One document matched: draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-02.txt
INTERNET-DRAFT Eric A. Hall
Document: draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
Expires: March, 2004
Category: Standards-Track
The Federated Internet Registry Service:
Core Elements
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes the core technical elements of the
Federated Internet Registry Service (FIRS), a distributed service
for storing, locating and transferring information about Internet
resources using LDAPv3.
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...............................................3
2. Prerequisites and Terminology..............................3
3. The FIRS Namespace.........................................3
3.1. The domainComponent (dc=) Namespace Component...........4
3.2. The inetResources Namespace Component...................4
3.3. The Resource-Specific Namespace Component...............5
3.4. Attribute References....................................5
3.5. Referrals...............................................6
3.5.1. Referral source entries...........................6
3.5.2. Referral target data..............................7
3.5.3. Subordinate reference referrals..................11
3.5.4. Continuation reference referrals.................12
4. Global FIRS Object Classes and Attributes.................12
4.1. The inetResources Object Class.........................13
4.1.1. Naming syntax....................................13
4.1.2. Schema definition................................13
4.1.3. Example..........................................16
4.2. The inetAssociatedResources Object Class...............17
4.2.1. Naming syntax....................................17
4.2.2. Schema definition................................17
4.2.3. Example..........................................19
4.3. The referral Object Class..............................19
5. Global Query Processing Rules.............................20
5.1. Query Pre-Processing...................................21
5.2. Query Bootstrap Models.................................22
5.2.1. Targeted query processing........................23
5.2.2. Top-down processing..............................24
5.2.3. Bottom-up processing.............................27
5.2.4. SRV processing...................................30
5.3. Query Processing.......................................31
5.3.1. The inetResourcesControl server control..........31
5.3.2. Matching filters.................................34
5.3.3. Query-volume restrictions........................36
5.3.4. Authentication restrictions......................37
5.3.5. Extended attribute ACLs..........................37
5.3.6. Protocol and schema version controls.............39
5.4. Referral Processing....................................40
6. Security Considerations...................................42
7. IANA Considerations.......................................42
8. Normative References......................................42
9. Changes from Previous Versions............................44
10. Author's Address..........................................47
11. Acknowledgments...........................................47
12. Full Copyright Statement..................................48
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
1. Introduction
This specification defines the core object classes, attributes,
syntax rules, matching filters, and operational behaviors for the
FIRS service as a whole. Refer to [FIRS-ARCH] for information on
the FIRS architecture, and the resource-specific specifications
for definitions and rules which govern each of the different
resource-types.
The definitions in this specification are intended to be used with
FIRS. Their usage outside of FIRS is not prohibited, but any such
usage is beyond this specification's scope of authority.
2. Prerequisites and Terminology
The complete set of specifications in the FIRS collection
cumulative define a structured and distributed information service
using LDAPv3 [RFC3377] for the data-formatting and transport
functions. This specification should be read in the context of
that set, which currently includes [FIRS-ARCH], [FIRS-DNS], [FIRS-
DNSRR], [FIRS-CONTCT], [FIRS-ASN], [FIRS-IPV4] and [FIRS-IPV6].
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.
3. The FIRS Namespace
The FIRS namespace acts as an index to the federated partition
structure of the globally-distributed FIRS database. There are
three major components to this namespace, which are:
* The domainComponent entries. Each partition of the
globally-distributed FIRS database is uniquely represented
by a sequence of domainComponent relative distinguished
names. These sequences effectively identify the root scope
of authority for each partition in the global directory
database. Partitions MAY be replicated across one or more
servers, but every instance of a specific partition MUST
use the same sequence of domainComponent relative
distinguished names.
* An inetResources entry. All of the FIRS-related resource-
specific entries in the global database are required to be
stored within a well-known "cn=inetResources" container
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
entry at the root of each partition. These well-known
entries act as application-specific access points within
the globally distributed directory database, and also
provide some information about the partition and the
organization which manages that partition.
* The resource-specific entries. Each of the resource-
specific entries within the inetResources container entries
have their own unique naming rules, as defined in the
governing specifications for those resources.
Note that an inetResources container or any of the resource-
specific entries MAY exist as referral stub entries that redirect
clients to other entries in the FIRS database.
The naming rules associated with the different portions of the
FIRS namespace are discussed in more detail below.
3.1. The domainComponent (dc=) Namespace Component
The global FIRS directory database is divided into administrative
partitions, each of which represent a scope-of-authority for a
certain portion of the global database. The root of each partition
is represented by a sequence of domainComponent relative
distinguished names (RDNs), as defined in RFC 2247 [RFC2247]. In
this model, the scope-of-authority for a FIRS partition is derived
from a domain name in the global DNS directory, meaning that
whoever has authority over any particular domain name effectively
has authority over the related FIRS partition.
Note that the domainComponent attribute is restricted to seven-bit
character codes, and is therefore effectively limited to using
character codes from US-ASCII [US-ASCII]. Due to this limitation,
internationalized domain names MUST be converted into their ASCII-
compatible forms using the "ToASCII" process defined in RFC 3490
[RFC3490] before the domainComponent RDNs are used in the
directory database or LDAP messages.
3.2. The inetResources Namespace Component
The FIRS-specific directory entries are segregated from other
application-specific entries by the use of a container entry with
the MANDATORY name of "cn=inetResources".
Every FIRS-specific resource that is to be located via the FIRS
service MUST be stored within the inetResources container entry.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
However, the entries themselves MAY exist as referrals which point
to entries in other LDAP partitions or namespace branches if this
is necessary or desirable (see section 3.5).
3.3. The Resource-Specific Namespace Component
Every resource-specific entry has a relative distinguished name
which identifies that resource within the context of the
inetResources container of a FIRS partition. Examples of these
entries can be seen in Figure 1 of [FIRS-ARCH], and include
"cn=example.com" which refers to the "example.com" DNS domain
resource, and "cn=admins@example.com" which refers to the
"admins@example.com" contact resource.
Each of the FIRS resource-types have their own specific naming
rules which govern those resources. Refer to the resource-specific
specifications for information on those rules.
3.4. Attribute References
Many of the core attributes provide pointers to other resources,
thereby allowing the client to initiate follow-up queries for
related data. For example, an entry for a domain name resource has
attributes for a variety of contacts for the domain name, and FIRS
clients are able to extract and use that data to generate
additional queries for any of those contact resources.
Pointers to resources that are stored within the global FIRS
database are generally provided as the identifier for the target
resource, using the syntax rules associated with the resource in
question. For example, a pointer to the contact entry of
"admins@example.com" will be provided as that resource name, using
the syntax rules associated with contact names. Examples of this
usage form can be seen in Figure 1 of [FIRS-ARCH].
Note that traditional LDAP models often use URIs or distinguished
names to provide fully-qualified pointers to entries, although
these syntaxes usually require detailed knowledge about the target
resources or the servers for the target partition. However, FIRS
is much more distributed than traditional LDAP usages, and may
require pointing to data in an opaque partition, or where the
topology of the target partition is unknown. For these reasons,
attribute references in FIRS typically use the short name of the
target resource, with the expectation that the client will use the
attribute value as the query seed for new FIRS queries.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
However, pointers to resource data that is likely to be stored
outside the global FIRS database (such as a web page) is generally
provided as a URI so that any necessary application and/or
protocol transfer services can be specified. For example, the
inetResources object class provides an attribute for the
organization which manages the resource, with a secondary
attribute for a URL associated with the target organization, thus
allowing additional (extra-directory) information to be specified
and retrieved where this would be useful.
In those cases where a URI provides an LDAP URL that references a
resource in the global FIRS directory, the URL data SHOULD use the
referral URL rules described in section 3.5.
3.5. Referrals
Entries in the namespace can refer to other entries, as necessary
or desirable. Specifically, FIRS allows certain entries to be
created as "placeholders" for other entries which contain the
canonical data, and also allows "stub" child entries to provide
reference pointers to additional data.
LDAP provides several methods for conveying and processing these
kinds of referrals, although FIRS only makes specific use of
subordinate reference referrals and continuation reference
referrals. Subordinate reference referrals indicate that the
search base in the original query is an alias for some other
entry, and that the query has to be restarted with a new search
base in order for the search operation to be processed. Meanwhile,
continuation reference referrals indicate that the search was
successfully initiated and that some data has been found, but that
additional queries for additional resources are required for the
query to be completely exhausted.
3.5.1. Referral source entries
Referral entries can be used in FIRS in two distinct scenarios,
with each scenario having different naming requirements for the
referral sources.
In the first instance, specific entries can be defined as
referrals so that queries for the entry always generate a single
referral. This may be necessary when an entire inetResources
container entry needs to be redirected to another inetResources
container entry in another tree, but can also be useful when
entries only exist as placeholders for other entries.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
For example, a registrar can create referral entries for variant
domain names whenever a canonical domain name is registered, with
the variant entries only providing referrals to the canonical
entry. Similarly, an entry for the host named "www.example.com"
could exist as a referral which pointed to the domain name entry
for "www-1.example.net". In these scenarios, users who generate
queries for the alias domain name entries would always get
referred to the canonical domain name entries.
Most entries are expected to provide some kind of information, and
in this kind of situation, the canonical entry will have data, but
will need to be able to generate referrals to one or more other
entries where additional data about the resource can be retrieved.
For example, the entries in the partition for the "com" domain
registry can provide basic information about a domain, but can
also provide a referral to the domain registrar, while the
registrar can provide another referral to the domain operator.
In these cases, each partition would need to have an entry for the
resource in question, while child entries underneath each of those
entries would be used to generate the necessary referrals. For
example, the "example.com" domain would likely exist as a
canonical entry within a registry's partition, with that entry
providing information that the registry had about that domain
name. Meanwhile, the registry could have a child entry underneath
the canonical entry which provided a referral to the registrar's
partition, and so forth.
The relative distinguished name of a referral child entry is
usually irrelevant, and can therefore be defined according to
local policy rather than fixed rules. However, operators SHOULD
NOT use names that are likely to match against searches for other
resources. In the general case, using generalized relative
distinguished names such as "cn=ref1" or the like would be the
safest practice.
3.5.2. Referral target data
Referral entries MUST use the ref attribute and referral object
class, as defined in RFC 3296 [RFC3296].
The referral target is provided to the client with the ref
attribute, which provides a URI as the destination pointer,
although there are some additional FIRS-specific restrictions
which are as follows:
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
* At least one of the URLs in a referral MUST be an LDAP URL
as specified in RFC 2255 [RFC2255], and FIRS clients MUST
ignore all non-LDAP URIs. Note that general-purpose LDAP
referrals are allowed to use any protocol, but FIRS clients
have a requirement to automatically process referrals, and
this requirement precludes the use of ambiguous services
and their data formats. As such, every FIRS referral MUST
specify at least one LDAP URL, and FIRS clients MUST only
use the LDAP URLs.
* Referral targets MUST use domainComponent ("dc=") naming
syntax for target partitions. If a referral needs to
specify an exact partition or container for the referral
target, the path to the referral target MUST be provided as
the search base of the LDAP URLs, and this data MUST be
used by FIRS clients when the subsequent query is built.
* The LDAP URL data MUST be escaped prior to being sent. For
example, domain names and contact names can contain UTF-8
character data, and some of those character codes will need
to be escaped in order to be passed as URL data. Similarly,
the IPv4 and IPv6 network address syntaxes defined in this
document make use of the forward-slash ("/") character to
indicate a subnet prefix, and if this character needs to be
provided in a URL, it must be provided in the escaped form
("%2F" in this example).
In the general sense, referrals SHOULD NOT provide any more
information about the referral target than absolutely necessary.
For example, if a referral source for a domain name resource needs
to reference a referral target for another domain name resource,
then only the resource type and identifier SHOULD be provided
(this will give the client enough information to begin a new
query), while data such as the target partition or LDAP server
SHOULD NOT be provided since the authoritative forms of this
information will be detected as part of the subsequent query's
bootstrapping process. With this in mind, the following
recommendations apply to referral targets in the general sense,
and SHOULD be followed:
* In those cases where a referral points to a FIRS resource
of a known type and name (E.G., a domain name, or an IPv4
address), the referral URL MUST specify the matching filter
and assertion value of the referral target. For example, a
referral that points to a DNS domain resource MUST provide
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
the inetDnsDomainMatch matching filter and value in the
filter element of the LDAP URL (such as providing
"(1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.3.0.1:=example.com)" for a referral to
the "example.com" DNS domain). Clients MUST use this data
to seed the resource type and assertion value of the
subsequent query if it is provided.
* In those cases where a referral points to a FIRS resource
in a particular partition, the referral URL MUST specify
the search base element. For example, if an entry for the
"example.com" domain name resource in the "com" partition
needs to specify the "example.com" domain name resource in
the "registrar.com" partition, then the referral MUST
specify "dc=registrar,dc=com" in the search base element of
the LDAP URL. Clients MUST use this data to seed the boot
partition of the subsequent query if it is provided.
* In those cases where a referral points to some other kind
of entry, the referral target SHOULD specify as little
information as possible, while still providing an adequate
reference. For example, if a referral needs to point to a
contact in an alternate container of a specific partition,
the full path to the referral target SHOULD be specified in
the search base element of the URL. Clients MUST use the
additional information if it is provided.
* In the general case, referral sources and targets SHOULD
have the same resource-specific object classes defined,
although referral targets MAY specify other resource types
if needed. For example, the referral source and target for
a DNS domain resource should both have the inetDnsDomain
object class defined, although a referral may point to an
IPv4 host address if this is necessary. If a referral
target is known to have a different object class than the
referral source, a matching filter for the referral target
MUST be provided in the filter element of the LDAP URLs,
and this data MUST be used by FIRS clients when the
subsequent query is built.
* LDAP URLs SHOULD NOT provide host identifiers or port
numbers unless this is absolutely necessary, since the
client will usually discover this information during the
bootstrap process. If a referral provides this information,
it MUST be used by FIRS clients when the subsequent query
is built.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
* Attribute lists, scope filters, and URL extensions SHOULD
NOT be provided, and these elements MUST be ignored by FIRS
clients unless an applicable specification details explicit
behavior for these elements.
* The operators of a partition MUST NOT restrict referral
data to verifiable referral targets. Providers MAY validate
the referral targets in URLs, but a lack of knowledge
regarding a target MUST NOT be treated as sufficient cause
to prevent the referral target from being specified.
* Referral targets MAY themselves be referrals to other
entries, but recursive referrals are discouraged. Clients
MAY discontinue referral processing after a reasonable
amount of effort (eight referrals is a reasonable
threshold, but the actual amount of processing is left to
the discretion of the clients).
An example referral is illustrated in Figure 1 of [FIRS-ARCH]. In
that example, the referral data provides an inetDnsDomainMatch
matching filter with the explicit assertion value of
"www-1.example.net". This data would inform the client of the
resource-type to be queried and the assertion value to use, which
collectively would give the client everything needed to begin
bootstrapping a new query.
As another example, a referral to a specific entry could look like
the following:
ldap://cn=admins@example.com,cn=inetResources,
dc=example,dc=com
In that example, the referral is pointing to an explicit entry in
an explicit container in an explicit partition. Although the
client would not be able to tell what kind of resource was being
queried for, it would be able to determine the resource-type once
an answer was received, based on the object class values of
resulting entry.
The client-side rules for processing referral URLs are given in
section 5.4.
Note that the "superior reference referral" defined in RFC 2251
[RFC2251] used as a "default referral" for out-of-scope searches
is explicitly unsupported in FIRS. Superior reference referrals
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
which are encountered as a part of this service are to be treated
as errors and silently ignored.
3.5.3. Subordinate reference referrals
Subordinate reference referrals are defined in [RFC3296], and are
returned whenever the search base specified in a query exists as a
referral to some other entry. This means that the query MUST be
restarted with the referral target.
Specifically, subordinate reference referrals are defined in
[RFC3296], and use the SearchResultDone response with a Referral
result code as defined in [RFC2251]. Subordinate reference
referrals use a subset of the labeledURI syntax as defined in
[RFC2079], and use the syntax definitions from [RFC2255] when LDAP
URLs in particular are provided, although section 3.5.2 of this
document also defines additional restrictions on the allowable URL
syntax. This condition means that the current search operation
cannot proceed past this point, and the search MUST be restarted.
This will most often occur when the inetResources entry for a
partition has been redirected to another directory partition.
Almost all of the search functions used with FIRS use the
inetResources container entry as the search base (the exceptions
to this rule are targeted searches for explicit entries), so
subordinate reference referrals will most commonly be seen when an
inetResources container entry has been redirected to an
inetResources container in another directory partition.
Servers MUST support the use of subordinate reference referrals,
and clients MUST be prepared to accept and process any subordinate
reference referrals they receive.
When subordinate reference referrals are used, the referral source
MUST be defined with the referral object class, and MUST also be
defined with the appropriate object class for that resource type.
For example, a "cn=inetResources" entry which provided a
subordinate reference referral would need to have both the
referral and inetResources object classes defined, while a DNS
domain resource such as "dc=example.com" would need to have both
the referral and inetDnsDomain object classes defined (among the
other object class definitions which were required for that
entry). Referral targets need to use whatever object classes are
appropriate for the resource in question, and MAY also be
referrals to other entries.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
3.5.4. Continuation reference referrals
Continuation reference referrals are defined in RFC 2251
[RFC2251], and are returned when a search operation has been
successfully processed but the answer data also includes referrals
to other entries. These referrals are usually provided as
supplemental data to an answer, although it's also possible for a
continuation reference referral to be the only data in an answer.
Specifically, continuation reference referrals use the
SearchResultReference response, which is defined and described in
section 4.5.3 of [RFC2251]. Continuation reference referrals use a
subset of the labeledURI syntax as defined in [RFC2079], and use
the syntax definitions from [RFC2255] when LDAP URLs in particular
are to be provided, although section 3.5.2 of this document also
defines additional restrictions on the allowable URL syntax. This
condition means that the current search operation has partially
succeeded, but that additional searches SHOULD be started in order
for all of the answer data to be retrieved (in many cases, no
answer data will be provided, and in those situations, new queries
will be required for any data to be retrieved). This will occur
whenever the assertion value of a search has matched a resource
entry which is being managed by another directory partition, and
can occur with any of the search operations described in this
document.
Servers MUST support the use of continuation reference referrals,
and clients MUST be prepared to accept and process any subordinate
reference referrals that they receive.
When continuation reference referrals are used for this purpose,
entries MAY exist for the queried resource, but one or more
entries MUST exist with the referral object class defined, and
which provide LDAP URLs that point to other entries which have
additional information about the resource in question.
4. Global FIRS Object Classes and Attributes
Each of the schema definitions provided in this document include
attribute definitions, naming rules, and other definitions which
are designed to facilitate the consistent storage and retrieval of
information within the FIRS service.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
4.1. The inetResources Object Class
The inetResources object class is a structural object class which
defines the attributes associated with the "cn=inetResources"
container entry, and which provides general information about the
network resources associated with the current directory partition.
4.1.1. Naming syntax
This document requires the presence of an entry named
"cn=inetResources" in the root of every directory partition which
provides FIRS services.
4.1.2. Schema definition
Every directory partition which provides public FIRS data MUST
have a "cn=inetResources" entry in the root of the directory
partition. The inetResources entry MUST exist with the top and
inetResources object classes defined. If the entry exists as a
referral source, the entry MUST also be defined with the referral
object class, in addition to the above requirements.
The inetResources object class is a structural object class which
is subordinate to the top abstract class, and which MUST be
treated as a container class capable of holding additional
subordinate entries. The inetResources object class has one
mandatory attribute which is "cn" (the naming attribute), and also
has several optional attributes. Each of the other object classes
defined for use with FIRS are subordinate to the inetResources
object class and inherit its attributes.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
The schema definition for the inetResources object class is as
follows:
inetResources
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.1.1
NAME 'inetResources'
DESC 'The inetResources container for the FIRS service'
SUP top
STRUCTURAL
MUST cn
MAY ( inetLocalIdentifier $ o $ ou $ description $
inetResourceComments $ businessCategory $ telephoneNumber $
facsimileTelephoneNumber $ labeledURI $
preferredDeliveryMethod $ physicalDeliveryOfficeName $
postOfficeBox $ postalAddress $ postalCode $ street $ l $
st $ c $ inetAbuseContacts $ inetGeneralContacts $
inetSecurityContacts $ inetTechContacts $
inetGeneralDisclaimer ) )
The attributes from the inetResources object class are described
below:
businessCategory, see RFC 2256 [RFC2256], section 5.16
c (country), see [RFC2256], section 5.7
cn (commonName), see [RFC2256], section 5.4
description, see [RFC2256], section 5.14
facsimileTelephoneNumber, see [RFC2256], section 5.24
l (locality), see [RFC2256], section 5.8
labeledURI, see RFC 2079 [RFC2079]
o (organization), see [RFC2256], section 5.11
ou (organizational unit), see [RFC2256], section 5.12
physicalDeliveryOfficeName, see [RFC2256], section 5.20
postalAddress, see [RFC2256], section 5.17
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
postalCode, see [RFC2256], section 5.18
postOfficeBox, see [RFC2256], section 5.19
preferredDeliveryMethod, see [RFC2256], section 5.29
st (stateOrProvinceName), see [RFC2256], section 5.9
street (streetAddress), see [RFC2256], section 5.10
telephoneNumber, see [RFC2256], section 5.21
inetLocalIdentifier
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.1.2
NAME 'inetLocalIdentifier'
DESC 'Provider name for this entry'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{1024} )
inetResourceComments
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.1.3
NAME 'inetResourceComments'
DESC 'General comments about this entry'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{1024} )
inetGeneralDisclaimer
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.1.4
NAME 'inetGeneralDisclaimer'
DESC 'General disclaimer text regarding this data'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{1024} )
inetGeneralContacts
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.1.5
NAME 'inetGeneralContacts'
DESC 'Contacts for general administrative issues.'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.7.1 )
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
inetAbuseContacts
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.1.6
NAME 'inetAbuseContacts'
DESC 'Contacts for reporting abusive behavior or
acceptable-use policy violations.'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.7.1 )
inetSecurityContacts
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.1.7
NAME 'inetSecurityContacts'
DESC 'Contacts for general security issues.'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.7.1 )
inetTechContacts
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.1.8
NAME 'inetTechContacts'
DESC 'Contacts for general technical issues.'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.7.1 )
4.1.3. Example
An example of the inetResources object class in use is shown in
Figure 1 below.
cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com
[top object class]
[inetResources object class]
|
+-attribute: o
| value: "Example Widgets' network resources"
|
+-attribute: inetGeneralContacts
| value: "admins@example.com"
|
+-attribute: telephoneNumber
| value: "1-800-555-1212"
|
+-attribute: inetResourceComments
value: "Please don't send complaints to the
postmaster@example.com mailbox."
Figure 1: The Example Widgets inetResources container entry.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
4.2. The inetAssociatedResources Object Class
The inetAssociatedResources object class defines attributes which
are useful for cross-referencing entries with other resources. For
example, it allows inetOrgPerson entries to be associated with
IPv4 networks or DNS domains, providing generic cross-reference
pointer attributes (this information may be useful if a single
organization has multiple DNS domains registered). In short, any
resource can be associated with any other resource through the use
of this object class.
4.2.1. Naming syntax
The inetAssociatedResources object class is an auxiliary object
class, and not a structural object class. Entries which use this
object class definition are defined under the rules associated
with the structural object class that defines the Internet
resource in question. As such, the naming rules associated with
that entry take precedence, and the inetAssociatedResources object
class does not define an independent naming syntax.
4.2.2. Schema definition
The inetAssociatedResources object class is an auxiliary object
class which is subordinate to the top object class. The
inetAssociatedResources object class has no mandatory attributes,
and only has optional attributes.
The inetAssociatedResources is intended to be used with the
resource-specific structural object classes defined for use with
FIRS. The inetAssociatedResources object class is not likely to
provide much value when it is associated with the inetResources
object class, since the inetResources object class does not
specifically define any resources (and since it does not define
resources, it cannot define any associated resources). On the
other hand, it is reasonable for the inetAssociatedResources
object class to be associated with an inetOrgPerson object class
entry, particularly if the referenced person (or role) is
responsible for the management of multiple resources.
The inetAssociatedResources object class MUST NOT be associated
with an entry that only exists as a referral source.
Each of the associated resource attributes provide multi-valued
data, using the syntax notations which are specific to the
resource in question. For example, the inetAssociatedDnsDomain
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
attribute provides multiple associated DNS domain name resources
using a multi-valued array, with each domain name using the
inetDnsDomainSyntax naming rules defined in [FIRS-DNS].
The schema definition for the inetAssociatedResources object class
is as follows:
inetAssociatedResources
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.2.1
NAME 'inetAssociatedResources'
DESC 'Internet resources associated with this resource.'
SUP top
AUXILIARY
MAY ( inetAssociatedContacts $ inetAssociatedDnsDomains $
inetAssociatedIpv4Networks $ inetAssociatedIpv6Networks $
inetAssociatedAsNumbers ) )
The attributes from the inetAssociatedResources object class are
described below:
inetAssociatedAsNumbers
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.2.2
NAME 'inetAssociatedAsNumbers'
DESC 'Autonomous system numbers associated with this
Internet resource.'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.7.0 )
inetAssociatedContacts
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.2.3
NAME 'inetAssociatedContacts'
DESC 'Other contacts associated with this Internet
resource.'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.4.0 )
inetAssociatedDnsDomains
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.2.4
NAME 'inetAssociatedDnsDomains'
DESC 'DNS domains associated with this Internet resource.'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.3.0 )
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
inetAssociatedIpv4Networks
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.2.5
NAME 'inetAssociatedIpv4Networks'
DESC 'IPv4 networks associated with this Internet
resource.'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.5.0 )
inetAssociatedIpv6Networks
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.2.6
NAME 'inetAssociatedIpv6Networks'
DESC 'IPv6 networks associated with this entry.'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.6.0 )
4.2.3. Example
An example of the inetAssociatedResources object class is shown in
Figure 2 below.
cn=192.0.2.0/24,cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com
[top object class]
[inetResources object class]
[inetIpv4Network object class]
[inetAssociatedResources object class]
|
+-attribute: description
| value: "The Example Widgets network"
|
+-attribute: inetAssociatedAsNumbers
| value: "65535"
|
+-attribute: inetAssociatedDnsDomains
value: "2.0.192.in-addr.arpa"
Figure 2: The inetAssociatedResources attributes associated with
the 192.0.2.0/24 IPv4 network entry.
4.3. The referral Object Class
Entries use the referral object class to define subordinate
reference referrals and continuation reference referrals, thereby
facilitating the programmatic redirection of queries in support of
the referral mechanisms defined in section 3.5.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
Referral entries MUST conform to the schema specification defined
in [RFC3296].
Referral sources MUST NOT contain any user-definable attributes
(other than the mandatory naming attribute), and MUST NOT have any
subordinate child entries.
Refer to section 3.5 for the rules that govern referral URLs in
FIRS. Refer to section 5.4 for information on processing referral
URLs in FIRS.
5. Global Query Processing Rules
Another critical aspect to FIRS is the query-processing behavior.
These rules govern the ways in which a client parses a query,
locates a server which is authoritative for the resource being
queried, generates LDAPv3 queries, and processes any resulting
referrals. More specifically:
* Query pre-processing. The first step is for the client to
prepare the query. Portions of this process require the
client to determine the type of resource being queried for,
and to determine the initial partition which should be used
for the query. Since this process is different for each
particular resource-type, the rules which govern this
behavior are defined in each of the resource-specific
specifications.
* Bootstrap processing. Once a partition has been determined,
the client must locate the LDAP servers which are
authoritative for the resource in question. Section 5.2
defines three different bootstrap models that clients can
use as part of this process, while each of the resource-
specific specifications define which of the models are to
be used for each particular resource-type.
* Query processing. Once a server has been located, the
client must submit the LDAP query which was formed during
the pre-preprocessing phase. Section 5.3 defines the global
considerations for all FIRS queries, while the resource-
specific specifications also define additional parameters.
* Query post-processing. FIRS explicitly supports different
types of LDAP referral mechanisms, any of which may result
in the client application restarting the query or
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 20]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
initiating a brand-new query. These mechanisms and their
behavioral rules are defined in section 5.4.
Each of these phases are discussed in more detail below.
5.1. Query Pre-Processing
Client input is generally limited to a single well-formed unit of
data, such as a domain name ("example.com") or an email address
("admins@example.com"), and this single piece of information must
be used to subsequently build a fully-formed LDAPv3 query,
including the assertion value, the search base, the matching
filter, and so forth. All of these steps are part of the pre-
processing phase.
Although the exact sequence of steps will vary according to the
resource-type being queried, there are some commonalities between
each of them. Among these steps:
* Determine the resource type. Different kinds of resources
have different processing steps, validation mechanisms, and
so forth, each of which require that the resource-type be
appropriately identified. Clients MAY use any mechanisms
necessary to force this determination.
* Validate and normalize the data. In all cases, the input
data MUST be validated and normalized according to the
syntax rules defined in the specification which governs the
resource-type. As an example of this step, queries for
internationalized domain names must be validated and
normalized into a canonical UTF-8 form before any other
steps can be taken. Similarly, IPv6 addresses are required
to conform to specific syntax rules, and input address may
need to be expanded or compressed in order to comply with
the syntax requirements.
* Determine the authoritative directory partition for the
named resource. In most cases, the authoritative partition
will be a variation of the input query string, but this is
not always the case. For example, the default partition for
an email address will be extrapolated from the domain
component of the email address itself, while the
authoritative partition for an ASN uses a reserved
(special-purpose) domain name. In some cases, the
authoritative partition may change during the subsequent
query-processing steps.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 21]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
* Determine the search base for the query. Each resource type
has resource-specific query-processing rules which will
dictate how the authoritative partitions are mapped to the
search base. In some cases, the cn=inetResources container
entry in the authoritative partition will be used "as-is",
while in other cases, the cn=inetResources container entry
in a delegation parent of the authoritative partition will
be used instead. In some cases, the search base may change
during subsequent query-processing steps.
* Determine the assertion value for the query. The assertion
value will usually be the normalized form of the input
query. In some cases, the assertion value may change during
subsequent query-processing steps.
* Determine the matching filter. Each resource-type has its
own matching filter rules. For example, contact entries are
matched with a simple equalityMatch comparison, while in
other cases the matching filter will be an extensibleMatch
which is peculiar to the resource-type in use.
Once all of the pre-processing steps have been successfully
completed, the client will have to locate an LDAPv3 server which
is authoritative for the search base before it can submit the
query. This process is described in section 5.2 below.
5.2. Query Bootstrap Models
Once a client has determined which partition should be queried for
the specified resource, the client will need to determine which
LDAP servers are authoritative for that partition.
The FIRS service supports three different bootstrap models for
this process, although these models only differ in relatively
minor ways; once a server has been located, the rest of the query
process follows the same basic path (issuing the LDAPv3 query,
following referrals, and so forth).
The three bootstrapping models defined for use with this service
are the "targeted" model which is functionally identical to
traditional lookups for LDAP servers, the "top-down" model which
causes a client to submit a query to the root of a delegation
hierarchy, and a "bottom-up" model which causes a client to work
up through a delegation hierarchy until a server has been located.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 22]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
5.2.1. Targeted query processing
The "targeted" model is similar to the traditional model of LDAP
lookups, in that a client queries a specified LDAP server for a
particular resource under the assumption that the named resource
exists on the named server. If the known resource or the known
server do not exist or cannot be located (notwithstanding any
referrals which may be returned), then the query process exits.
The targeted model can be used when an application-specific
partition or resource has been specified, but can also be used if
the client prefers to use a "default" server for all operations.
The latter may occur when clients use proxy servers, caching
servers, or other fixed servers, in lieu of navigating the global
directory database with every query.
The targeted model is primarily suited for locating Internet
resources which are managed and delegated by a central body, but
which is not necessarily located in a directory partition under a
top-level domain. For example, AS numbers, IPv4 address blocks,
and IPv6 address blocks are all managed under specific partitions
which are not directly linked to a specific top-level domain, so
those queries have to be started at specific partitions, and would
not be efficiently served by partitions higher or lower in the
delegation hierarchy.
The steps for processing targeted queries are described below:
a. Determine the IP address and port number to be used (this
information may be determined from user input, a
configuration file, a URL, or from any other source).
1. If a non-ASCII domain name has been specified for this
purpose, convert the domain name into its ASCII-
compatible form using the "ToASCII" process defined in
[RFC3490] before performing any lookups.
2. Locate the LDAP servers associated with the domain
name through the SRV query steps provided in section
5.2.4. If this step fails, use DNS lookups for A
resource records instead. If no resource records are
available, report the error to the user and exit.
b. Once a server has been determined, submit the search
operation. If the search operation fails, report the error
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 23]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
to the user and exit. Otherwise, display any answer data
which is returned.
c. If the answer data contains a subordinate reference
referral or a continuation reference referral, new query
processes MUST be spawned.
For subordinate reference referrals, process the URLs
according to the rules described in section 5.4 and restart
the query process at step 5.2.1.a. For each continuation
reference referral, display the answer data received so
far, process the LDAP URLs according to the rules described
in section 5.4 and start new query processes for each
referral at step 5.2.1.a, appending the output from these
searches to the current output.
Any additional subordinate reference referrals or
continuation reference referrals which are encountered from
any subsequent searches will need to be processed in the
same manner as specified above, until no additional
referrals are received.
d. Exit the query operation.
5.2.2. Top-down processing
The top-down model uses an input string to construct an LDAP
assertion value and search base, with DNS queries being used to
locate the LDAP servers associated with the appropriate top-level
delegation entity. Once this process completes, a query is issued
to the specified servers. This query may be subsequently
redirected to other servers through the use of LDAP referrals.
The top-down model is primarily suited for locating Internet
resources which are centrally managed and delegated, and where
information about the delegation is available from a delegation
body with a top-level domain. The best example of this is
resources under the top-level domains themselves, such as queries
for domain delegations under the "com" zone.
Note that the top-down model does not use incrementally larger
domain names for the bootstrap process. Instead, it is assumed
that the root partition in the delegation tree will be able to
provide any necessary redirection services. For example, if the
domain name of "www.example.co.uk" is used in a query, the query
will be sent to the "dc=uk" partition, which should provide a
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 24]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
referral for the "dc=co,dc=uk" partition, which in turn should
provide a referral for the "dc=example,dc=co,dc=uk" partition.
The steps for processing top-down queries are described below:
a. Determine the directory partition for the query.
1. Separate the input string into discrete elements where
this is possible. For a DNS domain name of
"www.example.com", this would be "www", "example" and
"com". For the IPv4 network number of "192.0.2.14",
this would be "192", "0", "2" and "14". AS numbers
only have a single value and require no separation. Do
not discard the original query string.
2. IP addresses and AS numbers require additional
conversion. For IPv4 addresses, strip off the prefix
and convert the input string into a reverse-lookup DNS
domain name by reversing the order of the octets and
appending "in-addr.arpa" to the right of the domain
name. For IPv6 addresses, strip off the prefix and
reverse the nibble order of the address (where each
nibble is represented by a single hexadecimal
character), and append "ip6.arpa". For AS numbers,
append only the "arpa" domain name.
b. Form the LDAP search base for the query.
1. If the client application allows non-ASCII input,
convert the domain name formed in step 5.2.2.a above
into its ASCII-compatible form using the "ToASCII"
process defined in RFC 3490.
2. Convert the right-most element from the domain name
formed in step 5.2.2.b.1 into a domainComponent DN
(such as "dc=com" or "dc=arpa"). This represents the
directory partition for the current query.
3. Append "cn=inetResources" to the front of the
domainComponent syntax ("cn=inetResources,dc=com").
This will form the fully-qualified search base for the
LDAP query.
c. Locate the LDAP servers associated with the resource by
processing the domain name formed in step 5.2.2.a above
through the SRV query steps provided in section 5.2.4.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 25]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
d. If the SRV lookup succeeds:
1. Choose the best LDAP server, using the weighting
formula described in RFC 2782 [RFC2782].
2. Formulate the LDAP search using the search base and
search filter constructed earlier. For example, if the
input query string was for "www.example.com", then the
client would begin the process by submitting an
inetDnsDomainMatch extensibleMatch search with the
assertion value of "www.example.com", and with a
search base of "dc=inetResources,dc=com". Similarly,
if the input query string was "192.0.2.14", then the
client would begin the process by submitting an
inetIpv4NetworkMatch extensibleMatch search with the
assertion value of "192.0.2.14/32", and with the
search base of "cn=inetResources,dc=arpa".
3. Submit the search operation to the chosen server and
port number. If the operation fails, report the
failure to the user and exit. Otherwise, display any
answer data which is returned.
4. If the answer data contains a subordinate reference
referral or a continuation reference referral, new
query processes MUST be spawned.
For subordinate reference referrals, process the URLs
according to the rules described in section 5.4 and
restart the query process at step 5.2.2.b. For each
continuation reference referral, display the answer
data received so far, process the LDAP URLs according
to the rules described in section 5.4 and start new
query processes for each referral at step 5.2.2.b,
appending the output from these searches to the
current output.
Any additional subordinate reference referrals or
continuation reference referrals which are encountered
from any subsequent searches will need to be processed
in the same manner as specified above, until no
additional referrals are received.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 26]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
e. If the SRV lookup fails (where failure is defined as any
DNS response message other than an answer), report the
failure to the user and exit the current search operation.
f. Exit the query operation.
5.2.3. Bottom-up processing
The bottom-up model uses an input string to construct an LDAP
assertion value and search base, with DNS queries being used to
locate the LDAP servers which are associated with the management
entity that is directly responsible for the resource in question.
If no servers are available for that partition, the parent
partition in the delegation hierarchy is used instead, with this
process repeating until a server has been located.
The bottom-up model is best used when a leaf-node partition needs
to be queried directly, either because there is no direct
delegation path for the resource in question, or because the user-
managed partition is preferable to the centralized delegation
information. For example, there is no global delegation body which
assigns and manages contact identifiers, so these identifiers need
to be directed towards the leaf-node partitions directly. The
bottom-up model can also be used for other kinds of resources if
desirable, although in most cases the bottom-down model will be
more useful for those resources.
The steps for processing bottom-up queries are described below:
a. Determine the input type (DNS Domain, IPv4 Address, etc.)
b. Determine the authoritative DNS domain for the resource.
1. Separate the input string into discrete elements where
this is possible. For a DNS domain name of
"www.example.com", this would be "www", "example" and
"com". For the IPv4 network number of "192.0.2.14",
this would be "192", "0", "2" and "14". Do not discard
the original query string.
2. IP addresses require additional conversion. For IPv4
addresses, strip off the prefix and convert the input
string into a reverse-lookup DNS domain name by
reversing the order of the octets and appending
"in-addr.arpa" to the right of the resulting sequence.
For IPv6 addresses, strip off the prefix and reverse
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 27]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
the nibble order of the address (where each nibble is
represented by a single hexadecimal character), and
append "ip6.arpa" to the right of the resulting
sequence.
c. Form the LDAP search base for the query.
1. If the client application allows non-ASCII input,
convert the domain name formed in step 5.2.3.b above
into its ASCII-compatible form using the "ToASCII"
process defined in RFC 3490.
2. Convert the domain name formed in step 5.2.3.c.1 above
into a domainComponent DN (such as
"dc=www,dc=example,dc=com" or "dc=0,dc=2,dc=0,dc=192,
dc=in-addr,dc=arpa"). This represents the directory
partition for the current query.
3. Append the "cn=inetResources" RDN to the left of the
domainComponent syntax (perhaps resulting in
"cn=inetResources,dc=www,dc=example,dc=com"). This
will become the search base for the LDAP query.
d. Locate the LDAP servers associated with the resource by
processing the domain name formed in step 5.2.3.b above
through the SRV query steps provided in section 5.2.4.
e. If the SRV lookup fails with an NXDOMAIN response code (as
described in RFC 2308 [RFC2308]), then the domain name used
for the SRV lookup does not exist, and a substitute LDAP
server and search base must be used instead. This process
involves determining the parent zone for the domain name in
question, issuing an SRV lookup for that zone, and using
the domain name of the zone as the new LDAP search base,
with this process repeating until a search base can be
located, or until a critical failure forces an exit.
1. Remove the left-most label from the domain name formed
in step 5.2.3.b.
2. If this process has already resulted in a query domain
name at a top-level domain such as "com" or "arpa",
convert the query domain name to "." (to signify the
root domain).
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 28]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
3. If the queried domain name is already set to ".", the
query can go no higher (this most likely indicates a
malformed DNS configuration, a connectivity problem,
or a typo in the query). Exit and report the failure
to the user.
4. Restart the process at step 5.2.2.b, using the domain
name formed above. Repeat until a server is located or
a critical failure forces an exit.
For example, if the original input string of
"www.example.com" resulted in a failed SRV lookup for
"_ldap._tcp.www.example.com", then the first fallback
SRV query would be for "_ldap._tcp.example.com", and
the next fallback query would be for "_ldap._tcp.com",
possibly being followed by "_ldap._tcp.", and possibly
resulting in failure after that.
f. If the SRV lookup succeeds:
1. Choose the best LDAP server, using the weighting
formula described in [RFC2782].
2. Formulate the LDAP search using the search base and
search filter constructed above. For example, if the
input query string was for "www.example.com", then the
client would begin the process by submitting an
inetDnsDomainMatch extensibleMatch search with the
assertion value of "www.example.com", with the search
base of "cn=inetResources,dc=www,dc=example,dc=com".
If the SRV lookups had failed (resulting in "com"
being used as the authoritative directory partition),
then the search base for the query would also be
trimmed accordingly ("cn=inetResources,dc=com").
3. Submit the search operation to the chosen server and
port number. If the operation fails, report the
failure to the user and exit. Otherwise, display any
answer data which is returned.
4. If the answer data contains a subordinate reference
referral or a continuation reference referral, new
query processes MUST be spawned.
For subordinate reference referrals, process the URLs
according to the rules described in section 5.4 and
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 29]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
restart the query process at step 5.2.3.d. For each
continuation reference referral, display the answer
data received so far, process the LDAP URLs according
to the rules described in section 5.4 and start new
query processes for each referral at step 5.2.3.d,
appending the output from these searches to the
current output.
Any additional subordinate reference referrals or
continuation reference referrals which are encountered
from any subsequent queries will need to be processed
in the same manner as specified above, until no
additional referrals are received.
g. If a fatal DNS error condition occurs, report the error to
the user and stop processing the current query. A fatal DNS
error is any response message with an RCODE of FORMERR,
SERVFAIL, NOTIMPL, or REFUSED, or where a query results in
NODATA (implying that an "_ldap._tcp" domain name exists
but it doesn't have an SRV resource record associated with
it, which is most likely a configuration error).
h. Exit the query operation.
5.2.4. SRV processing
The bootstrapping models described in this document make use of
DNS SRV resource records to locate the LDAP servers associated
with the resource provided in the query input.
The procedure for constructing this SRV lookup is as follows:
a. Construct an SRV-specific label pair for the service type.
For LDAP queries, this will be "_ldap._tcp".
b. If the client allows non-ASCII characters to be input, then
convert the domain name input into its ASCII-compatible
form by using the "ToASCII" process described in [RFC3490].
c. Append the SRV label pair to the left of the input domain
name from step 5.2.4.b. In the case of a query for the
"example.com" domain, this would result in an SRV-specific
domain name of "_ldap._tcp.example.com".
d. Issue a DNS query for the SRV resource records associated
with the domain name formed in step 5.2.4.b.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 30]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
Multiple SRV resource records may be returned in response to a
query. Each resource record identifies a different connection
target, including the domain name of a server, and a port number
for that server. The port number specified in a SRV resource
record MUST be used for any subsequent bind and search operations.
SRV resource records provide "priority" and "weight" values which
MUST be used to determine the preferred server. If a server is
unavailable or unreachable, a connection attempt must be made to
the next-best server in the answer set.
Refer to [RFC2782] for a detailed explanation of SRV resource
records and their handling.
If a preferred connection target is listed with multiple IP
addresses, clients should cycle through the IP addresses before
using the next-preferred connection target.
5.3. Query Processing
Once an authoritative server for the partition in question has
been located, the LDAP query can be submitted. In order to ensure
interoperability, this specification defines several behavioral
rules which clients and servers SHOULD conform with. These
guidelines are discussed in the following sections.
5.3.1. The inetResourcesControl server control
The inetResourcesControl server control is the master control
object for the FIRS service, and provides the version of each
object class that is available for use on the current server, and
also lists the matching filters that the server is willing to use
for each of the listed object classes.
The OID for inetResourcesControl is 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.0.0. This
value MUST be provided in the OID field of the control.
The value section of the inetResourcesControl contains nested
sequences of data. The first element in each sequence identifies
an object class, while first nested element identifies a matching
filter which may be used for that object class, while the next set
of nested elements identify the attributes that may be used with
each matching filter.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 31]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
The structure of the value section of inetResourcesControl is
illustrated by the following ASN.1 definition:
inetResourcesControlValue ::= SEQUENCE {
objectClass LDAPOID,
matchingFilters SEQUENCE OF matchingFilter,
attributes SEQUENCE OF attribute }
matchingFilter ::= LDAPSTRING
attribute ::= LDAPOID
Each object class, matching filter, and attribute MUST be
presented as a string. Object classes MUST be listed as OIDs so
that clients can determine the supported object classes according
to their version. Matching filters MUST also be provided as OIDs,
except for the "stock" matching filter operators defined in
[RFC2251], which MUST be presented with the textual identifiers
shown therein. Attributes MUST be listed with their textual
identifiers.
At a minimum, servers MUST support the equalityMatch and
extensibleMatch filters from [RFC2251] for every object class
listed, and SHOULD always declare these filters. Furthermore,
servers MUST support the "cn" attribute for every matching filter,
and SHOULD declare these attributes. The Asterisk character ("*")
MAY be provided as a wildcard to indicate that the server will
accept any matching filter for the associated object class, or to
indicate that the server will accept any attribute for the
associated matching filter. Servers MUST allow any supported
matching filter to be used as part of an extensibleMatch
operation, and clients MAY assume that any allowed operation will
be acceptable as part of an extensibleMatch.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 32]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
An example of an inetResourcesControl server control is shown
below for illustration purposes:
{ 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.0.0, FALSE, {
1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.1.1 {
equalityMatch {*},
extensibleMatch {*} } }, {
1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.3.1 {
1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.3.0.1 {*},
equalityMatch {*},
substringMatch {cn},
extensibleMatch {*} } } }
Figure 3: An example inetResourcesControl server control.
In the example shown in Figure 3, the inetResourcesControl type is
identified by the OID of 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.0.0, while the
criticality field is set to FALSE, as per the requirements in
[RFC2251]. The contents of the control value identify the current
OID for the inetResources object class along with the [RFC2251]
textual identifiers of the equalityMatch and extensibleMatch
operators, each of which will accept any attributes. Figure 3 also
identifies the OID for the inetDnsDomain object class along with
the OID for the inetDnsDomainMatch and the [RFC2251] textual
identifiers for the equalityMatch, substringMatch and
extensibleMatch operators, although the substringMatch filter is
only advertised for use with the "cn" attribute.
FIRS-compliant servers SHOULD return the inetResourcesControl
server control as an unsolicited response to a successful bind
request. Clients MUST use the OID of the inetResourcesControl for
the purpose of validating the contents of the control, and MUST
use the OIDs of the listed object classes to discover schema
versioning information.
Servers MAY restrict the contents of the inetResourcesControl
value according to the authenticated identity of the client. For
example, servers can choose to enable computationally-intense
searches for authorized users while refusing to provide the same
searches for anonymous users.
If a client does not receive a usable inetResourcesControl control
as part of the bind response, the client SHOULD issue a request
for the control before proceeding. If a client is still unable to
obtain a usable inetResourcesControl server control, the client
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 33]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
MAY choose a different server for the partition, or MAY choose to
assume that the equalityMatch matching filter will be supported
for any of the known types, or MAY choose to undergo any other
recovery efforts. In any event, clients SHOULD NOT use the absence
or contents of the control to completely abort query processing
unless all of the servers for a partition have refused to provide
service to the client.
For example, if the server advertises support for the
inetDnsDomain object class but does not advertise support for the
inetDnsDomainMatch matching filter, the client MAY issue discrete
equality searches for each of the specific domain name resources
(note that this kind of query can fail to produce referrals in
some cases, but will usually produce at least some answers).
In all cases, if any given server advertises support for a
particular object class or matching filter, the client MUST make
use of the server-provided service.
5.3.2. Matching filters
LDAP search filters are fairly flexible, in that they allow for a
wide variety of configurable elements, such as the maximum number
of entries which are returned, the type of comparison operation
that needs to be performed, and other details. In order to ensure
interoperability, default values are defined here for many of
these elements.
[RFC2251] defines the LDAP search request specification, although
it does not provide guidelines or recommended values for the
filter settings. In an effort to promote interoperability among
FIRS clients and servers, this document defines some recommended
and mandatory values for searches within the FIRS service.
NOTE: These rules ONLY apply to the FIRS search operations
in particular. Any queries for other resources SHOULD NOT
impose these restrictions. Also note that other documents
which define additional resource types can also define
different restrictions, and those definitions will take
precedence over the global defaults.
Servers MUST be prepared to enforce these rules independently of
the client settings, and clients MUST be prepared to receive
truncated search results accordingly.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 34]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
The default values of an LDAPv3 search filter in FIRS are:
* Search base. The directory partition to be used in a search
will vary for each query operation. The methodology for
determining the current search base for a query is defined
by the query-processing protocols described in section 5.1,
although FIRS searches are normally constrained to the
"cn=inetResources" container of a particular directory
partition.
* Scope. In order to successfully locate referral stub child
entries, clients MUST use a sub-tree scope for FIRS
searches. Servers MUST NOT arbitrarily limit the scope of
search operations.
* Dereference aliases. Although the FIRS service does not
make direct use of alias entries, they are not prohibited.
Clients SHOULD set the Dereference Aliases option to
"Always" for FIRS searches. Servers SHOULD dereference any
aliases which are encountered, where this is feasible (in
particular, where the alias refers to another directory
partition on the same server).
* Size limit. The size limit field specifies the maximum
number of entries that a server should return. For the FIRS
service, this setting SHOULD be set to a value between 25
and 100. This range ensures that the client is capable of
receiving a sufficient number of entries and continuation
references in a single response, but also works to prevent
runaway queries that match everything (such as searches for
"com", which can match every inetDnsDomain entry in the
"cn=inetResources,dc=com" container). Servers MAY truncate
answer sets if the client specifies a larger value.
* Time limit. The time limit field specifies the maximum
number of seconds that a server should process the search.
For the FIRS service, this setting SHOULD be set to a value
between 10 and 60 seconds. This range ensures that the
server is able to process a sufficient number of entries,
but also works to prevent runaway queries that match
everything. Servers MAY stop processing queries after the
time limit if the client specifies a larger value.
* Types-only. The types-only setting is a Boolean flag which
controls whether or not attribute values are returned in
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 35]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
the answer sets. Since excessive queries are likely to be
more burdensome than larger answer sets, this setting
SHOULD be set to FALSE. Resource-constrained clients (such
as PDAs) MAY set this value to TRUE, but these clients MUST
be prepared to issue the necessary subsequent queries.
* Filter. The search operation will depend on the type of
data being queried. For FIRS queries, the filter MUST use
the matching rules defined for the relevant resource type.
* Attribute list. Clients MAY restrict the list of attributes
which are returned in searches, but are discouraged from
doing so without cause.
5.3.3. Query-volume restrictions
The restrictions listed in section 5.3.2 represent suggested
defaults, although server operators MAY impose any kinds of usage
limits they deem necessary or desirable.
Specifically, server operators MAY restrict the amount of
information provided to specific clients and/or users over a given
amount of time, within reason. For example, servers MAY restrict
clients to an arbitrary number of queries per-hour or per-day, or
may impose mandatory time intervals between queries, and so forth.
Similarly, servers MAY restrict clients to an arbitrary number of
answers over a given time period, such as limiting clients to 100
answers regardless of the number of queries which were used to
generate those answers.
Servers which refuse to process a query due to volume policy
SHOULD use the "unwillingToPerform" response code ("53") to inform
the client of these restrictions, and SHOULD provide explanatory
text in the error message. These errors SHOULD be generated when
the session is first established, if at all possible.
In the worst cases, servers MAY deny all service to abusive
clients. This can be implemented by rejecting the TCP connection
outright, or by providing an explanatory error early in the
session, or at any other point.
Clients MUST be prepared for connection requests and queries to be
denied for any reason, and MUST treat these conditions as non-
permanent failures. Clients MAY retry the operations if a known
error condition is corrected (such as authentication errors), but
SHOULD NOT automatically generate retry attempts.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 36]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
5.3.4. Authentication restrictions
Servers operators SHOULD allow anonymous authentication for read-
only access to public delegation data. Clients SHOULD use
anonymous authentication by default.
Wherever a server operator requires or desires clients to
authenticate for access, servers MUST support the simple
authentication mechanism defined in RFC 2222 [RFC2222], although
server operators MAY require the use of any authentication
mechanisms in addition to or instead of the simple mechanism.
Server operators MAY define any access controls on the data, as
necessary for policy considerations. Server operators SHOULD NOT
impose unreasonable requirements for proprietary authentication
mechanisms for routine purposes.
Server operators MAY withhold privileged information from non-
privileged clients or users, as necessary.
Clients MUST NOT equate the absence of any attributes with the
absence of data, and SHOULD assume that the authenticated user is
not authorized to view any data which has not been provided.
If a client specifically requests an entry or an attribute which
the server is unwilling to provide due to ACL settings, the server
MUST use the appropriate LDAPv3 error message. For example, if the
user is unable to view an entry or a requested attribute because
it has not yet provided sufficient authentication credentials, the
server MUST return the "invalidCredentials" error. Similarly, if
the client has requested an entry or attribute which the server is
unwilling to provide due to policy reasons, the server MUST return
the unwillingToPerform error to the client.
See section 5.3.5 for mechanisms that can be used to determine
and/or describe usage restrictions on specific attribute values.
5.3.5. Extended attribute ACLs
In normal operations, attributes and values that the client is not
authorized to view would not be returned in response to queries
for that data, with the client equating a lack of data in a
particular attribute with "no data that you are authorized to
view". However, [CRISP-REQ] defines additional response types for
conveying explicit restrictions on data (such as reporting that
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 37]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
the data is restricted due to privacy considerations), and which
requires more comprehensive reporting than simply omitting data
that the user is not authorized to view.
This extended data is provided through the use of LDAP attribute
options, as described in section 4.1.5 of [RFC2251] (this is the
same mechanism as used with language tags), using "inetExtAcl-" as
the option prefix.
The current-valid list of attribute options are:
* InetExtAcl-S0 -- Security Restricted. Some attribute values
have not been returned due to security requirements which
have not been met.
* InetExtAcl-P0 -- Privacy Restricted. Some attribute values
have not been returned due to privacy requirements which
have not been met.
* InetExtAcl-S1 -- Security Cleared. The security
requirements on the associated attribute values have been
met and the user has been granted access to the data.
* InetExtAcl-P1 -- Privacy Cleared. The privacy requirements
on the associated attribute values have been met and the
user has been granted access to the data.
* InetExtAcl-R0 -- Do Not Distribute. The associated
attribute values are not to be reused outside this session.
Each attribute instance MUST have one of the above attribute
options, but MUST NOT have more than one option. Multiple
instances of the attribute option MAY be assigned to an attribute,
although the instances SHOULD NOT have conflicting meanings.
As a simple example, "mail;inetExtAcl-S1:admins@example.com" would
indicate that this instance of the "mail" attribute had an ACL
protecting it from normal use, but that the user was authorized to
view the attribute data. Meanwhile, the attribute instance of
"mail;inetExtAcl-S1;inetExt-R0:admins@example.com" would indicate
that the user had been granted access to the data, but that the
user must not distribute the data.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 38]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
Multiple and varying instances of an attribute can co-exist in an
entry simultaneously if necessary. For example, the following
entries can all co-exist within a single entry.
mail:admins@example.com
mail;inetExtAcl-S1:postmaster@example.com
mail;inetExtAcl-P1:jack@example.com
mail;inetExtAcl-P1:inetExtAcl-R0:jill@example.com
In that example, searches for the "mail" attribute would produce
the public information, while searches for the other attribute
instances would produce the alternate data.
Each instance of an attribute can have its own ACLs in the
directory, thereby allowing specific instances of an attribute to
be restricted to certain users. For example, ACLs on the
inetExtAcl-S1 instance of an attribute can be defined so that the
entry owner can view the data, while the inetExtAcl-S0 instance
can be set such that help-desk operators are able to see that
there are hidden attribute values (but without exposing the values
to those users), but with both instances being hidden from
anonymous users so that the general public does not know that
there are any extended attribute options.
Each instance of the attributes can be requested through normal
query processes, although the inetExtAcl-S0 and inetExtAcl-P0
attributes will always be empty (the presence of the attribute
option implies that the related data could not be returned), and
thus those instances will never be returned.
In order to simplify these requests and responses, an
inetExtAclControl client control is provided that specifically
allows for the request of all extended ACL attribute options. The
OID for the inetExtAclControl control is 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.0.1.
Clients MUST provide this control as part of the search request,
and servers which support this control MUST return all of the
regular and extended ACL attributes that are defined for an entry
(according to the ACLs appropriate for the current user).
5.3.6. Protocol and schema version controls
The FIRS collection of specifications are explicitly bound to the
LDAPv3 protocol, as defined by [RFC3377] and its subordinate
specifications. If a new version of the LDAP protocol emerges, it
is expected that some type of mechanism will be included for end-
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 39]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
points to use when negotiating over the version in use. Lacking
such a mechanism, FIRS is explicitly restricted to LDAPv3.
LDAP attributes, object classes, syntaxes and matching filters
have OIDs which uniquely identify the format of the data they
provide, and which act as simple schema-version identifiers in the
generic case. [RFC2251] defines standardized mechanisms for
retrieving and reading the OIDs associated with object classes and
attributes (among other resource types). These mechanisms MAY be
used whenever a FIRS client reads an entry, and MUST be used
whenever a FIRS client modifies or creates an entry (even though
FIRS does not define mechanisms for updating entries, it is
assumed that some clients will allow this behavior).
The inetResourcesControl server control described in section 5.3.1
provides a mechanism that clients can use to determine the version
of an object class or matching filter that the server supports.
Any modifications to any existing schema definitions MUST be
accompanied by new OID assignments for the affected elements.
5.4. Referral Processing
As was discussed in section 3.5, FIRS supports two types of LDAP
referrals, which are subordinate reference referrals and
continuation reference referrals. Both referral types use URLs for
the purpose of providing referral targets, using the rules
described in section 3.5 of this document.
Non-compliance with the URL formatting requirements provided in
section 3.5.2 amounts to an error, and is sufficient cause for a
client to stop processing a query.
The procedure for processing referral URLs is as follows:
a. [RFC2251] allows multiple URLs to be provided, although the
URLs are not provided with any "preference" or "weighting"
values. If a set of URLs are provided, only one of the URLs
need to be tried (implementations MAY perform additional
queries in an attempt to recover from temporary failures,
although this is not required). Select one of the URLs at
random ("round-robin"), and continue to the next step in
the process.
b. Locate the LDAP URLs in the referral data, and discard any
URLs which use any other service types. FIRS clients MUST
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 40]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
support LDAP URLs. URLs with other service type identifiers
SHOULD be ignored.
c. Extract any port number which may have been provided with
the URL, and set it aside for possible use with the
subsequent connection attempt. Use the port number
discovered through any subsequent SRV lookups (as described
below), or as a last resort use the default port number
associated with the protocol identifier.
d. Determine the authoritative partition and search base
specified in the referral URL.
1. If no distinguished name element was provided,
determine the authoritative partition and search base
from the provided assertion value, according to the
procedures for the bootstrap model that is most
relevant to the resource-type.
2. Otherwise, use the distinguished name element for the
search base of the subsequent search operation.
3. Extract the sequence of domainComponent distinguished
names from the search base, and use them as the
authoritative partition.
e. Determine the server address and port number specified in
the referral URL.
1. If a host identifier was not provided, map the
domainComponent elements determined in step 5.4.d to a
DNS domain name and submit a DNS lookup for the SRV
resource records associated with that domain name. If
this step fails, report the error to the user and exit
the query.
2. If the host identifier is an IP address, extract it
and skip to step 5.4.f.
3. If no port number was provided in the URL, submit a
DNS lookup for the SRV resource records associated
with the domain name, as described in section 5.2.4.
If this lookup succeeds, skip to step 5.4.f.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 41]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
4. If the SRV lookup from the previous step fails, or if
no port number was specified, submit a DNS lookup for
the A resource records.
f. Determine the new assertion value and/or matching filter
specified in the referral URL.
1. If the URL's path element does not contain a filter
element, reuse the current matching filter and
assertion value.
2. If the URL's path element contains a filter element,
use it to form the new matching filter and/or
assertion value.
g. Discard the remainder of the URL.
h. Use the discovered parameter values to start a new query.
Note that step 5.4.g requires the client to discard the remainder
of the URL, although this step may be changed in subsequent
versions of this specification. In particular, [CRISP-REQ]
requires the ability to pass an inter-server "referral bag", and
this mechanism may be implemented through the use of extensions in
the LDAP URL.
6. Security Considerations
Security considerations are discussed in [FIRS-ARCH].
7. IANA Considerations
IANA considerations are discussed in [FIRS-ARCH].
8. Normative References
[RFC1274] Barker, P., and Kille, S. "The COSINE and
Internet X.500 Schema", RFC 1274, November
1991.
[RFC2079] Smith, M. "Definition of an X.500 Attribute
Type and an Object Class to Hold Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 2079,
January 1997.
[RFC2222] Myers, J. "Simple Authentication and Security
Layer (SASL)", RFC 2222, October 1997.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 42]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
[RFC2247] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R.,
and Sataluri, S. "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500
DNs", RFC 2247, January 1998.
[RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and Kille, S.
"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)",
RFC 2251, December 1997.
[RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T., and Kille,
S. "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252,
December 1997.
[RFC2253] Wahl, M., Kille, S., and Howes, T.
"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
UTF-8 String Representation of DNs", RFC 2253,
December 1997.
[RFC2254] Howes, T. "The String Representation of LDAP
Search Filters", RFC 2254, December 1997.
[RFC2255] Howes, T., and Smith, M. "The LDAP URL
Format", RFC 2255, December 1997.
[RFC2256] Wahl, M. "A Summary of the X.500(96) User
Schema for use with LDAPv3", RFC 2256,
December 1997.
[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H. "IETF Policy on Character Sets
and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January
1998.
[RFC2308] Andrews, M. "Negative Caching of DNS Queries
(DNS NCACHE)", RFC 2308, March 1998.
[RFC2596] Wahl, M., and Howes, T. "Use of Language Codes
in LDAP", RFC 2596, May 1999.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and Esibov, L. "A
DNS RR for specifying the location of services
(DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, February 2000.
[RFC2798] Smith, M. "Definition of the inetOrgPerson
LDAP Object Class", RFC 2798, April 2000.
[RFC3296] Zeilenga, K. "Named Subordinate References in
Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
Directories", RFC 3296, July 2002.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 43]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
[RFC3377] Hodges, J., and Morgan, R. "Lightweight
Directory Access Protocol (v3): Technical
Specification", RFC 3377, September 2002.
[RFC3490] Falstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and Costello, A.
"Internationalizing Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.
[FIRS-ARCH] Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry
Service: Architecture and Implementation
Guide", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-03, August
2003.
[FIRS-ASN] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Autonomous
System Numbers in the Federated Internet
Registry Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-asn-
03, August 2003.
[FIRS-CONTCT] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Contact
Persons in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-03,
August 2003.
[FIRS-DNS] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Domains in
the Federated Internet Registry Service",
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dns-03, August 2003.
[FIRS-DNSRR] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Resource
Records in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dnsrr-02, July
2003.
[FIRS-IPV4] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv4 Address
Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv4-03,
August 2003.
[FIRS-IPV6] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv6 Address
Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv6-03,
August 2003.
[US-ASCII] Cerf, V. "ASCII format for Network
Interchange", RFC 20, October 1969.
9. Changes from Previous Versions
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03:
* Several clarifications and corrections have been made.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 44]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
* Added a discussion on attribute references.
* Added a discussion on referral source entry names.
* Clarified the rules for LDAP referral URLs.
* Temporarily removed the examples for referral processing,
pending additional clarification text.
* Renamed the firsVersion control to inetResourcesControl and
redefined its usage slightly.
* Renamed inetPrivateIdentifier to inetLocalIdentifier
* Added the inetExtAcl attribute option family, and defined
the inetExtAcl client control.
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-02:
* Several clarifications and corrections have been made.
* Changed the referral requirements so that servers are
allowed to provide non-LDAP URLs but that FIRS clients are
required to ignore non-LDAP URLs. This synchronizes
referral mechanisms in the back-end data-stores, and moves
the narrower requirement to the client.
* Added an inetPrivateIdentifier attribute for storing
operator-specific labels (E.G., legacy NIC handles).
* Added the firsVersion server control, which provides a
limited amount of version- and feature-negotiation support
to FIRS.
* Several attributes had their OIDs changed. NOTE THAT THIS
IS AN INTERNET DRAFT, AND THAT THE OIDS ARE SUBJECT TO
ADDITIONAL CHANGES AS THIS DOCUMENT IS EDITED.
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-01:
* Several clarifications and corrections have been made.
* Significant portions of text were moved to [FIRS-ARCH].
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 45]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-00:
* Restructured document set, separating the architectural
discussion from the technical descriptions. Several
sections were relocated to [FIRS-ARCH] as a result of this
change.
* "Attribute references" have been eliminated from the
specification. All referential attributes now provide
actual data instead of URL pointers to data. Clients that
wish to retrieve these values will need to start new
queries using the data values instead of URLs.
* The various modified* operational attributes in the core
schema have been eliminated as unnecessary.
* Several attributes had their OIDs changed. NOTE THAT THIS
IS AN INTERNET DRAFT, AND THAT THE OIDS ARE SUBJECT TO
ADDITIONAL CHANGES AS THIS DOCUMENT IS EDITED.
draft-ietf-crisp-lw-core-00:
* As a result of the formation of the CRISP working group,
the original monolithic document has been broken into
multiple documents, with draft-ietf-crisp-lw-core
describing the core service, while related documents
describe the per-resource schema and access mechanisms.
* References to the ldaps: URL scheme have been removed,
since there is no standards-track specification for the
ldaps: scheme.
* An acknowledgements section was added.
draft-hall-ldap-whois-01:
* The "Objectives" section has been removed. [ir-dir-req] is
now being used as the guiding document for this service.
* Several typographical errors have been fixed.
* Some unnecessary text has been removed.
* Figures changed to show complete sets of object classes, to
improve inheritance visibility.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 46]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
* Clarified the handling of reverse-lookup domains (zones
within the in-addr.arpa portion of the DNS hierarchy) in
the inetDnsDomain object class reference text.
* Referrals now use regular LDAP URLs (multiple responses
with explicit hostnames and port numbers). Prior editions
of this specification used LDAP SRV resource records for
all referrals.
* The delegation status codes used by the
inetDnsDelegationStatus, inetIpv4DelegationStatus,
inetIpv6DelegationStatus and inetAsnDelegationStatus
attributes have been condensed to a more logical set.
* Added an inetDnsAuthServers attribute for publishing the
authoritative DNS servers associated with a domain. NOTE
THAT THIS IS A TEMPORARY ATTRIBUTE THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE
REPLACED BY GENERALIZED RESOURCE-RECORD ENTRIES AND
ATTRIBUTES.
* Added an inetGeneralDisclaimer attribute for publishing
generalized disclaimers.
* Added the inetAssociatedResources auxiliary object class
for defining associated resources, and moved some of the IP
addressing and ASN attributes to the new object class.
* Several attributes had their OIDs changed. NOTE THAT THIS
IS AN INTERNET DRAFT, AND THAT THE OIDS ARE SUBJECT TO
ADDITIONAL CHANGES AS THIS DOCUMENT IS EDITED.
10. Author's Address
Eric A. Hall
ehall@ehsco.com
11. Acknowledgments
Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Portions of this document were funded by VeriSign Labs.
The first version of this specification was co-authored by Andrew
Newton of VeriSign Labs, and subsequent versions continue to be
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 47]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-03.txt August 2003
developed with his active participation. Edward Lewis and Peter
Gietz also contributed significant feedback to this specification
in the later stages of its developments.
12. 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 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.
Hall I-D Expires: March 2004 [page 48] | PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 03:09:30 |