Using the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)
RFC 3983

Network Working Group                                          A. Newton
Request for Comments: 3983                                VeriSign, Inc.
Category: Standards Track                                        M. Sanz
                                                                DENIC eG
                                                            January 2005

      Using the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) over
             the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document specifies how to use the Blocks Extensible Exchange
   Protocol (BEEP) as the application transport substrate for the
   Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS).

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction and Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  BEEP Profile Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  IRIS Message Packages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  IRIS Message Patterns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       5.1.  Registry Dependent Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       5.2.  Default Pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   6.  Server Authentication Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       6.1.  Registry Dependent Methods. . . . . . . .  . . . . . . .  5
       6.2.  Basic Server Authentication Method. . . .  . . . . . . .  5
   7.  IRIS Transport Mapping Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       7.1.  URI Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       7.2.  Application Protocol Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       7.3.  Allowable Character Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       7.4.  BEEP Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   8.  Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       8.1.  BEEP Profile Registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       8.2.  URI Scheme Registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                     [Page 1]
RFC 3983                       IRIS-Beep                    January 2005

       8.3.  Well-Known TCP Port Registration . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       8.4.  S-NAPTR Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   9.  Registry Definition Checklist  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   10. Internationalization Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   12. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.  Introduction and Motivations

   The proposal in this document describes the IRIS [6] application
   transport binding that uses BEEP [2].  Requirements for IRIS and the
   specification in this document are outlined in CRISP [19].

   The choice of BEEP as the transport substrate is primarily driven by
   the need to reuse an existing, well-understood protocol with all the
   necessary features to support the requirements.  This would give
   implementers a wealth of toolkits and debugging gear for use in
   constructing both servers and clients and allow operators to apply
   existing experience in issues of deployment.  The construction of a
   simple application transport for the specific purpose of IRIS would
   yield a similar standard, though likely smaller and less complete,
   after taking into consideration matters such as framing and
   authentication.

   Precedents for using other transport mechanisms in layered
   applications do not seem to fit with the design goals of IRIS.  HTTP
   [15] offers many features employed for use by similar applications.
   However, IRIS is not intended to be put to uses such as bypassing
   firewalls, commingling URI schemes, or any other methods that might
   lead to confusion between IRIS and traditional World Wide Web
   applications.  Beyond adhering to the guidelines spelled out in RFC
   3205 [16], the use of HTTP also offers many other challenges that
   quickly erode its appeal.  For example, the appropriate use of TLS
   [4] with HTTP is defined by RFC 2817 [14], but the common use, as
   described in RFC 2818 [18], is usually the only method in most
   implementations.

   Finally, the use of IRIS directly over TCP, such as that specified by
   EPP-TCP [17], does not offer the client negotiation characteristics
   needed by a referral application in which a single client, in
   processing a query, may traverse multiple servers operating with
   different parameters.

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                     [Page 2]
RFC 3983                       IRIS-Beep                    January 2005

2.  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 BCP 14,  RFC 2119 [5].

3.  BEEP Profile Identification

   The BEEP profile identifier for IRIS is a URI composed of the IRIS
   schema URN, followed by a slash, followed by an IRIS registry type
   (which is a URN).

   In this profile identifier, the IRIS schema MUST be abbreviated
   according to the rules of IRIS.  This is possible because the IRIS
   schema URN is compliant with XML_URN [20].

   The registry type URN MUST be abbreviated according to the rules of
   IRIS (see [6]).  This is possible because the registry type URN is
   compliant with XML_URN [20].

   The following is an example of an IRIS profile identifier for BEEP.
   It identifies the version of IRIS to match that specified by
   "urn:iana:params:xml:ns:iris1" with a registry type URN of
   "urn:iana:params:xml:ns:dreg1":

      http://iana.org/beep/iris1/dreg1

   The full ABNF [8] follows, with certain values included from IRIS
   [6]:

      profile             = profile-uri "/" iris-urn-abbrev
                            "/" registry-urn-abbrev
      profile-uri         = "http://iana.org/beep/"
      iris-urn-abbrev     = // as specified by IRIS
      registry-urn-abbrev = // as specified by IRIS

   This URI is used in the "profile" element in BEEP during channel
   creation.  According to the rules of BEEP, multiple "profile"
   elements may be offered, thus allowing negotiation of the version of
   IRIS to be used for every registry type being served.

   Once this profile is accepted and the channel is created, the channel
   is considered ready to exchange IRIS messages.  A server MUST honor
   queries for all advertised registry types on any channel opened with
   an IRIS profile URI.

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                     [Page 3]
RFC 3983                       IRIS-Beep                    January 2005

4.  IRIS Message Packages

   The BEEP profile for IRIS transmits XML [1] containing the requests
   and responses for IRIS registries.  These XML instances MUST be
   encoded as Unicode [9] using the media-type of "application/xml"
   according to RFC 3023 [11].

   XML processors are obliged to recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16 [9]
   encodings.  XML allows mechanisms to identify and use other character
   encodings by means of the "encoding" attribute in the declaration.
   Absence of this attribute or a byte order mark (BOM) indicates a
   default of UTF-8 encoding.  Thus, for compatibility reasons, and per
   RFC 2277 [12], use of UTF-8 is RECOMMENDED with this transport
   mapping.  UTF-16 is OPTIONAL.  Other encodings MUST NOT be used.

   A registry type MAY define other message packages that are not IRIS
   XML instances (e.g., binary images referenced by an IRIS response).

5.  IRIS Message Patterns

5.1.  Registry Dependent Patterns

   Because each registry type is defined by a separate BEEP profile (see
   [6]), each registry type MAY define a different message pattern.
   These patterns MUST be within the allowable scope of BEEP [2].  If a
   registry type does not explicitly define a message pattern, the
   default pattern is used (see Section 5.2).

   However, each registry type MUST be capable of supporting the default
   pattern (Section 5.2) for use with the <lookupEntity> query in IRIS.

5.2.  Default Pattern

   The default BEEP profile for IRIS only has a one-to-one request/
   response message pattern.  This exchange involves sending an IRIS XML
   instance, which results in a response of an IRIS XML instance.

   The client sends the request by using an "MSG" message containing a
   valid IRIS XML instance.  The server responds with an "RPY" message
   containing a valid IRIS XML instance.  The "ERR" message is used for
   sending fault codes.  The list of allowable fault codes is listed in
   BEEP [2].

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                     [Page 4]
RFC 3983                       IRIS-Beep                    January 2005

6.  Server Authentication Methods

6.1.  Registry Dependent Methods

   When the TLS [4] tuning profile in BEEP is used, it is possible to
   verify the authenticity of the server.  However, a convention is
   needed to conduct this authentication.  This convention dictates the
   name of the authority a client uses to ask for authentication
   credentials so that the server knows which set of credentials to pass
   back.  Because this is dependent on the authority component of the
   URI, each registry type SHOULD define a server authentication method.

   If a registry type does not explicitly define a server authentication
   method, the basic server authentication method (Section 6.2) is used.

6.2.  Basic Server Authentication Method

   The basic server authentication method is as follows:

   1.  When connecting to a server, the client MUST present the name of
       the authority to the server by using the BEEP [2] serverName
       mechanism.  For instance, if the URI "iris:dreg1//com/domain/
       example.com" is being resolved, the client would use the
       serverName="com" attribute during the BEEP session instantiation.

   2.  During TLS negotiation, the server presents to the client a
       certificate for the authority given in serverName.  This
       certificate MUST be an X.509 certificate [10].  This certificate
       MUST contain the authority in either the subjectDN or the
       subjectAltName extension of type dNSName.

   3.  The certificate MUST be cryptographically verified according to
       the procedures of TLS.

   4.  The client then checks the subject of the certificate for a case
       insensitive match in the following order:

       1.  Any of the dNSName types in the subjectAltName.
       2.  The subjectDN consisting solely of 'dc' components, in which
           each 'dc' component represents a label from the authority
           name (e.g., example.com is dc=example, dc=com).
       3.  A subjectDN in which the left-most component is a 'cn'
           component containing the name of the authority.  A wildcard
           character ('*') MAY be used as the left-most label of the
           name in the 'cn' component.

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                     [Page 5]
RFC 3983                       IRIS-Beep                    January 2005

       If the subject of the certificate does not match any of these
       name components, then the certificate is invalid for representing
       the authority.

7.  IRIS Transport Mapping Definitions

   This section lists the definitions required by IRIS [6] for transport
   mappings.

7.1.  URI Scheme

   The URI scheme name specific to BEEP over IRIS MUST be "iris.beep".

7.2.  Application Protocol Label

   The application protocol label MUST be "iris.beep".

7.3.  Allowable Character Sets

   See Sections 4 and 10.

7.4.  BEEP Mapping

   The mapping of IRIS in this document is specific to RFC 3080 [2].
   This mapping MUST use TCP as specified by RFC 3081 [3].

8.  Registrations

8.1.  BEEP Profile Registration

   Profile Identification: http://iana.org/beep/iris1

   Messages exchanged during Channel Creation: none

   Messages starting one-to-one exchanges: IRIS XML instance

   Messages in positive replies: IRIS XML instance

   Messages in negative replies: none

   Messages in one-to-many exchanges: none

   Message Syntax: IRIS XML instances as defined by IRIS [6]

   Message Semantics: request/response exchanges as defined by IRIS [6]

   Contact Information: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> and Marcos Sanz
   <sanz@denic.de>

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                     [Page 6]
RFC 3983                       IRIS-Beep                    January 2005

8.2.  URI Scheme Registration

   URL scheme name: iris.beep

   URL scheme syntax: defined in Section 7.1 and [6]

   Character encoding considerations: as defined in RFC 2396 [7]

   Intended usage: identifies an IRIS entity made available using the
   BEEP profile for IRIS

   Applications using this scheme: defined in IRIS [6]

   Interoperability considerations: n/a

   Security Considerations: defined in Section 12.

   Relevant Publications: BEEP [2] and IRIS [6]

   Contact Information: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> and Marcos Sanz
   <sanz@denic.de>

   Author/Change controller: the IESG

8.3.  Well-Known TCP Port Registration

   Protocol Number: TCP

   Message Formats, Types, Opcodes, and Sequences: defined in Sections
   3, 4, and 5.

   Functions: defined in IRIS [6]

   Use of Broadcast/Multicast: none

   Proposed Name: IRIS over BEEP

   Short name: iris.beep

   Contact Information: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> and Marcos Sanz
   <sanz@denic.de>

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                     [Page 7]
RFC 3983                       IRIS-Beep                    January 2005

8.4.  S-NAPTR Registration

   Application Protocol Label: iris.beep

   Intended usage: identifies an IRIS server using BEEP

   Interoperability considerations: n/a

   Security Considerations: defined in Section 12

   Relevant Publications: BEEP [2] and IRIS [6]

   Contact Information: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> and Marcos Sanz
   <sanz@denic.de>

   Author/Change controller: the IESG

9.  Registry Definition Checklist

   Specifications of registry types MUST include the following explicit
   definitions:

   o  message pattern -- a definition of the message pattern for use
      with BEEP, or a declaration to use the default message pattern in
      Section 5.2.

   o  server authentication method -- a definition of the method to use
      for server authentication with TLS, a declaration to use the basic
      server authentication method in Section 6.2, or a declaration to
      use no server authentication at all.

10.  Internationalization Considerations

   See Section 4.

11.  IANA Considerations

   Registrations with the IANA are described in Section 8.

12.  Security Considerations

   Implementers should be fully aware of the security considerations
   given by IRIS [6], BEEP [2], and TLS [4].  With respect to server
   authentication with the use of TLS, see Section 6.

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                     [Page 8]
RFC 3983                       IRIS-Beep                    January 2005

   Clients SHOULD be prepared to use the following BEEP tuning profiles:

   o  http://iana.org/beep/SASL/DIGEST-MD5 -- for user authentication
      without the need of session encryption.

   o  http://iana.org/beep/SASL/OTP -- for user authentication without
      the need of session encryption.

   o  http://iana.org/beep/TLS using the TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
      cipher -- for encryption.

   o  http://iana.org/beep/TLS using the TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
      cipher with client-side certificates -- for encryption and user
      authentication.

   o  http://iana.org/beep/TLS using the TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
      cipher -- for encryption.  See [13].

   o  http://iana.org/beep/TLS using the TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA
      cipher with client-side certificates -- for encryption and user
      authentication.  See [13].

   o  http://iana.org/beep/TLS using the TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
      cipher -- for encryption.  See [13].

   o  http://iana.org/beep/TLS using the TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA
      cipher with client-side certificates -- for encryption and user
      authentication.  See [13].

   Anonymous client access SHOULD be considered in one of two methods:

   1.  When no authentication tuning profile has been used.
   2.  Using the SASL anonymous profile:
       http://iana.org/beep/SASL/ANONYMOUS

   IRIS contains a referral mechanism as a standard course of operation.
   However, care should be taken that user authentication mechanisms do
   not hand user credentials to untrusted servers.  Therefore, clients
   SHOULD NOT use the http://iana.org/beep/SASL/PLAIN tuning profile.
   As specified by SASL/PLAIN, clients MUST NOT use the
   http://iana.org/beep/SASL/PLAIN tuning profile without first
   encrypting the TCP session (e.g.  such as with the
   http://iana.org/beep/TLS tuning profile).

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                     [Page 9]
RFC 3983                       IRIS-Beep                    January 2005

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [1]   World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language (XML)
         1.0", W3C XML, February 1998, <http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-
         xml-19980210>.

   [2]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
         3080, March 2001.

   [3]   Rose, M., "Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP", RFC 3081, March
         2001.

   [4]   Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC
         2246, January 1999.

   [5]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [6]   Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: The Internet Registry
         Information Service (IRIS) Core Protocol", RFC 3981, January
         2005.

   [7]   Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
         Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August
         1998.

   [8]   Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
         Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.

   [9]   The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version 3", ISBN
         0-201-61633-5, 2000, <The Unicode Standard, Version 3>.

   [10]  Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W., and D. Solo, "Internet X.509
         Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate
         Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280, April 2002.

   [11]  Murata, M., Laurent, S. St., and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types",
         RFC 3023, January 2001.

   [12]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages",
         BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.

   [13]  Chown, P., "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Ciphersuites for
         Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 3268, June 2002.

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                    [Page 10]
RFC 3983                       IRIS-Beep                    January 2005

13.2.  Informative References

   [14]  Khare, R. and S. Lawrence, "Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1",
         RFC 2817, May 2000.

   [15]  Fielding,  R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter,
         L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
         -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [16]  Moore, K., "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate", BCP 56, RFC
         3205, February 2002.

   [17]  Hollenbeck, S., "EPP TCP Transport", Work in Progress, January
         2002.

   [18]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

   [19]  Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP)
         Requirements", RFC 3707, February 2004.

   [20]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
         January 2004.

14.  Authors' Addresses

   Andrew L. Newton
   VeriSign, Inc.
   21345 Ridgetop Circle
   Sterling, VA  20166
   USA

   Phone: +1 703 948 3382
   EMail: anewton@verisignlabs.com; andy@hxr.us
   URI:   http://www.verisignlabs.com/

   Marcos Sanz
   DENIC eG
   Wiesenhuettenplatz 26
   D-60329 Frankfurt
   Germany

   EMail: sanz@denic.de
   URI:   http://www.denic.de/

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                    [Page 11]
RFC 3983                       IRIS-Beep                    January 2005

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can
   be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Newton & Sanz               Standards Track                    [Page 12]