Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc


URN                                                          M. Mealling
Internet-Draft                                                  VeriSign
Expires: November 5, 2002                                    May 7, 2002

        Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The
                      Comprehensive DDDS Standard

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   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://

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 5, 2002.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.


   This document specifies the exact documents that make up the complete
   Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) standard.  The DDDS is an
   abstract algorithm for applying dynamically retrieved string
   transformation rules to an application-unique string.

   This document along with RFC XXXX, RFC YYYY and RFC ZZZZ obsolete RFC
   2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] as well as update RFC 2276 [5].

Mealling                Expires November 5, 2002                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    DDDS                          May 2002

1. Intended Audience

   This document and the documents that it references are intended for
   anyone attempting to implement or understand the generic DDDS
   algorithm, URI Resolution, ENUM telephone number to URI resolution,
   and the NAPTR DNS resource record.  The reader is warned that reading
   one of the documents in this series without reading the others will
   probably lead to misunderstandings and interoperability problems.

Mealling                Expires November 5, 2002                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                    DDDS                          May 2002

2. Introduction

   The Dynamic Delegation Discovery System is used to implement lazy
   binding of strings to data, in order to support dynamically
   configured delegation systems.  The DDDS functions by mapping some
   unique string to data stored within a DDDS Database by iteratively
   applying string transformation rules until a terminal condition is
   reached.  This document defines the entire DDDS standard by listing
   the documents that make up the complete specification at this time.

   This document along with RFC XXXX, RFC YYYY and RFC ZZZZ obsolete RFC
   2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] as well as update RFC 2276 [5].  This
   document will be updated and or obsoleted when changes are made to
   the DDDS specifications.  Thus the reader is strongly encouraged to
   check the IETF RFC repository for any documents that obsolete or
   update this one.

Mealling                Expires November 5, 2002                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                    DDDS                          May 2002

3. The Algorithm

   The DDDS algorithm is defined by RFC XXXX [1].  That document defines
   the following DDDS concepts:

   o  The basic DDDS vocabulary

   o  The algorithm

   o  The requirements on applications using the algorithm

   o  The requirements on databases that store DDDS rules

   RFC XXXX is the actual DDDS algorithm Specification.  But the
   specification by itself is useless without some additional document
   that defines how and why the algorithm is used.  These documents are
   called Applications and do not actually make up part of the DDDS core
   specification.  Applications require databases in which to store
   their Rules.  These databases are called DDDS Databases and are
   usually specified in separate documents.  But again, these Database
   specifications are not included in the DDDS core specification

Mealling                Expires November 5, 2002                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                    DDDS                          May 2002

4. DDDS Applications

   No implementation can begin without an Application specification, as
   this is what provides the concrete instantiation details for the DDDS
   Algorithm.  Without them the DDDS is nothing more than a general
   algorithm.  Application documents define the following:

   o  the Application Unique String (the thing the delegation rules act

   o  the First Well Known Rule (the Rule that says where the process

   o  the list of valid Databases (you can't just use any Database)

   o  the final expected output

   Some sample Applications are documented in:

   o  "E.164 number and DNS" (RFC 2916) [7].  This Application uses the
      DDDS to map a telephone number to service endpoints such as SIP or

   o  "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The URI
      Resolution Application" (RFC YYYY) [3].  This Application uses the
      DDDS to resolve any URI to a set of endpoints or 'resolvers' that
      can give additional information about the URI independent of its
      particular URI scheme.

Mealling                Expires November 5, 2002                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                    DDDS                          May 2002

5. Currently Standardized Databases

   Any DDDS Application must use some type of DDDS Database.  Database
   documents define the following:

   o  the general spec for how the Database works

   o  formats for Keys

   o  formats for Rules

   o  Key lookup process

   o  rule insertion procedures

   o  collision avoidance measures

   A Database cannot be used on its own; there must be at least one
   Application that uses it.  Multiple Databases and Applications are
   defined,  and some Databases will support multiple Applications.
   However, not every Application uses each Database, and vice versa.
   Thus, compliance is defined by the combination of a Database and
   Application specification.

   One sample Database specification is documented in:

   o  "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part  Three: The DNS
      Database" (RFC XXXX) [1] (This document is the official
      specification for the NAPTR DNS Resource Record)

Mealling                Expires November 5, 2002                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                    DDDS                          May 2002

6. Security Considerations

   Any known security issues that arise from the use of algorithms and
   databases must be specified in the respective specifications.  They
   must be completely and fully described.  It is not required that the
   database and algorithms be secure or that it be free from risks, but
   that the known risks be identified.  Publication of a new database
   type or algorithm does require a security review, and the security
   considerations section should be subject to continuing evaluation.
   Additional security considerations should be addressed by publishing
   revised versions of the database and algorithm specifications.

Mealling                Expires November 5, 2002                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                    DDDS                          May 2002

7. IANA Considerations

   While this document itself does not create any new requirements for
   the IANA, the documents in this series create many varied
   requirements.  The IANA Considerations sections in those documents
   should be reviewed by the IANA to determine the complete set of new
   registries and requirements.  Any new algorithms, databases or
   applications should take great care in what they require the IANA to
   do in the future.

Mealling                Expires November 5, 2002                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                    DDDS                          May 2002


   [1]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
        Two: The Algorithm", RFC XXXX, draft-ietf-urn-ddds-07.txt (work
        in progress), May 2002.

   [2]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
        Three: The DNS Database", RFC ZZZZ, draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-
        database-09.txt (work in progress), May 2002.

   [3]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
        Four: The URI Resolution Application", RFC YYYY, draft-ietf-urn-
        uri-res-ddds-06.txt (work in progress), February 2002.

   [4]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
        Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures", RFC VVVV, draft-ietf-urn-
        net-procedures-10.txt (work in progress), February 2002.

   [5]  Sollins, K., "Architectural Principles of Uniform Resource Name
        Resolution", RFC 2276, January 1998.

   [6]  Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "The Naming Authority Pointer
        (NAPTR) DNS Resource Record", RFC 2915, August 2000.

   [7]  Faltstrom, P., "E.164 number and DNS", RFC 2916, September 2000.

   [8]  Daniel, R. and M. Mealling, "Resolution of Uniform Resource
        Identifiers using the Domain Name System", RFC 2168, June 1997.

Author's Address

   Michael Mealling
   21345 Ridgetop Circle
   Sterling, VA  20166


Mealling                Expires November 5, 2002                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                    DDDS                          May 2002

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  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

   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


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

Mealling                Expires November 5, 2002               [Page 10]