "NICNAME/WHOIS", RFC
954, October 1985.
[5] Sanz, M. and G. Winkler, "Using DNS SRV records to locate whois
servers", draft-sanz-whois-srv-00 (work in progress), April
2003.
[6] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403, October
2002.
[7] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, October 2002.
Authors' Addresses
Andrew L. Newton
VeriSign, Inc.
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, VA 20166
USA
Phone: +1 703 948 3382
EMail: anewton@verisignlabs.com; anewton@ecotroph.net
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/
Leslie Daigle
VeriSign, Inc.
21355 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA 20166
US
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
EMail: leslie@verisignlabs.com; leslie@thinkingcat.com
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
Appendix A. Document 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 RFC2119 [2].
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
The concepts of top-down and bottom-up server location were
originally developed by Eric Hall in his work on applying LDAP to the
whois problem space.
These concepts were then applied directly to whois by Miquel Sanz and
Gerhard Winkler in whois-srv [5]. The use of NAPSTR [3] is a
conceptual progression from this point.
Many thanks to David Blacka and Ed Lewis for review and commentary.
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 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 implementors 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
Newton & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft whois-crisp-cohabitation June 2003
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 & Daigle Expires December 11, 2003 [Page 19]