draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-01.txt   draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT Eric A. Hall INTERNET-DRAFT Eric A. Hall
Document: draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-01.txt May 2003 Document: draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-02.txt July 2003
Expires: December, 2003 Expires: February, 2004
Category: Standards-Track Category: Standards-Track
Defining and Locating Contact Information Defining and Locating Contact Information
in the Federated Internet Registry Service in the Federated Internet Registry Service
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
skipping to change at line 47 skipping to change at line 47
This document defines LDAP schema and searching rules for contact This document defines LDAP schema and searching rules for contact
persons, in support of the Federated Internet Registry Service persons, in support of the Federated Internet Registry Service
(FIRS) described in [FIRS-ARCH] and [FIRS-CORE]. (FIRS) described in [FIRS-ARCH] and [FIRS-CORE].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...............................................2 1. Introduction...............................................2
2. Prerequisites and Terminology..............................2 2. Prerequisites and Terminology..............................2
3. Naming Syntax..............................................3 3. Naming Syntax..............................................3
4. Object Classes and Attributes..............................5 4. Object Classes and Attributes..............................4
5. Query Processing Rules.....................................6 5. Query Processing Rules.....................................6
5.1. Query Pre-Processing....................................7 5.1. Query Pre-Processing....................................6
5.2. Query Bootstrapping.....................................7 5.2. Query Bootstrapping.....................................7
5.3. LDAP Matching...........................................8 5.3. LDAP Matching...........................................7
5.4. Example Query...........................................8 5.4. Example Query...........................................8
6. Security Considerations....................................9 6. Security Considerations....................................8
7. IANA Considerations........................................9 7. IANA Considerations........................................9
8. Author's Addresses.........................................9 8. Normative References.......................................9
9. Normative References.......................................9 9. Changes from Previous Versions............................10
10. Acknowledgments...........................................10 10. Author's Addresses........................................11
11. Changes from Previous Versions............................11 11. Acknowledgments...........................................11
12. Full Copyright Statement..................................11 12. Full Copyright Statement..................................11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This specification defines the naming syntax, object classes, This specification defines the naming syntax, object classes,
attributes, matching filters, and query processing rules for attributes, matching filters, and query processing rules for
storing and locating contact persons in the FIRS service. Refer to storing and locating contact persons in the FIRS service. Refer to
[FIRS-ARCH] for information on the FIRS architecture and [FIRS-ARCH] for information on the FIRS architecture and
[FIRS-CORE] for the schema definitions and rules which govern the [FIRS-CORE] for the schema definitions and rules which govern the
FIRS service as a whole. FIRS service as a whole.
The definitions in this specification are intended to be used with The definitions in this specification are intended to be used with
FIRS. Their usage outside of FIRS is not prohibited, but any such FIRS. Their usage outside of FIRS is not prohibited, but any such
usage is beyond this specification's scope of authority. usage is beyond this specification's scope of authority.
2. Prerequisites and Terminology 2. Prerequisites and Terminology
The complete set of specifications in the FIRS collection The complete set of specifications in the FIRS collection
cumulative define a structured and distributed information service cumulative define a structured and distributed information service
using LDAPv3 for the data-formatting and transport functions. This using LDAPv3 for the data-formatting and transport functions. This
specification should be read in the context of the complete set of specification should be read in the context of that set, which
specifications, which currently include the following: currently includes [FIRS-ARCH], [FIRS-CORE], [FIRS-DNS],
[FIRS-DNSRR], [FIRS-ASN], [FIRS-IPV4] and [FIRS-IPV6].
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-01, "The Federated Internet
Registry Service: Architecture and Implementation" [FIRS-
ARCH]
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 2]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-core-01, "The Federated Internet
Registry Service: Core Elements" [FIRS-CORE]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dns-01, "Defining and Locating DNS
Domains in the Federated Internet Registry Service"
[FIRS-DNS]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dnsrr-01, "Defining and Locating DNS
Resource Records in the Federated Internet Registry
Service" [FIRS-DNSRR]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-01, "Defining and Locating
Contact Persons in the Federated Internet Registry Service"
(this document) [FIRS-CONTCT]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-asn-01, "Defining and Locating
Autonomous System Numbers in the Federated Internet
Registry Service" [FIRS-ASN]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv4-01, "Defining and Locating IPv4
Address Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry Service"
[FIRS-IPV4]
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv6-01, "Defining and Locating IPv6
Address Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry Service"
[FIRS-IPV6]
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 2]
3. Naming Syntax 3. Naming Syntax
The naming syntax for contact entries in FIRS MUST follow the form The naming syntax for contact entries in FIRS MUST follow the form
of "cn=<inetContactSyntax>,cn=inetResources,<partition>", where of "cn=<inetContactSyntax>,cn=inetResources,<partition>", where
<inetContactSyntax > is an email address representing a contact <inetContactSyntax > is an email address representing a contact
resource, and where <partition> is a sequence of domainComponent resource, and where <partition> is a sequence of domainComponent
relative distinguished names which identifies the scope of relative distinguished names which identifies the scope of
authority for the selected directory partition. authority for the selected directory partition.
The inetContactSyntax is unstructured, in that it uses The inetContactSyntax is unstructured, in that it uses
standardized procedures to produce heavily-normalized email standardized procedures to produce heavily-normalized email
addresses rather than using structured syntax rules. The principle addresses rather than using structured syntax rules. The principle
reason for this is due to conflicting syntax rules in different reason for this is due to conflicting syntax rules in different
canonical email addressing rules, with these rules preventing the canonical email addressing rules, with these rules preventing the
use of a common syntax. use of a common syntax.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 3]
The normalization procedure produces UTF-8 [RFC2279] email The normalization procedure produces UTF-8 [RFC2279] email
addresses as output, with these domain names being suitable for addresses as output, with these domain names being suitable for
direct comparisons, substring searches, and other lightweight direct comparisons, substring searches, and other lightweight
comparisons. Servers tend to be more heavily-loaded than clients, comparisons. Servers tend to be more heavily-loaded than clients,
and requiring the data to be normalized before it is used for and requiring the data to be normalized before it is used for
comparison operations ensures that a broader range of comparison comparison operations ensures that a broader range of comparison
operations can be performed with minimal impact on those servers. operations can be performed with minimal impact on those servers.
This normalization procedure is as follows: This normalization procedure is as follows:
skipping to change at line 164 skipping to change at line 133
c. The domain element MUST be normalized according to the c. The domain element MUST be normalized according to the
inetDnsDomainSyntax procedure defined in [FIRS-DNS]. inetDnsDomainSyntax procedure defined in [FIRS-DNS].
Once all of these steps have successfully completed, the email Once all of these steps have successfully completed, the email
address can be stored in the directory or used as an assertion address can be stored in the directory or used as an assertion
value. Any fatal error conditions encountered during these value. Any fatal error conditions encountered during these
conversions MUST result in a local failure; FIRS-aware conversions MUST result in a local failure; FIRS-aware
applications MUST NOT store or transmit non-normalized email applications MUST NOT store or transmit non-normalized email
addresses for any purposes. addresses for any purposes.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 3]
The inetContactSyntax syntax is as follows: The inetContactSyntax syntax is as follows:
inetContactSyntax inetContactSyntax
( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.7.1 NAME 'inetContactSyntax' DESC 'A ( 1.3.6.1.4.1.7161.1.4.1 NAME 'inetContactSyntax' DESC 'A
fully-qualified email address.' ) fully-qualified email address.' )
Note that the use of the "at" separator character is illegal as Note that the use of the "at" separator character is illegal as
data in URLs, and these characters will be escaped before they are data in URLs, and these characters will be escaped before they are
stored in a URL as data. stored in a URL as data.
Also note that UTF-8 characters use character codes which are Also note that UTF-8 characters use character codes which are
frequently illegal as data in URLs, and many of those octet values frequently illegal as data in URLs, and many of those octet values
will probably be escaped before they are stored in a URL as data. will probably be escaped before they are stored in a URL as data.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 4]
4. Object Classes and Attributes 4. Object Classes and Attributes
Contact entries in FIRS MUST use the inetOrgPerson object class as Contact entries in FIRS MUST use the inetOrgPerson object class as
defined in RFC 2798 [RFC2798], in addition to the mandatory object defined in RFC 2798 [RFC2798], in addition to the mandatory object
classes defined in [FIRS-CORE]. Contact entries MUST be treated as classes defined in [FIRS-CORE]. Contact entries MUST be treated as
containers capable of holding subordinate entries. If an entry containers capable of holding subordinate entries. If an entry
exists as a referral source, the entry MUST also be defined with exists as a referral source, the entry MUST also be defined with
the referral object class, in addition to the above requirements. the referral object class, in addition to the above requirements.
The inetOrgPerson object class is a structural object class. The The inetOrgPerson object class is a structural object class. The
skipping to change at line 210 skipping to change at line 179
3. As such, if the mail domain uses an internationalized domain 3. As such, if the mail domain uses an internationalized domain
name, the domain element of the mail attribute MUST be reduced to name, the domain element of the mail attribute MUST be reduced to
its ASCII-compatible form using the ToASCII process defined in its ASCII-compatible form using the ToASCII process defined in
[RFC3490], and MUST NOT use the UTF-8 encoding. [RFC3490], and MUST NOT use the UTF-8 encoding.
Note that International postal regulations generally require that Note that International postal regulations generally require that
the recipient address on an envelope be provided in a language and the recipient address on an envelope be provided in a language and
charset which is native to the recipient's country, with the charset which is native to the recipient's country, with the
exception of the destination country name which should be provided exception of the destination country name which should be provided
in a language and charset that is native to the sender's country. in a language and charset that is native to the sender's country.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 4]
This model ensures that the sender's post office will be able to This model ensures that the sender's post office will be able to
route the mail to the recipient's country, while also ensuring route the mail to the recipient's country, while also ensuring
that the destination country's post office will be able to perform that the destination country's post office will be able to perform
local delivery. In order to facilitate this usage, the country local delivery. In order to facilitate this usage, the country
attribute value MAY (encouraged) be localized to the local user's attribute value MAY (encouraged) be localized to the local user's
nomenclature for a country, but other postal address information nomenclature for a country, but other postal address information
SHOULD NOT be localized. SHOULD NOT be localized.
Notwithstanding the above, it is ENCOURAGED that contact names be Notwithstanding the above, it is ENCOURAGED that contact names be
provided in English forms in order to facilitate inter-party provided in English forms in order to facilitate inter-party
communications, using the mechanisms offered by [RFC2596]. For communications, using the mechanisms offered by [RFC2596]. For
example, the default contact entry for a person in Japan SHOULD be example, the default contact entry for a person in Japan SHOULD be
provided in the native form for that person, but an English form provided in the native form for that person, but an English form
is also ENCOURAGED in order to allow non-Japanese users to is also ENCOURAGED in order to allow non-Japanese users to
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 5]
properly address that person in subsequent communications. As properly address that person in subsequent communications. As
stated in the preceding paragraph however, any postal stated in the preceding paragraph however, any postal
communications for that person SHOULD use the native-language communications for that person SHOULD use the native-language
representation (at least on the envelope) in order to facilitate representation (at least on the envelope) in order to facilitate
the delivery of postal mail. the delivery of postal mail.
An example of the inetOrgPerson object class in use is shown in An example of the inetOrgPerson object class in use is shown in
Figure 1 below. The example includes attributes from the Figure 1 below. The example includes attributes from the
inetOrgPerson, inetResources, and inetAssociatedResources object inetOrgPerson, inetResources, and inetAssociatedResources object
classes. classes.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 5]
cn=admins@example.com,cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com cn=admins@example.com,cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com
[top object class] [top object class]
[inetResources object class] [inetResources object class]
[inetOrgPerson object class] [inetOrgPerson object class]
[inetAssociatedResources object class] [inetAssociatedResources object class]
| |
+-attribute: description +-attribute: description
| value: "Administrators for the example.com network." | value: "Administrators for the example.com network."
| |
+-attribute: givenName +-attribute: givenName
skipping to change at line 272 skipping to change at line 242
Figure 1: The entry for the admins@example.com contact in the Figure 1: The entry for the admins@example.com contact in the
dc=netsol,dc=com partition. dc=netsol,dc=com partition.
5. Query Processing Rules 5. Query Processing Rules
Queries for contact entries have several special requirements, as Queries for contact entries have several special requirements, as
discussed in the following sections. discussed in the following sections.
Refer to [FIRS-CORE] for general information about FIRS queries. Refer to [FIRS-CORE] for general information about FIRS queries.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 6]
5.1. Query Pre-Processing 5.1. Query Pre-Processing
Clients MUST ensure that the query input is normalized according Clients MUST ensure that the query input is normalized according
to the rules specified in section 3 before the input is used as to the rules specified in section 3 before the input is used as
the assertion value to the resulting LDAP query. the assertion value to the resulting LDAP query.
The authoritative partition for a contact entry is determined by The authoritative partition for a contact entry is determined by
mapping the domain element of a normalized email address to a mapping the domain element of a normalized email address to a
sequence of domainComponent labels. sequence of domainComponent labels.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 6]
Since the domainComponent attribute is restricted to seven-bit Since the domainComponent attribute is restricted to seven-bit
characters, the domain element MUST be converted to its IDNA form characters, the domain element MUST be converted to its IDNA form
using the "ToASCII" conversion operation specified in [RFC3490], using the "ToASCII" conversion operation specified in [RFC3490],
with the "UseSTD3ASCIIRules" flag disabled (FIRS applications MAY with the "UseSTD3ASCIIRules" flag disabled (FIRS applications MAY
reuse the output from the conversion performed in step 3.c if the reuse the output from the conversion performed in step 3.c if the
entire conversion process is known to have completed entire conversion process is known to have completed
successfully). The resulting sequence of ASCII labels are used to successfully). The resulting sequence of ASCII labels are used to
form the domainComponent sequence which represents the form the domainComponent sequence which represents the
authoritative partition for the email address. authoritative partition for the email address.
skipping to change at line 319 skipping to change at line 289
example). As such, the bottom-up bootstrap model will be the most example). As such, the bottom-up bootstrap model will be the most
useful in most cases, and MUST be used by default. useful in most cases, and MUST be used by default.
Note that registration bodies can allocate email addresses within Note that registration bodies can allocate email addresses within
their own managed portion of the DNS namespace if predictability their own managed portion of the DNS namespace if predictability
is at a premium. For example, a registrar could assign is at a premium. For example, a registrar could assign
"user@registrar.com" email addresses to the contact entries that "user@registrar.com" email addresses to the contact entries that
it creates, thereby ensuring that the contact entries are always it creates, thereby ensuring that the contact entries are always
locatable and managed. locatable and managed.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 7]
5.3. LDAP Matching 5.3. LDAP Matching
FIRS clients MUST specify equalityMatch matching filters in LDAP FIRS clients MUST specify equalityMatch matching filters in LDAP
searches for contact entries. searches for contact entries.
In order to ensure that all of the relevant entries are found In order to ensure that all of the relevant entries are found
(including any referrals), the search filters for these resources (including any referrals), the search filters for these resources
MUST specify the inetOrgPerson object class and the naming element MUST specify the inetOrgPerson object class and the cn attribute.
of the resource as a distinguished name attribute. For example, For example, "(&(objectclass=inetOrgPerson)
"(&(objectclass=inetOrgPerson)(cn:dn:admins@example.com))" with a (cn=admins@example.com))" with a search base of
search base of "cn=inetResources,dc=netsol,dc=com" would find all
of the inetOrgPerson object class entries with a relative Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 7]
distinguished name of "cn=admins@example.com" in the "cn=inetResources,dc=netsol,dc=com" would find all of the
"dc=netsol,dc=com" partition. inetOrgPerson object class entries of "cn=admins@example.com" in
the "dc=netsol,dc=com" partition.
The matching filters defined in this specification MUST be The matching filters defined in this specification MUST be
supported by FIRS clients and servers. FIRS servers MAY support supported by FIRS clients and servers. FIRS servers MAY support
additional sub-string filters, soundex filters, or any other additional sub-string filters, soundex filters, or any other
filters they wish (these may be required to support generic LDAP filters they wish (these may be required to support generic LDAP
clients), although FIRS clients MUST NOT expect any additional clients), although FIRS clients MUST NOT expect any additional
filters to be available. filters to be available.
5.4. Example Query 5.4. Example Query
The following example assumes that the user has specified The following example assumes that the user has specified
"admins@example.com" as the query value: "admins@example.com" as the query value:
a. Normalize the input, which is "admins@example.com" in this a. Normalize the input, which is "admins@example.com" in this
case. case.
b. Determine the authoritative partition, which is b. Determine the canonical authoritative partition, which is
"dc=example,dc=com" in this case. By default, queries for "dc=example,dc=com" in this case. By default, queries for
contacts use the bottom-up model, meaning that the fully- contacts use the bottom-up model, meaning that the fully-
qualified distinguished name of "dc=example,dc=com" will be qualified distinguished name of "dc=example,dc=com" will be
used. used.
c. Determine the search base for the query, which will be c. Determine the search base for the query, which will be
"cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com" if the defaults are "cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com" if the defaults are
used. used.
d. Initiate a DNS lookup for the SRV resource records d. Initiate a DNS lookup for the SRV resource records
associated with "_ldap._tcp.example.com." For the purpose associated with "_ldap._tcp.example.com." For the purpose
of this example, assume that this lookup succeeds, with the of this example, assume that this lookup succeeds, with the
DNS response message indicating that "firs.example.com" is DNS response message indicating that "firs.example.com" is
the preferred LDAP server. the preferred LDAP server.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 8]
e. Submit an LDAPv3 query to the specified server, using e. Submit an LDAPv3 query to the specified server, using
"(&(objectClass=inetOrgPerson)(cn:dn:admins@example.com))" "(&(objectClass=inetOrgPerson)(cn:dn:admins@example.com))"
as the matching filter, as the matching filter, "cn=inetResources,dc=example,
"cn=inetResources,dc=example,dc=com" as the search base, dc=com" as the search base, and the global query defaults
and the global query defaults defined in [FIRS-CORE]. defined in [FIRS-CORE].
f. Assume that no referrals are received. Display the answer f. Assume that no referrals are received. Display the answer
data which has been received and exit the query. data which has been received and exit the query.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 8]
Security considerations are discussed in [FIRS-ARCH]. Security considerations are discussed in [FIRS-ARCH].
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA considerations are discussed in [FIRS-ARCH]. IANA considerations are discussed in [FIRS-ARCH].
8. Author's Addresses 8. Normative References
Eric A. Hall
ehall@ehsco.com
9. Normative References
[FIRS-ARCH] Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry [FIRS-ARCH] Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry
Service: Architecture and Implementation Service: Architecture and Implementation
Guide", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-01, May Guide", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-arch-01, July
2003. 2003.
[FIRS-ASN] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Autonomous [FIRS-ASN] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Autonomous
System Numbers in the Federated Internet System Numbers in the Federated Internet
Registry Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-asn- Registry Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-asn-
01, May 2003. 01, July 2003.
[FIRS-CONTCT] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Contact [FIRS-CONTCT] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating Contact
Persons in the Federated Internet Registry Persons in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-01, Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-01,
May 2003. July 2003.
[FIRS-CORE] Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry [FIRS-CORE] Hall, E. "The Federated Internet Registry
Service: Core Elements", draft-ietf-crisp- Service: Core Elements", draft-ietf-crisp-
firs-core-01, May 2003. firs-core-01, July 2003.
[FIRS-DNS] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Domains in [FIRS-DNS] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Domains in
the Federated Internet Registry Service", the Federated Internet Registry Service",
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dns-01, May 2003. draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dns-01, July 2003.
[FIRS-DNSRR] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Resource [FIRS-DNSRR] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating DNS Resource
Records in the Federated Internet Registry Records in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dnsrr-01, July
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 9]
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-dnsrr-01, May
2003. 2003.
[FIRS-IPV4] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv4 Address [FIRS-IPV4] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv4 Address
Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv4-01, May Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv4-01, July
2003. 2003.
[FIRS-IPV6] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv6 Address [FIRS-IPV6] Hall, E. "Defining and Locating IPv6 Address
Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry Blocks in the Federated Internet Registry
Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv6-01, May Service", draft-ietf-crisp-firs-ipv6-01, July
2003. 2003.
[RFC2247] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R., [RFC2247] Kille, S., Wahl, M., Grimstad, A., Huber, R.,
and Sataluri, S. "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500 and Sataluri, S. "Using Domains in LDAP/X.500
DNs", RFC 2247, January 1998. DNs", RFC 2247, January 1998.
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 9]
[RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and Kille, S. [RFC2251] Wahl, M., Howes, T., and Kille, S.
"Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)", "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)",
RFC 2251, December 1997. RFC 2251, December 1997.
[RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T., and Kille, [RFC2252] Wahl, M., Coulbeck, A., Howes, T., and Kille,
S. "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol S. "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252, (v3): Attribute Syntax Definitions", RFC 2252,
December 1997. December 1997.
[RFC2254] Howes, T. "The String Representation of LDAP [RFC2254] Howes, T. "The String Representation of LDAP
Search Filters", RFC 2254, December 1997. Search Filters", RFC 2254, December 1997.
[RFC2279] Yergeau, F. "UTF-8, a transformation format of [RFC2279] Yergeau, F. "UTF-8, a transformation format of
ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998. ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
[RFC2596] Wahl, M., and Howes, T. "Use of Language Codes
in LDAP", RFC 2596, May 1999.
[RFC2798] Smith, M. "Definition of the inetOrgPerson [RFC2798] Smith, M. "Definition of the inetOrgPerson
LDAP Object Class", RFC 2798, April 2000. LDAP Object Class", RFC 2798, April 2000.
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and Costello, A.
"Internationalizing Domain Names in
Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.
[US-ASCII] Cerf, V. "ASCII format for Network [US-ASCII] Cerf, V. "ASCII format for Network
Interchange", RFC 20, October 1969. Interchange", RFC 20, October 1969.
10. Acknowledgments 9. Changes from Previous Versions
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
developed with his active participation.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 10]
11. Changes from Previous Versions
draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-01: draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-01:
* Several clarifications and corrections have been made. * Several clarifications and corrections have been made.
* 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-contact-00: draft-ietf-crisp-firs-contact-00:
* Restructured the document set. * Restructured the document set.
* "Attribute references" have been eliminated from the * "Attribute references" have been eliminated from the
specification. All referential attributes now provide specification. All referential attributes now provide
actual data instead of URL pointers to data. Clients that actual data instead of URL pointers to data. Clients that
wish to retrieve these values will need to start new wish to retrieve these values will need to start new
queries using the data values instead of URLs. queries using the data values instead of URLs.
draft-ietf-crisp-lw-user-01: draft-ietf-crisp-lw-user-01:
Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 10]
* Removed references to LDAPS (LDAP-over-SSL), which is not a * Removed references to LDAPS (LDAP-over-SSL), which is not a
standards-track protocol. standards-track protocol.
* Added a discussion on localization considerations. * Added a discussion on localization considerations.
* Moved attribute-specific security requirements to the * Moved attribute-specific security requirements to the
Security section. Security section.
10. Author's Addresses
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
developed with his active participation.
12. Full Copyright Statement 12. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise
explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared,
copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without
restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice
and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative
skipping to change at line 515 skipping to change at line 495
way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the
Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed
for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards
process must be followed, or as required to translate it into process must be followed, or as required to translate it into
languages other than English. languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 11] Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 11]
This document and the information contained herein is provided on This document and the information contained herein is provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Hall I-D Expires: December 2003 [page 12] Hall I-D Expires: February 2004 [page 12]
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/