Network Working Group E. Gunduz Internet-Draft RIPE NCC Expires: April 4, 2005 A. Newton VeriSign, Inc. October 4, 2004 IRIS - An Address Registry (areg) Type for the Internet Registry Information Service draft-ietf-crisp-iris-areg-07 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 4, 2005. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). Abstract This document describes an IRIS registry schema for IP address and Autonomous System Number information. The schema extends the necessary query and result operations of IRIS to provide the functional information service needs for syntaxes and results used by Internet Protocol address registries. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 1] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Schema Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Query Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1 Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.3 and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.8 Contact Search Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2 Result Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.1 and Results . . . . . . . 8 3.2.2 Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.3 Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.4 Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.5 Contact References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.6 Common Result Child Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3 Support for . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Terminology for Nesting of Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Formal XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. BEEP Transport Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.1 Message Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.2 Server Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7. URI Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.1 Application Service Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.2 Top-Down Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 A. Example Requests and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 A.1 Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 A.2 Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 45 Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 2] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 1. Introduction This document describes an IRIS namespace for Internet address registries using an XML Schema [5] derived from and using the IRIS [9] schema. This schema and registry type are provided to demonstrate the extensibility of the IRIS framework beyond the use of domains, a criteria defined in CRISP [11]. The schema given is this document is specified using the Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in XML [2], XML Schema notation as described in XML_SD [4] and XML_SS [5], and XML Namespaces as described in XML_NS [3]. Examples of client/server XML exchanges with this registry type are available in Appendix A. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 3] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 2. Document Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [8]. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 4] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 3. Schema Description IRIS requires the derivation of both query and result elements by a registry schema. These descriptions follow. The descriptions contained within this section refer to XML elements and attributes and their relation to the exchange of data within the protocol. These descriptions also contain specifications outside the scope of the formal XML syntax. Therefore, this section will use terms defined by RFC 2119 [8] to describe the specification outside the scope of the formal XML syntax. While reading this section, please reference Section 5 for needed details on the formal XML syntax. 3.1 Query Derivatives 3.1.1 Query searches for contacts given search constraints. The allowable search fields are handled by one of the elements in the "contactSearchGroup" (see Section 3.1.8). This query also provides optional elements containing language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use this information in processing the query, such as tailoring normalization routines to aid in more effective searches. The client SHOULD pass the names unchanged to the server, and the implementation of the server decides if the search is case sensitive or not. 3.1.2 The element allows searches by name of organizations. The child element allows the query to be constrained based on the name of the organization. The constraint can either constrain the query by an exact match using the element, or it may constrain the query by a subset of the name using the and elements. This query also provides optional elements containing language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use this information in processing the query, such as tailoring Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 5] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 normalization routines to aid in more effective searches. The client SHOULD pass the names unchanged to the server, and the implementation of the server decides if the search is case sensitive or not. 3.1.3 and The and elements allow searches by name of autonomous systems, and networks, respectively. Both have the same format. The child element may either have as children the element or the and elements. 3.1.4 The element is a query for a network given a related IP address or IP address range. It has the following child elements: o - has a child element containing the starting IPv4 address of the network and an optional child of containing the ending IPv4 address of the network. o - same as but the child addresses contain IPv6 addresses. Clients MUST convert any short-form notation to the fully-qualified notation. o - determines the network specificity for the search (see Section 4). Valid values are "exact-match", "all-less-specifics", "one-level-less-specifics", "all-more-specifics", and "one-level-more-specifics". This element may have the optional attribute 'allowEquivalences'. When set to "true", the result set should include networks with equivalent starting and ending addresses. The results from this query MUST be either the result or the result. More than one network result MAY be returned. 3.1.5 The element is a query for a network given a the handle of a related network. It has the following child elements: o - Specifies the network handle. o - determines the network specificity for the search (see Section 4). Valid values are "all-less-specifics", "one-level-less-specifics", "all-more-specifics", and "one-level-more-specifics". Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 6] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 The results from this query MUST be either the result or the result. More than one network result MAY be returned. This query could be used to discover the parentage relationships between networks that have the same starting and ending addresses. 3.1.6 The element allows a search for autonomous system number ranges given a related ASN range. It has the following child elements: o - Specifies the start of the ASN range. o - Specifies the end of the ASN range. o - determines the range specificity for the search (see Section 4). Valid values are "exact-match", "all-less-specifics", "one-level-less-specifics", "all-more-specifics" and "one-level-more-specifics". This element may have the optional attribute 'allowEquivalences'. When set to "true", the result set should include ranges with equivalent starting and ending numbers. The results from this query MUST be result. More than one result MAY be returned. 3.1.7 The element allows a search for autonomous system number ranges, IP networks and organizations on fields associated with that entity's contact. Search constraints of , , and MUST restrict the results to ASN ranges, IPv4 networks, IPv6 networks and organizations, respectively. The allowable search fields are handled with either the element or one of the elements in the "contactSearchGroup" (see Section 3.1.8). The element allows for the entities to be selected based on the contact having the specified contact handle. The query MAY also be constrained further using the optional element. The contents of this element signify the role the contact has with the entity. This query also provides optional elements containing language tags. Clients MAY use these elements to give a hint about the natural language(s) of the affected element. Servers MAY use this information in processing the query, such as tailoring Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 7] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 normalization routines to aid in more effective searches. The results from this query MUST be the results, the results, the or results. More than one result MAY be returned and the results MAY be of mixed types. 3.1.8 Contact Search Group Some of the queries above have similar query constraints for searching on contacts. This section describes those common parameters. allows the query to be constrained based on the common name of the contact. The constraint can either constrain the query by an exact match using the element, or it may constrain the query by a subset of the common name using the and elements. allows the query to be constrained based on the organization ID (handle) of the contact. constrains the query based on the e-mail address of the contact. This may be done by an exact e-mail address using the element or by any e-mail address in a domain using the element. The MUST only contain a valid domain name (i.e. no '@' symbol), and the matching SHOULD take place only on the domain given (i.e. no partial matches with respect to substrings or parent domains). The , , and elements restrict the scope of the query based on the city, region, or postal code of the contact, respectively. Each one must only contain an element containing the exact city, region, or postal code (i.e. no substring searches). 3.2 Result Derivatives 3.2.1 and Results The and share a common defintion of 'ipNetworkType'. It has the following child elements: o contains the registry-unique assigned handle for this network. o contains a human friendly name for the network. o contains the first IP address of the network. o contains the last IP address of the network. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 8] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 o contains a string denoting the type of network. * contains a URI where the meanings of the values are explained in a plain natural language. o Zero or more elements, each containing the domain name of a nameserver responsible for reverse-DNS mapping for this network. o contains an entity reference to the organization assigned this network. The referent MUST be an (Section 3.2.4) result. o One of: * contains an entity reference to the parent network of this network. The referent MUST be an (Section 3.2.1) result if this reference is a child of . The referent MUST be an (Section 3.2.1) result if this reference is a child of . * contains no children and simply signifies that the network does not have a parent. o Contact references (see Section 3.2.5). o Common child elements (see Section 3.2.6). 3.2.2 Result The element represents an assigned autonomous system. It has the following children: o contains a registry-unique assigned handle for this autonomous system. o contains an integer indicating the starting number for the autonomous system. o contains an integer indicating the ending number for the autonomous system. o contains an entity reference to the organization assigned this autonomous system. The referent MUST be an (Section 3.2.4) result. o One of: * contains an entity reference to the parent ASN range of this ASN range. The referent MUST be an (Section 3.2.2) result. * contains no children and simply signifies that the network does not have a parent. o Contact references (see Section 3.2.5). o Common child elements (see Section 3.2.6). 3.2.3 Result The element represents the registration of a point of contact. It has the following child elements: o contains the registry-unique assigned handle for this contact. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 9] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 o Either or . The first element specifes the name of the contact. The latter element, , specifies that the contact is a group of people given the responsibility described by this element. o contains the email address for this contact. o contains the sip address for this contact. o contains an entity reference to the organization associated with this contact. The referent MUST be an (Section 3.2.4) result. o contains child elements describing the phone number of the contact. The child elements are , , and . o Common child elements (see Section 3.2.6). 3.2.4 Result The element represents an organization. It has the following child elements: o contains the name of the organization. o contains a registry-unique identifier for this organization. o contains the email address for this organization. o
contains the address for this organization. o contains the city where this organization is located. o contains the national region where this organization is located. o contains the postal code where this organization is located. o contains the country code where this organization is located. This MUST be compliant with ISO 3166 [12] two-character country codes. o Contact references (see Section 3.2.5). o Common child elements (see Section 3.2.6). 3.2.5 Contact References The registry schema defined in Section 5 normalizes out a group of elements used to reference contacts. This group is used by many of the result types for this registry. The group has the following elements, each of which may appear as many times as needed. The referent of each MUST be (Section 3.2.3) results. o o o o o Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 10] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 3.2.6 Common Result Child Elements The registry schema defined in Section 5 normalizes out a group of common elements used most of the reult types. The group has the following elements: o contains an entity reference to the number resource registry of record. The referent MUST be an (Section 3.2.4) result. o contains the date of first registration. o contains the date when the registration was last updated. o The element contains an entity reference specifying an entity that is indirectly associated with this result object. This element can be used for comments and remarks. 3.3 Support for The following types of entity classes are recognized by the query of IRIS for this registry: o ipv4-handle - a registry unique identifier specifying an IPv4 network. Queries with these names will yield a result. o ipv6-handle - a registry unique identifier specifying an IPv6 network. Queries with these names will yield a result. o as-handle - a registry unique identifier specifying an autonomous system. It yields a result of . o contact-handle - a registry unique identifier of a contact. Yields a result of . o organization-id - a registry unique identifier of an organization. Yields a result of . o The entity names of these entity classes are case insensitive. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 11] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 4. Terminology for Nesting of Networks The following terms are defined for describing the nesting of IP networks. o More specific: Given two networks, A and B, A is more specific than B if network B includes all space of network A, and if network B is larger than network A. o Less specific: Opposite of more specific. The network B is less specific than network A if network A's all space is included in network B and if network A is smaller than network B. o Most specific: Given a set of networks, the network or networks that are more specific than zero or more of other networks in the set, and that are not a less specific of any of the networks in the set. o Least specific: Given a set of networks, the network or networks that are not more specific to any of the other networks in the set. Examples: +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Given the networks A, B, C and D as follows: | | | | A |---------------------------------| | | B |-----------------| | | C |---------| | | D |-------| | | | | | | The network A is less specific than B, C and D. | | The network B is more specific than A. | | Among these four networks, A is the least specific, | | and C and D are the most specific networks. | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 1: Nesting Example 1 Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 12] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Given the networks E, F and G: | | | | E |----------| | | F |--------------| | | G |---| | | | | The networks E and F are least specific networks. | | The networks F and G are most specific networks. | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 2: Nesting Example 2 The following definitions assume that there are no overlapping networks in the database. A network overlaps with another one when they encompass each other's space partially. Examples: A |---------------------| B |----------------------------| Figure 3: Nesting Example 3 C |------------------| D |---------| Figure 4: Nesting Example 4 Here, the networks C and D are NOT overlapping networks, because even if network D encompasses a part of network C's space, network C does not encompass network D's space partially (it encompasses network D completely). The address directory can contain more than one network with the same range. They are said to be exact match networks. Parent/child relationship in the internet address directory is unidirectional. That is, there might also be parent/child relationship with exact match networks, but a network cannot be a parent and a child of its exact match network at the same time. Nested matching searches: [1] Given a range, find all the networks that contain that range (ie, all less specifics and exact matches). These networks are the networks that fulfill the following condition: Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 13] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 (start(network) <= start(search)) AND (end(network) >= end(search)) [2] Given a range, find only the most specific network that contains that range (could be multiple networks, but usually single); This is the set of networks from [1], with the provision that: no network in the return set is contained by any other network in the set. If there are exact match networks in the set from [1], they both must appear in the result set. The result set must not contain a network that is exact match to the query range. A |-------------------------------| B |---------------------------| C |-------| Query |- - - - - - - - - -| Figure 5: Nesting Example 5 In the above case, the query must return B. A |-------------------------------| B |---------------------------| C |---------------------------| D |-------| Query |- - - - - - - - - -| Figure 6: Nesting Example 6 Here, the query must return B and C (they are exact matches of each other). A |-------------------------------| B |---------------------------| C |---------------------------| D |-------| Query |- - - -| Figure 7: Nesting Example 7 Here, the query must return B and C (they are exact matches of each other). D must not be in the result set, as it is exact match to the query. [3] Given a range, find all the networks that are fully within that range. The set must not contain an exact match: (start(network) >= start(search)) AND (end(network) <= end(search)) Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 14] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 AND NOT ((start(network) = start(search)) AND (end(network) = end(search))) [4] Given a range, find only the least specific networks that are fully within that range. This is the set of networks from [3], with the provision that: no network in the return set contains any other network in the return set. Query |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -| A |------------------| B |-------------------------| C |--------| D |---------| Figure 8: Nesting Example 8 [5] Given a range, find the networks that begin and end on the same IP addresses as the range ("exact match"). That is, the networks that fulfill the following condition: (start(network) = start(search)) AND (end(network) = end(search)) [6] Given a range find the exact match network if exists, and if not, perform the [2] search. For the cases [1]-[6], if a network handle is given as the input, then the server must find the network with this handle, and then perform the specified search for its range. Parent-child relationship searches: [7] Given a network handle, find the network that is the direct (one level up) parent of the network with the given handle. [8] Given a network handle, find the network or networks that are direct (one level down) children of the network with the handle given. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 15] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 5. Formal XML Syntax This IP address registry is specified in the XML Schema notation. The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation suitable for automated validation of an XML instance when combined with the formal schema syntax of IRIS. IP address registry schema derived from IRIS schema Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 17] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 18] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 19] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 22] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 24] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 27] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1" /> Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 31] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 Figure 9 Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 32] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 6. BEEP Transport Compliance IRIS allows several extensions of the core capabilities. This section outlines those extensions allowable by IRIS-BEEP [10]. 6.1 Message Pattern This registry type uses the default message pattern as described in IRIS-BEEP [10]. 6.2 Server Authentication This registry type uses the default server authentication method as described in IRIS-BEEP [10]. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 33] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 7. URI Resolution 7.1 Application Service Label The application service label associated with this registry type MUST be "AREG1". This is the abbreviated form the URN for this registry type, urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:areg1. 7.2 Top-Down Resolution The top-down alternative resolution method MUST be identified as 'top' in IRIS URI's. The client SHOULD start every query from the CRISP server crisp.nro.org and follow the referrals to find the authoritative server to actually query. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 34] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 8. Internationalization Considerations This document lays out no new considerations for internationalization beyond that specified in IRIS [9]. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 35] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 9. IANA Considerations The following URN will need to be registered with IANA according to the IANA considerations defined in IRIS [9]: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:areg1 The following NAPSTR application service label will need to be registered with IANA according to the IANA considerations defined in IRIS [9]: AREG1 Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 36] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 10. Security Considerations This document lays out no new considerations for security precautions beyond that specified in IRIS [9]. 11 References [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [2] World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0", W3C XML, February 1998, . [3] World Wide Web Consortium, "Namespaces in XML", W3C XML Namespaces, January 1999, . [4] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C XML Schema, October 2000, . [5] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C XML Schema, October 2000, . [6] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "ASSIGNED NUMBERS", RFC 1700, STD 2, October 1994. [7] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, BCP 26, October 1998. [8] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. [9] Newton, A., "Internet Registry Information Service", draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core-01 (work in progress), November 2002. [10] Newton, A., "Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)", draft-ietf-crisp-iris-beep-01 (work in progress), November 2002. [11] Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements", draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-01 (work in progress), October 2002. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 37] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 [12] International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for the representation of names of countries, 3rd edition", ISO Standard 3166, August 1988. Authors' Addresses Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Singel 258 Amsterdam 1016AB The Netherlands Phone: +31 20 535 4440 EMail: engin@ripe.net Andrew L. Newton VeriSign, Inc. 21345 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 USA Phone: +1 703 948 3382 EMail: andy@hxr.us; anewton@verisignlabs.com Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 38] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 Appendix A. Example Requests and Responses The examples in this section use the string "C:" to denote data sent by a client to a server and the string "S:" to denote data sent by a server to a client. A.1 Example 1 The following is an example of entity lookup for the contact-handle of 'JN560-ARIN'. C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: JN560-ARIN S: S: John S: Niland S: S: S: S: VeriSign, Inc. S: S: S: S: S: +1-703-948-4300 S: office S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: Figure 10: Example 1 A.2 Example 2 The following example shows a query to find the IP networks containing a given address. C: C: C: C: C: C: C: C: 65.201.175.9 C: C: C: most C: C: C: C: Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 40] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 C: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: NET-65-201-175-0-1 S: S: S: UU-65-201-175-D6 S: S: S: 65.201.175.0/24 S: S: S: 65.201.175.0 S: S: S: 65.201.175.255 S: S: reassigned S: auth03.ns.uu.net S: auth00.ns.uu.net S: S: S: VeriSign, Inc. S: S: S: S: Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 41] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 S: S: Niland, John S: S: S: S: 2002-11-18T00:00:00-00:00 S: S: S: 2002-11-18T00:00:00-00:00 S: S: S: S: S: S: NET-65-192-0-0-1 S: S: S: UUNET65 S: S: S: 65.192.0.0/11 S: S: S: 65.192.0.0 S: S: S: 65.223.255.255 S: S: direct allocation S: auth03.ns.uu.net S: auth00.ns.uu.net S: S: S: UUNET Technologies, Inc. S: S: S: S: S: S: 2000-10-27T00:00:00-00:00 S: S: S: 2002-02-13T00:00:00-00:00 S: S: S: S: S: S: S: S: Addresses within this block are non-portable. S: S: S: S: S: S: Figure 11: Example 2 Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 43] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 Appendix B. Acknowledgements Many of the concepts concerning the use of SRV records for step-wise refinement towards finding authoritative servers and many of the details of result objects in this draft were originally created by Eric A. Hall in his memos regarding the use of LDAP to satisfy the CRISP requirements. These concepts have contributed significantly to the development of this protocol. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 44] Internet-Draft iris-areg October 2004 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Gunduz & Newton Expires April 4, 2005 [Page 45]