RFC 5144
A Domain Availability Check (DCHK) Registry Type for the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS)
RFC 5144: A Domain Availability Check (DCHK) Registry Type for the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) 🎀
Okay bestie, let's start with the title block 💅
- Stream: Network Working Group 🌈
- Authors: A. Newton (American Registry for Internet Numbers) and M. Sanz (DENIC eG) 👑
- Category: Standards Track 🦋
- Date: February 2008 🌸
- Obsoletes / Updates: the title block doesn't list anything this one obsoletes or updates ✨
Status of This Memo ✨
This document is an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and it's asking for discussion and suggestions for improvements 🫶 For the standardization state and status of this protocol, check the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1). Distribution of this memo is unlimited 💖
Abstract 🧚
This doc describes a lightweight domain availability service that runs on the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) framework and uses the data model of the IRIS Domain Registry (DREG) service 💜
Table of Contents 🍓
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Domain Availability Check Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Schema Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. The <domain> Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Support for <iris:lookupEntity> . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. DCHK Formal XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) Transport
Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1. Message Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2. Server Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. URI Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.1. Application Service Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.2. Bottom-Up Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.3. Top-Down Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. XML Namespace Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. S-NAPTR Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. BEEP Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161. Introduction 🌸
This doc describes a lightweight service for checking whether domain names are available. It's built on the IRIS framework and uses the data model defined by RFC 3982 [7]. Because of that, the domain availability service gets the perks of IRIS and DREG, like well-known methods for server navigation, structured queries and results, and layered extensibility ✨
Using IRIS for this service also means the domain availability service and the DREG service integrate seamlessly 🫶 A user can check whether a domain is available and then reference the full registration information in DREG. Iconic 💅
The data model in this service (called a registry schema in IRIS terms) is a strict subset of the DREG data model. This lets implementors directly reuse DREG code paths, and it lets operators deploy the service in the same server processes as a DREG service (same host and port), in a different server process (different port), or on a different machine (different host) 🦋
For example, an operator might want to run both types of service on the same set of machines. Then, as time goes on, they might decide to split them up, putting the domain availability service on one set of machines and the DREG service on another set with a stricter set of controls. Either deployment is transparent to the end user and always appears to be seamlessly complementary 🧚
When coupled with [9], this domain availability service is lightweight and extremely efficient for high-volume, public-facing service 🔥
2. Document Terminology 📝
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2] 💜
3. Domain Availability Check Registry 🎀
The data model for the domain availability check (DCHK) service is a strict subset of the DREG data model. This section describes the DCHK registry type 💖
3.1. Schema Description 🦋
References to XML elements with no namespace qualifier come from the schema defined in Section 3.2. References to elements and attributes with the "iris" XML namespace qualifier come from the schema defined in IRIS [6] 🌈
The schema in this document is tied to the protocol version associated with the XML namespace URI defined in Section 5.2. Extensions to the present DCHK schema are allowed, though not recommended, but they would require a new version. For more details about versioning the IRIS protocol, see RFC 3981 [6] 🫶
The descriptions in this section cover XML elements and attributes and how they relate to exchanging data in the protocol. They also include specifications outside the scope of the formal XML syntax. So this section uses terms defined by RFC 2119 [2] to describe the specification outside the formal XML syntax 🧚 While you read it, reference Section 3.2 for the details you need on the formal XML syntax 💅
3.1.1. The <domain> Result 🍓
Here's an example of a <domain> result 👑
<domain
authority="iana.org" registryType="dchk1"
entityClass="domain-name" entityName="example.com">
<domainName>example.com</domainName>
<status><active/></status>
</domain>
<domain> ExampleThe <domain> result represents an instance of a domain assignment. Its children are as follows 🔥
<domainName>: the full name of the domain as it is in DNS. The contents of this element MUST be a domain name as specified by RFC 1035 [1] 💖<idn>: the name of the domain in nameprep form, if applicable. See RFC 3491 [3] ✨<status>: this element may contain child elements representing domain status information. It defines the following status types 🦋<active>: available via DNS (either via delegation or direct publication).<inactive>: unavailable via DNS.<dispute>: registrant assignment is in dispute.<addPeriod>: the domain is in the grace period after creation or activation (see RFC 3915 [5]).<renewPeriod>: the domain is in the grace period after renewal (see RFC 3915 [5]).<autoRenewPeriod>: the domain is in the grace period after automatic renewal (see RFC 3915 [5]).<transferPeriod>: the domain is in the grace period after transfer (see RFC 3915 [5]).<redemptionPeriod>: the domain is in the grace period after deletion (see RFC 3915 [5]).<policyCompliant>: the domain is considered compliant according to a given policy specified by the substatus identifier.<policyNoncompliant>: the domain is not considered compliant according to a given policy specified by the substatus identifier.<reserved>: the domain is reserved and is not available for registration under normal registration procedures.<create>: specifies the creation of the domain in the registration system. This status is usually further refined by the disposition attribute.<delete>: specifies the deletion of the domain in the registration system. This status is usually further refined by the disposition attribute.<renew>: specifies the renewal of domain registration. This status is usually further refined by the disposition attribute.<restore>: specifies the restoration to the previous state of the domain before it was deleted. This status is usually further refined by the disposition attribute.<transfer>: specifies the transfer of the domain from one responsible or owning entity in the registration system to another. This status is usually further refined by the disposition attribute.<update>: specifies a general modification of the domain information. This status is usually be further refined by the disposition attribute.<other>: specifies a registration system specific status of the domain.
<registrationReference>: an element containing an entity reference, whose referent MUST be either a<domain>(Section 3.1.1) or a<domain>as defined by RFC 3982 [7]. The point of this element is to reference the downstream registration. So if this is a result given back by a domain registry, it should point to the domain in the domain registrar or registrant service 👑<createdDateTime>: an element containing the date and time of the creation of this domain ⭐<initialDelegationDateTime>: an element containing the date and time of the initial delegation of this domain 🌸<expirationDateTime>: an element containing the date and time of the expiration of this domain 💀<lastDatabaseUpdateDateTime>: an element containing the date and time of the last actualization of the database that is the source for this result 🧚<iris:seeAlso>: an element containing an entity reference specifying a referent that is indirectly associated with this domain 🫶
3.1.1.1. Domain Status Type 🎀
Each element of type 'domainStatusType' has the following composition 💅
<appliedDate>: an optional child element containing the date applicable to creation of the status.<ticket>: an optional child element containing a service ticket identifier relevant to the status.<description>: zero or more child elements with text describing the status in natural language. Each of these elements MUST have alanguageattribute describing the language of the description element 🌈<subStatus>: a child element indicating further status information. Values for this element are not defined by this specification. This child element has a requiredauthorityattribute to indicate the origin of the specification of the value of this element 🔥actor: an optional attribute indicating the acting entity for which this status is applied. The values may be "registry", "registrar", or "registrationServiceProvider" 🦋disposition: an optional attribute indicating the nature of this status. The values may be "pending" or "prohibited" 💖scope: an optional attribute indicating the context or origin of the status value ✨
3.1.2. Support for <iris:lookupEntity> 🔍
Okay, so IRIS has this <lookupEntity> query, and this registry only answers a few kinds of entity classes. Two of them, bestie:
domain-name🌐: the fully qualified name of a domain. This is a domain name as specified by RFC 1035 [1]. You get a <domain> (Section 3.1.1) back in the response.idn🌸: the fully qualified name of a domain in nameprep form (see RFC 3491 [3]). You also get a <domain> (Section 3.1.1) back.
3.2. DCHK Formal XML Syntax 📜
Here's where the registry schema gets written out in the XML Schema notation (see [10] and [11]). This is the full schema, and it's a complete representation of an XML instance when it's combined with the formal schema syntax of IRIS. So you need both pieces to get the whole picture 💅
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:dchk="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1"
xmlns:iris="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iris1"
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1"
elementFormDefault="qualified" >
<import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iris1" />
<annotation>
<documentation>
Domain availability check schema
derived from IRIS schema
</documentation>
</annotation>
<!-- ========================================= -->
<!-- -->
<!-- Result Types -->
<!-- -->
<!-- ========================================= -->
<!-- -->
<!-- Domain -->
<!-- -->
<complexType
name="domainType">
<complexContent>
<extension
base="iris:resultType">
<sequence>
<element
name="domainName"
type="token" />
<element
name="idn"
type="token"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1" />
<element name="status"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1">
<complexType>
<choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<element
name="active"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="inactive"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="dispute"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="renew"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="addPeriod"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="renewPeriod"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="autoRenewPeriod"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="transferPeriod"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="redemptionPeriod"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="restore"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="policyCompliant"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="policyNoncompliant"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="reserved"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="create"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="delete"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="transfer"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="update"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
<element
name="other"
type="dchk:domainStatusType" />
</choice>
</complexType>
</element>
<element
name="registrationReference"
type="iris:entityType"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1" />
<element
name="createdDateTime"
type="dateTime"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1" />
<element
name="initialDelegationDateTime"
type="dateTime"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1" />
<element
name="expirationDateTime"
type="dateTime"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1" />
<element
name="lastDatabaseUpdateDateTime"
type="dateTime"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1" />
<element
ref="iris:seeAlso"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded" />
</sequence>
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<element
name="domain"
type="dchk:domainType"
substitutionGroup="iris:result" />
<complexType
name="domainStatusType">
<sequence>
<element
name="appliedDate"
type="dateTime"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1" />
<element
name="ticket"
type="token"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded" />
<element
name="description"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded">
<complexType>
<simpleContent>
<extension
base="string">
<attribute
name="language"
type="language"
use="required" />
</extension>
</simpleContent>
</complexType>
</element>
<element
name="subStatus"
minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1">
<complexType>
<simpleContent>
<extension
base="token">
<attribute
type="token"
use="required"
name="authority"/>
</extension>
</simpleContent>
</complexType>
</element>
</sequence>
<attribute
name="actor">
<simpleType>
<restriction
base="string">
<enumeration
value="registry"/>
<enumeration
value="registrar"/>
<enumeration
value="registrationServiceProvider"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
</attribute>
<attribute
name="disposition">
<simpleType>
<restriction
base="string">
<enumeration
value="prohibited"/>
<enumeration
value="pending"/>
</restriction>
</simpleType>
</attribute>
<attribute
name="scope"
type="token" />
</complexType>
</schema>Figure 1: dchk.xsd 🎀
3.3. Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP) Transport Compliance 🚚
Okay, the transport rules are important, so listen up 👑 Every DCHK client and server MUST implement the Lightweight UDP Transport Protocol (IRIS-LWZ) [9]. Using other transports is a different story. The XML Pipelining with Chunks (IRIS-XPC) transport [12] or the BEEP transport [8] is optional, and it's totally up to the server operator. The XPC transport is in any case preferable to the BEEP transport 💖
IRIS lets you extend the core capabilities in a bunch of ways. This section covers the extensions that IRIS-BEEP [8] allows ✨
3.3.1. Message Pattern 💬
This registry type uses the default message pattern described in IRIS-BEEP [8]. Easy peasy 🧚
3.3.2. Server Authentication 🔐
This registry type uses the default server authentication method described in IRIS-BEEP [8]. No drama here 🌈
3.4. URI Resolution 🗺️
3.4.1. Application Service Label 🏷️
The application service label for this registry type MUST be "DCHK1". It's the abbreviated form of the URN for this registry type, urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1 🦋
3.4.2. Bottom-Up Resolution ⬆️
The bottom-up alternative resolution method MUST be identified as 'bottom' in IRIS URIs. Its process is identical to the 'bottom' process described by RFC 3982 [7] 💅
3.4.3. Top-Down Resolution ⬇️
The top-down alternative resolution method MUST be identified as 'top' in IRIS URIs. Its process is identical to the 'top' process described by RFC 3982 [7] 🫶
4. Internationalization Considerations 🌍
Implementors should be aware of the internationalization considerations in IRIS [6] 🧠
Clients that need to localize the data tags in this protocol should take note: localization is only needed for the names of XML elements and attributes, except for elements that hold date and time information. The schema for this registry was designed so clients don't need to interpret the content of elements or attributes for localization, other than the date and time elements 🎀
Clients should also make use of the <language> elements provided in many of the results. Results with internationalized data can come with these elements, which helps the user localize the data better 🌸
All date and time elements use the XML Schema [10] data type "dateTime". If their contents are Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) timestamps, they MUST be specified with the capitalized 'Z' indicator (instead of 'z') ⏰
5. IANA Considerations 📋
5.1. XML Namespace Registration 🗂️
This document uses the XML registry specified in RFC 3688 [4]. So IANA made the following registration 💜
- XML Namespace URN/URI:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dchk1
- Contact:
Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>Marcos Sanz <sanz@denic.de>
- XML:
- None.
5.2. XML Schema Registration 🗃️
This document uses the XML registry specified in RFC 3688 [4]. So IANA made the following registration 🌟
- XML Schema URN/URI:
urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:dchk1
- Contact:
Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>Marcos Sanz <sanz@denic.de>
- XML:
- The XML Schema specified in Section 3.2
5.3. S-NAPTR Registration 🧭
The following Straightforward-NAPTR (S-NAPTR) application service label has been registered with IANA, following the IANA considerations defined in IRIS [6]:
DCHK15.4. BEEP Registration 🎟️
The following BEEP Profile URI has been registered with IANA, in addition to the registration provided in IRIS-BEEP [8]:
http://iana.org/beep/iris1/dchk16. Security Considerations 🔒
Being a proper subset of RFC 3982 [7], the registry described in this document introduces no security considerations beyond those documented in RFC 3981 [6]. Translation: the security stuff is already covered by the parent specs, so read those carefully, bestie 🙈
7. References 📚
7. References ✨
7.1. Normative References 💖
Okay so this is the normative references bit, and bestie, every single one of these is a doc the spec leans on, so we keep them all. No skipping! 🫶
- [1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 🌸
- [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 🎀 (this is the one that defines the capital-letter key words, so it's giving main character energy 👑)
- [3] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)", RFC 3491, March 2003. 🦋
- [4] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, January 2004. 🧚
- [5] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915, September 2004. 🍓
- [6] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: The Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) Core Protocol", RFC 3981, January 2005. ✨
- [7] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "IRIS: A Domain Registry (dreg) Type for the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS)", RFC 3982, January 2005. 💜
- [8] Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Using the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 3983, January 2005. 🌈
- [9] Newton, A., "A Lightweight UDP Transfer Protocol for the Internet Registry Information Service", RFC 4993, August 2007. 💅
- [10] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C XML Schema, October 2004, <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/>. 🫶
- [11] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C XML Schema, October 2004, <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/>. 🔥
7.2. Informative References 🦋
- [12] Newton, A., "XML Pipelining with Chunks for the Internet Registry Information Service", RFC 4992, August 2007. 🧚
Authors' Addresses 🎀
Okay, here's where to find the authors, no cap. 💅
Andrew L. Newton American Registry for Internet Numbers 3635 Concorde Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 USA
Phone: +1 703 227 9884 EMail: andy@arin.net URI: http://www.arin.net/
Marcos Sanz DENIC eG Kaiserstrasse 75-77 D-60329 Frankfurt Germany
EMail: sanz@denic.de URI: http://www.denic.de/
Full Copyright Statement 🌸
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 💖
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, THE IETF TRUST 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 🔥
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 procedures with respect to rights in RFC 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. 💜
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc5144 2008-02
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms