WDIFF

draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-03.txt-11834.txt --> rfc3401.txt

URN

Network Working Group M. Mealling
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 3401 VeriSign
Expires: November 5, 2002 May 7,
Updates: 2276 October 2002
Obsoletes: 2915, 2168
Category: Informational

Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS Standard
draft-ietf-urn-ddds-toc-03.txt

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 memo provides information for 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. community. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list does
not specify an Internet standard of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list any kind. Distribution of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on November 5, 2002. this
memo is unlimited.

Abstract

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

This document along with RFC XXXX, 3402, RFC YYYY 3403 and RFC ZZZZ 3404 obsolete RFC
2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] 2915, as well as update updates RFC 2276 [5].

Mealling Expires November 5, 2002 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft DDDS May 2002 2276.

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.

Mealling Informational [Page 1]

RFC 3401 DDDS - The Comprehensive DDDS October 2002

This document along with RFC XXXX, 3402, RFC YYYY 3403 and RFC ZZZZ obsolete 3404 obsoletes
RFC 2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6] [6], as well as update updates 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 obsoletes or
update
updates 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 3402 [1]. That document defines
the following DDDS concepts:

o The basic DDDS vocabulary vocabulary.

o The algorithm algorithm.

o The requirements on applications using the algorithm algorithm.

o The requirements on databases that store DDDS rules rules.

RFC XXXX 3402 is the actual DDDS algorithm Specification. 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
itself.

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
on)
on).

o the First Well Known Rule (the Rule that says where the process
starts)
starts).

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

o the final expected output output.

Mealling Informational [Page 2]

RFC 3401 DDDS - The Comprehensive DDDS October 2002

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
email.

o "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The URI Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI) Resolution Application" (RFC YYYY) 3404) [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 works.

o formats for Keys Keys.

o formats for Rules Rules.

o Key lookup process process.

o rule insertion procedures procedures.

o collision avoidance measures 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 Domain
Name System (DNS) Database" (RFC XXXX) [1] 3402) [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 Record.)

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

Mealling Informational [Page 3]

RFC 3401 DDDS - The Comprehensive DDDS October 2002

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

References

[1] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Two: The Algorithm", RFC XXXX, draft-ietf-urn-ddds-07.txt (work
in progress), May 3402, October 2002.

[2] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Three: The DNS Doman Name System (DNS) Database", RFC ZZZZ, draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-
database-09.txt (work in progress), May 3403, October
2002.

[3] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Four: The URI Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Resolution
Application", RFC YYYY, draft-ietf-urn-
uri-res-ddds-06.txt (work in progress), February 3404, October 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 3405, October 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.

Mealling Informational [Page 4]

RFC 3401 DDDS - The Comprehensive DDDS October 2002

Author's Address

Michael Mealling
VeriSign
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, VA 20166
US

EMail: michael@neonym.net
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com

Mealling Expires November 5, 2002 Informational [Page 9]

Internet-Draft 5]

RFC 3401 DDDS - The Comprehensive DDDS May October 2002

Full Copyright Statement

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.

Acknowledgement

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

Mealling Expires November 5, 2002 Informational [Page 10] 6]

----