Common Name Resolution Protocol (CNRP)
RFC 3367
Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(September 2002; No errata)
Was draft-ietf-cnrp (cnrp WG)
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Michael Mealling , Nicolas Popp , Marshall Moseley | ||
Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
Stream | Legacy | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
Stream | Legacy state | (None) | |
Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 3367 (Proposed Standard) | |
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Patrik Fältström | ||
IESG note | Responsible: RFC Editor | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
Network Working Group N. Popp Request for Comments: 3367 M. Mealling Category: Standards Track VeriSign, Inc. M. Moseley Netword, Inc. August 2002 Common Name Resolution Protocol (CNRP) Status of this Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract People often refer to things in the real world by a common name or phrase, e.g., a trade name, company name, or a book title. These names are sometimes easier for people to remember and type than URLs. Furthermore, because of the limited syntax of URLs, companies and individuals are finding that the ones that might be most reasonable for their resources are being used elsewhere and so are unavailable. For the purposes of this document, a "common name" is a word or a phrase, without imposed syntactic structure, that may be associated with a resource. This effort is about the creation of a protocol for client applications to communicate with common name resolution services, as exemplified in both the browser enhancement and search site paradigms. Although the protocol's primary function is resolution, it is also intended to address issues of internationalization and localization. Name resolution services are not generic search services and thus do not need to provide complex Boolean query, relevance ranking or similar capabilities. The protocol is a simple, minimal interoperable core. Mechanisms for extension are provided, so that additional capabilities can be added. Popp, et. al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 3367 Common Name Resolution Protocol (CNRP) August 2002 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Important Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 DTD is Definitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3 Uniform Resource Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Interaction Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Services, Servers, Datasets and Referrals . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 Requests and Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3 Transport Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4 Character encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5 Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6 Hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Object Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1 Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.1 Core properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.2 Abstract and custom properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.3 Base properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.4 Common name string encoding and equivalence rules . . . . 11 4.2 Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.1 Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.1.1 Logical operations within a Query . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2.2.1 ResourceDescriptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2.3 Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.3.1 Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.3.2 Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2.4 Status Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.2.4.1 Status of CNRP, Not the Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.2.4.2 Codes and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.2.4.3 Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.2.5 Referral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2.5.1 Loop Detection and Dataset Handling in Servers . . . . . . 22 4.2.6 Discoverability: ServiceQuery and Schema . . . . . . . . . 24 5. XML DTD for CNRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1 Service Description Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Show full document text