RFC 3983

Using the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)

📅 published January 2005, from ietf

RFC 3983 💖 Using the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)

okay bestie, let's get into RFC 3983 🎀 It's a Standards Track doc dated January 2005, written by A. Newton (VeriSign, Inc.) and M. Sanz (DENIC eG). It's all about running IRIS over BEEP. The header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so it's just vibing on its own ✨

Status of This Memo ✨

this doc is an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and it's asking for discussion and suggestions to make it better 🫶 For the current standardization state and status of this protocol, check the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) 📚 Distribution of this memo is unlimited, so share away 💅

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract 🦋

this document explains how to use the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) as the application transport substrate for the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS). It's the whole plan for how IRIS gets carried over BEEP 🧚

Table of Contents 📑

1.  Introduction and Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
2.  Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
3.  BEEP Profile Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
4.  IRIS Message Packages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
5.  IRIS Message Patterns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
    5.1.  Registry Dependent Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
    5.2.  Default Pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
6.  Server Authentication Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
    6.1.  Registry Dependent Methods. . . . . . . .  . . . . . . .  5
    6.2.  Basic Server Authentication Method. . . .  . . . . . . .  5
7.  IRIS Transport Mapping Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    7.1.  URI Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    7.2.  Application Protocol Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    7.3.  Allowable Character Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    7.4.  BEEP Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
8.  Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    8.1.  BEEP Profile Registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
    8.2.  URI Scheme Registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
    8.3.  Well-Known TCP Port Registration . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
    8.4.  S-NAPTR Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
9.  Registry Definition Checklist  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
10. Internationalization Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
12. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
    13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
    13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1. Introduction and Motivations 🎀

okay so this section explains the why 💅 The proposal describes the IRIS [6] application transport binding that uses BEEP [2]. The requirements for IRIS and the spec in this doc are laid out in CRISP [19] 📋

the reason BEEP is the transport substrate is mainly that it's an existing, well-understood protocol that already has all the features needed for the requirements. no need to reinvent the wheel 🙌 Implementers get a whole wealth of toolkits and debugging gear for building servers and clients, and operators can apply what they already know about deploying it. Building a simple application transport just for IRIS would give a similar standard, but it would probably be smaller and less complete once you deal with things like framing and authentication 🤓

other transport mechanisms for layered apps don't really fit IRIS's design goals. HTTP [15] has lots of features that similar apps use, but IRIS isn't meant for stuff like bypassing firewalls, mixing URI schemes, or anything else that could cause confusion between IRIS and regular World Wide Web apps 🙈 Beyond following the guidelines in RFC 3205 [16], using HTTP comes with a bunch of other challenges that quickly kill its appeal 💀 For example, the right way to use TLS [4] with HTTP is defined by RFC 2817 [14], but the common approach, described in RFC 2818 [18], is usually the only method in most implementations.

and then there's using IRIS straight over TCP, like the EPP-TCP [17] approach. That doesn't give the client the negotiation features a referral app needs, where one client might hop across multiple servers with different parameters while processing a single query 🦋

2. Document Terminology 📖

the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are read the way BCP 14, RFC 2119 [5] describes 🧠

3. BEEP Profile Identification 🧚

the BEEP profile identifier for IRIS is a URI made of the IRIS schema URN, then a slash, then an IRIS registry type (which is itself a URN) 🌈

the IRIS schema MUST be abbreviated according to the rules of IRIS. this works because the IRIS schema URN is compliant with XML_URN [20] ✨

the registry type URN MUST be abbreviated according to the rules of IRIS (see [6]). again, it works because the registry type URN is compliant with XML_URN [20] 💜

here's an example. it identifies the version of IRIS matching "urn:iana:params:xml:ns:iris1" with a registry type URN of "urn:iana:params:xml:ns:dreg1":

   http://iana.org/beep/iris1/dreg1

the full ABNF [8] is below, with some values pulled in from IRIS [6]:

   profile             = profile-uri "/" iris-urn-abbrev
                         "/" registry-urn-abbrev
   profile-uri         = "http://iana.org/beep/"
   iris-urn-abbrev     = // as specified by IRIS
   registry-urn-abbrev = // as specified by IRIS

this URI goes in the "profile" element in BEEP during channel creation 🎀 Per the BEEP rules, multiple "profile" elements can be offered, so you can negotiate which version of IRIS to use for each registry type being served 💅

once the profile is accepted and the channel is created, the channel is ready to exchange IRIS messages 🙌 A server MUST honor queries for all advertised registry types on any channel opened with an IRIS profile URI. no skipping, periodt 👑

4. IRIS Message Packages 📦

the BEEP profile for IRIS carries XML [1] with the requests and responses for IRIS registries. These XML instances MUST be encoded as Unicode [9] using the media-type "application/xml" according to RFC 3023 [11] 🫶

XML processors are obliged to recognize both UTF-8 and UTF-16 [9] encodings. XML lets you identify and use other character encodings through the "encoding" attribute in the declaration. If that attribute is missing, or there's no byte order mark (BOM), the default is UTF-8. So for compatibility reasons, and per RFC 2277 [12], UTF-8 is RECOMMENDED with this transport mapping. UTF-16 is OPTIONAL. Other encodings MUST NOT be used 🚫

a registry type MAY define other message packages that aren't IRIS XML instances, like binary images referenced by an IRIS response 🖼️

5. IRIS Message Patterns 🔥

5.1. Registry Dependent Patterns

each registry type is defined by its own BEEP profile (see [6]), so each registry type MAY define a different message pattern 💖 These patterns MUST stay within the allowable scope of BEEP [2]. If a registry type doesn't explicitly define a message pattern, the default pattern gets used (see Section 5.2) 🦋

BUT each registry type MUST be capable of supporting the default pattern (Section 5.2) for use with the <lookupEntity> query in IRIS 🫶

5.2. Default Pattern

the default BEEP profile for IRIS only has a one-to-one request/response message pattern. The exchange sends an IRIS XML instance and gets an IRIS XML instance back in response 🌸

the client sends its request using a "MSG" message containing a valid IRIS XML instance. The server responds with an "RPY" message containing a valid IRIS XML instance. The "ERR" message is for sending fault codes 🚨 The list of allowable fault codes is in BEEP [2] 📋

6. Server Authentication Methods 🔐

6.1. Registry Dependent Methods

when the TLS [4] tuning profile in BEEP is used, you can verify the server is authentic ✨ But you need a convention to actually do that authentication 🤔 This convention sets the name of the authority a client uses to ask for authentication credentials, so the server knows which set of credentials to send back. Since that depends on the authority component of the URI, each registry type SHOULD define a server authentication method 💜

If a registry type doesn't explicitly define a server authentication method, the basic server authentication method (Section 6.2) gets used 🧚

6.2. Basic Server Authentication Method

the basic server authentication method goes like this 👑

  1. When connecting to a server, the client MUST present the name of the authority to the server using the BEEP [2] serverName mechanism. For example, if the URI iris:dreg1//com/domain/example.com is being resolved, the client would use serverName="com" during BEEP session instantiation.
  2. During TLS negotiation, the server presents the client a certificate for the authority given in serverName. This certificate MUST be an X.509 certificate [10]. It MUST contain the authority in either the subjectDN or the subjectAltName extension of type dNSName.
  3. The certificate MUST be cryptographically verified according to the procedures of TLS.
  4. The client then checks the subject of the certificate for a case-insensitive match, in this order:
    1. Any of the dNSName types in the subjectAltName.
    2. The subjectDN consisting solely of 'dc' components, where each 'dc' component represents a label from the authority name (e.g., example.com is dc=example, dc=com).
    3. A subjectDN where the left-most component is a 'cn' component containing the name of the authority. A wildcard character ('*') MAY be used as the left-most label of the name in the 'cn' component.

If the subject of the certificate doesn't match any of these name components, the certificate is invalid for representing the authority ❌

7. IRIS Transport Mapping Definitions 🧁

this section lists the definitions IRIS [6] needs for transport mappings 📝

7.1. URI Scheme

the URI scheme name specific to BEEP over IRIS MUST be "iris.beep" 🎀

7.2. Application Protocol Label

the application protocol label MUST be "iris.beep" 💖

7.3. Allowable Character Sets

see Sections 4 and 10 🌸

7.4. BEEP Mapping

the mapping of IRIS in this document is specific to RFC 3080 [2]. This mapping MUST use TCP as specified by RFC 3081 [3] 🦋

8. Registrations ✨

okay bestie, this is the paperwork section, but I'm making it cute 🎀 These are the registration templates that get filed with IANA and the IESG so everyone knows what's what 📋

8.1. BEEP Profile Registration 🦋

Profile Identification: http://iana.org/beep/iris1

Messages exchanged during Channel Creation: none

Messages starting one-to-one exchanges: IRIS XML instance

Messages in positive replies: IRIS XML instance

Messages in negative replies: none

Messages in one-to-many exchanges: none

Message Syntax: IRIS XML instances as defined by IRIS [6]

Message Semantics: request/response exchanges as defined by IRIS [6]

Contact Information: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> and Marcos Sanz
<sanz@denic.de>

8.2. URI Scheme Registration 🌸

URL scheme name: iris.beep

URL scheme syntax: defined in Section 7.1 and [6]

Character encoding considerations: as defined in RFC 2396 [7]

Intended usage: identifies an IRIS entity made available using the
BEEP profile for IRIS

Applications using this scheme: defined in IRIS [6]

Interoperability considerations: n/a

Security Considerations: defined in Section 12.

Relevant Publications: BEEP [2] and IRIS [6]

Contact Information: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> and Marcos Sanz
<sanz@denic.de>

Author/Change controller: the IESG

8.3. Well-Known TCP Port Registration 🧚

Protocol Number: TCP

Message Formats, Types, Opcodes, and Sequences: defined in Sections
3, 4, and 5.

Functions: defined in IRIS [6]

Use of Broadcast/Multicast: none

Proposed Name: IRIS over BEEP

Short name: iris.beep

Contact Information: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> and Marcos Sanz
<sanz@denic.de>

8.4. S-NAPTR Registration 💜

Application Protocol Label: iris.beep

Intended usage: identifies an IRIS server using BEEP

Interoperability considerations: n/a

Security Considerations: defined in Section 12

Relevant Publications: BEEP [2] and IRIS [6]

Contact Information: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> and Marcos Sanz
<sanz@denic.de>

Author/Change controller: the IESG

9. Registry Definition Checklist 📝

okay, the checklist! 💅 If you're defining a registry type, you MUST include these explicit definitions, no skipping, no vibes-only versions 😭

Specifications of registry types MUST include the following explicit definitions:

  • message pattern -- a definition of the message pattern for use with BEEP, or a declaration to use the default message pattern in Section 5.2.
  • server authentication method -- a definition of the method to use for server authentication with TLS, a declaration to use the basic server authentication method in Section 6.2, or a declaration to use no server authentication at all.

10. Internationalization Considerations 🌈

Quick one: go check Section 4 for the details 🫶

See Section 4.

11. IANA Considerations 🏛️

The registrations live in Section 8, so that's where IANA looks 👑

Registrations with the IANA are described in Section 8.

12. Security Considerations 🔥

Okay, this section is serious, so I'm keeping the vibe dramatic but the facts 100% intact 💀 Implementers need to be fully aware of the security considerations in IRIS, BEEP, and TLS, and for server authentication over TLS, go back to Section 6.

Implementers should be fully aware of the security considerations given by IRIS [6], BEEP [2], and TLS [4]. With respect to server authentication with the use of TLS, see Section 6.

Clients SHOULD be prepared to use the following BEEP tuning profiles:

Anonymous client access SHOULD be considered in one of two methods:

  1. When no authentication tuning profile has been used.
  2. Using the SASL anonymous profile: http://iana.org/beep/SASL/ANONYMOUS

IRIS has a referral mechanism as a standard part of how it works. But user authentication mechanisms need to be careful not to hand user credentials to untrusted servers 🚨 So clients SHOULD NOT use the http://iana.org/beep/SASL/PLAIN tuning profile. As specified by SASL/PLAIN, clients MUST NOT use the http://iana.org/beep/SASL/PLAIN tuning profile without first encrypting the TCP session (for example, with the http://iana.org/beep/TLS tuning profile).

Don't skip the PLAIN rule, bestie. Credentials in the open are a no from me 🙅‍♀️

13. References 📚

Here's the reading list, complete with every detail, because citations are sacred 🙏

13.1. Normative References

[1]   World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language (XML)
      1.0", W3C XML, February 1998, <http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-
      xml-19980210>.

[2]   Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
      3080, March 2001.

[3]   Rose, M., "Mapping the BEEP Core onto TCP", RFC 3081, March
      2001.

[4]   Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC
      2246, January 1999.

[5]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
      Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[6]   Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: The Internet Registry
      Information Service (IRIS) Core Protocol", RFC 3981, January
      2005.

[7]   Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
      Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August
      1998.

[8]   Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
      Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.

[9]   The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version 3", ISBN
      0-201-61633-5, 2000, <The Unicode Standard, Version 3>.

[10]  Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W., and D. Solo, "Internet X.509
      Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate
      Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280, April 2002.

[11]  Murata, M., Laurent, S. St., and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types",
      RFC 3023, January 2001.

[12]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages",
      BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.

[13]  Chown, P., "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Ciphersuites for
      Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 3268, June 2002.

13.2. Informative References

[14]  Khare, R. and S. Lawrence, "Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1",
      RFC 2817, May 2000.

[15]  Fielding,  R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter,
      L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
      -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

[16]  Moore, K., "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate", BCP 56, RFC
      3205, February 2002.

[17]  Hollenbeck, S., "EPP TCP Transport", Work in Progress, January
      2002.

[18]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

[19]  Newton, A., "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP)
      Requirements", RFC 3707, February 2004.

[20]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
      January 2004.

14. Authors' Addresses 💌

Here are the people who made this happen, with their contact details 🦋

Andrew L. Newton
VeriSign, Inc.
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, VA  20166
USA

Phone: +1 703 948 3382
EMail: anewton@verisignlabs.com; andy@hxr.us
URI:   http://www.verisignlabs.com/


Marcos Sanz
DENIC eG
Wiesenhuettenplatz 26
D-60329 Frankfurt
Germany

EMail: sanz@denic.de
URI:   http://www.denic.de/

The legal stuff, kept word for word so nothing gets lost in translation 🫶

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

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.

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.

Intellectual Property 🔐

Rights stuff, also verbatim, so the fine print stays exact 📜

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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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.

Acknowledgement 🌟

Last but not least, the thank-you note 💖

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

📦 where this page comes from