Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                        J. KlensinRequest for Comments: 2345                                          MCICategory: Experimental                                          T. Wolf                                                       Dun & Bradstreet                                                             G. Oglesby                                                                    MCI                                                               May 1998Domain Names and Company Name RetrievalStatus of this Memo   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet   community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.Abstract   Location of web information for particular companies based on their   names has become an increasingly difficult problem as the Internet   and the web grow.   The use of a naming convention and the domain   name system (DNS) for that purpose has caused complications for the   latter while not solving the problem.  While there have been several   proposals to use contemporary, high-capability, directory service and   search protocols to reduce the dependencies on DNS conventions, none   of them have been significantly deployed.   This document proposes a company name to URL mapping service based on   the oldest and least complex of Internet directory protocols, whois,   in order to explore whether an extremely simple and widely-deployed   protocol can succeed where more complex and powerful options have   failed or been excessively delayed.1. Introduction and Context   In recent months, there have been many discussions in various   segments of the Internet community about "the top level domain   problem".  Perhaps characteristically, that term is used by different   groups to identify different, and perhaps nearly orthogonal, issues.   Those issues include:Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 1998   1.1.  A "domain administration policy" issue.   1.2.  A "name ownership" issue, of which the trademark issue may         constitute a special case.   1.3.  An information location issue, specifically the problem of         locating the appropriate domain, or information tied to a         domain, for an entity given the name by which that entity is         usually known.   Of these, controversies about the first two may be inevitable   consequences of the growth of the Internet.  There have been   intermittent difficulties with top level domain adminstration and   various attempts to use the domain registry function as a mechanism   for control of service providers or services from time to time since   a large number of such domains started being allocated.  Those   problems led to the publication of the policy guidelines of   [RFC1591].   The third appears to be largely a consequence of the explosive growth   of the World Wide Web and, in particular, the exposure of URL formats   [URL] to the end user because no other mechanisms have been   available.  The absence of an appropriate and adequately-deployed   directory service has led to the assumption that it should be   possible to locate the web pages for a company by use of a naming   convention involving that company's name or product name, i.e., for   the XYZ Company, a web page located athttp://www.xyz.com/orhttp://www.xyz-company.com/   has been assumed.   However, as the network grows and as increasing numbers of web sites   are rooted in domains other than ".COM", this convention becomes   difficult to sustain: there will be too many organizations or   companies with legitimate claims --perhaps in different lines of   business or jurisdictions-- to the same short descriptive names.  For   that reason, there has been a general sense in the community for   several years that the solution to this information location problem   lies, not in changes to the domain name system, but in some type of   directory service.   But such directory services have not come into being.  There has been   ongoing controversy about choices of protocols and accessing   mechanisms.  IETF has published specifications for several different   directory and search protocols, including [WHOIS++], [RWHOIS],Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 1998   [LDAP], [X500], [GOPHER].  One hypothesis about why this has not   happened is that these mechanisms have been hard to select and deploy   because they are much more complex than is necessary.  This document   proposes an extremely simple alternative.2. Using WHOIS   The WHOIS protocol is the oldest directory access protocol in use on   the Internet, dating in published form to March 1982 and first   implemented somewhat earlier.  The procotol itself is simple and   minimalist: the client opens a telnet connection to the WHOIS port   (43) and transmits a line over it.  The server looks up the line in a   fashion that it defines, returns one or more lines of information to   the client, and closes the connection.   We suggest that modifications or add-ins be created to Web browsers   that would access a new, commercially-provided Whois server, sending   a putative company name and receiving back one or more lines, each   containing a URL followed by one or more blanks and then a matching   company name (that order was chosen to minimize parsing problems:   since URLs cannot contain blanks, the first blank character marks the   end of the URL and the next non-blank marks the beginning of the   company name).  As is usual with Whois, the criteria used by the   server to match the incoming string is at the server's discretion.   The difference between this and the protocol as documented in [WHOIS]   is that exactly one company name is returned per line (seesection 3   for details of syntax).   The client would then be expected to:   (i) If a single line (company name and URL) is returned, either       ask for confirmation or simply fetch the associated URL as if it       had been typed by the user.   (ii) If multiple lines (names) are returned, present the user with        a choice, presumably showing company names rather than (or        supplemented by) URLs, then fetch using the URL selected.   Obviously, while the most convenient use of the services contemplated   in this document would occur through a client that was part of, or   intimately connected with, a Web browser, a user without that type of   facility could utilize a traditional WHOIS client and paste or   otherwise transfer the relevant information into the target location   of a browser.Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 19983. Formats, versions, and international character sets   Preliminary work with the approach suggested above suggests that some   specific conventions about syntax and variations would be useful.3.1 Line sent from client to server.   These lines may take either of two forms:   (i) A simple 7-bit ASCII string, containing a "company name"   (ii) A string in the format (using the ABNF notation ofRFC 2234        [ABNF]):       Variation "/" 1*Octet           Variation :== "0" | ( Non-zero-digit 1*Digit)           Non-zero-digit :== 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9           Digit :== 0 | Non-zero-digit       Where Octet is any eight-bit sequence, representing a prefixed       variation number.   The first form will be construed as equivalent to the second form   with the leading string "0/".  Variation numbers are specified insection 3.3.   In all cases, the interpretation of what "company name" might mean   and, in particular, what variations of form or spelling,   abbreviations, and so on, might be accepted is strictly up to the   interpretation of the server.  If rules driving the server lead to   the conclusion that a string matches some company in its data, the   correctness or incorrectness of that decision is not covered by this   specification.   For variation 0 and, by default, for all others, any alphabetic text   in lines is to be construed in a case-insensitive fashion.3.2 Lines sent from server to client.   The server is expected to return one or more lines to the client,   depending on its interpretation of the input string.  In general,   each line will consist, as described above, of a URL, a space, and a   "company name".  This document deliberately does not specify the   content or semantics of the "company name" string.  It might be a   name, or a name and descriptive information such as location and type   of business, or other information at the option of the server.  TheKlensin, et. al.              Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 1998   expectation, as mentioned above, is that the information will be   displayed by the client to aid users in selecting the appropriate   URL.   These lines, consistent with normal Internet practice, will be   terminated by a CR LF sequence (rather than one or the other of those   control characters).   When and if different variation numbers are introduced, their   specifications may include variations on what the server is expected   to return.   In lieu of "URL and company name" responses, the Server may also   return "error messages".  These take the form of lines containing:         "///" SP String    where the String is 7-bit ASCII with no control characters other    than SP, unless the variation associated with the variation number    specifies otherwise.  For this experiment, all "error messages" but    the following two are discouraged:          /// Not found                    Indicating that the "company name" does not match                    anything          /// Variation not supported                    Indicating that the variation number supplied by the                    client is not recognized by the server.3.3.  Registered variations   The following two variations are established as part of this   specification:   0/        Query and response are in 7-bit ASCII, no controls other             than SP, "Company name" separated from URL by one or more             SP characters.   1/        Query and response are in UTF-8, no controls other than             SP, "Company name" separated from URL by one or more SP             characters, no specification of language on either input or             output.   The IANA will maintain a registry of additional variations which it   is hoped will be very short.  Requests for additional variations   should be sent via email to: iana@iana.org.Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 19984. Alternatives not chosen   Few comments on the initial drafts of this document addressed the   basic model or protocol design for the service discussed.  Instead,   they focused on inquiring about the decisions we didn't make and   about beliefs about the protocol specification that were not intended   by the authors.  The latter have been, we hope, corrected.  Questions   of the following three types predominated in the first category.4.1.  Why didn't you use <insert-favorite-directory-protocol-here>?   Many notes raised the question of how much more could be done with a   higher-powered directory protocol rather than the extremely simple   WHOIS.  Questions were raised about LDAP, X.500 DAP, CCSO, RWHOIS,   and WHOIS++.  We had several reasons for avoiding them.  The most   important has been a strong commitment to see how much can be done   with an extremely simplistic approach, and WHOIS represented the most   simplistic approach we could find.  If it turns out to be too simple   in practice, things can always evolve to one or more of the more   advanced protocols.   But, if we started with one of them, we would   never get that information.  Other issues included:   * None of the existing directory proposals has really emerged as     the "right" solution with a large installed base.  The deployed     base of WHOIS and WHOIS clients is huge, and using it avoids either     having to make a premature choice of "winner" or to become     embroiled in the debate.   * For the casual user, the mechanisms needed to activate the     extensive attribute-based directory searches of the stronger     protocols are just too complicated and may actually act as a     deterrent to effective use.   * Substantially since the dawn of the ARPANET, the Internet     experience has been that setting up a directory service is easy,     but that maintaining one and keeping the records up-to-date is     extremely difficult.  The economics of operating an effective     directory service and keeping everything up to date may will     require a revenue-producing product.  Use of a very simple protocol     for the basic service creates a situation in which basic service     can rationally be given away while more advanced service are     operated on a charge or subscription basis.4.2 And why not use a Web search engine?   Web search engines are immensely effective and powerful, but address   a different problem than this protocol.  The protocol model here does   involve a directory lookup, using a presumed company name as a key.Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 1998   The quality of the result will depend on the quality of the   underlying directory and the editorial and research work that goes   into its construction (neither of which are matters for the protocol   itself -- we trust that marketplace pressures will separate good   servers from poor ones).  Web search engines are often more effective   at locating information about companies than the specific company-   designated web pages.4.3 Why not return a more highly structured information format    rather than a simple pair of URL and "company name"?   Again, the goal was to keep things extremely simple and, in   particular, permit minimal interpretation between the user's input   and the query and between the response and a display or action.  Some   of the inquiries on this subject were due to misunderstandings about   the implications of the "company name" field; the semantics of that   field have been clarified above.  We also wanted to avoid the level   of standardization implied by a tagging scheme: highly-structured   fields might lead either to interoperability problems or excessive   restriction on what might be returned.5. Thoughts on Directory Providers   There is no technical reason why there should be only one provider of   company name to URL mapping services using this protocol, nor is   there any reason for registries of such providers.  Presumably,   servers that provide the best-quality mappings will eventually   prevail in the marketplace.  However, as with most traditional uses   of WHOIS, it is desirable for implementations of clients (or Web   browsers supporting this protocol) to allow for user choice of   servers through configuration options or the equivalent.6. Demo Application   To illustrate the proposed functionality of this document, a   prototype of both the server and client have been made able for   demonstration purposes.6.1 Server   The TLD-WHOIS demonstration server is available at   "companies.mci.net". The server contains a database of approximately   209,000 company entries provided by Dun and Bradstreet.   The server will generally respond back to a query within 15 seconds.   If the server has the response cached from a previous query, the   return time will be significantly shorter.Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 1998   If 10 or more entries are found in the database for the query, only   the top 10 will be returned in the response.   For the purposes of this demonstration, there is no provision for   submitting additions or changes to the database. The authors and the   sponsoring companies are not responsible for the accuracy of the data   provided by this prototype. Our apologies if your company is not   listed.6.2  Client6.2.1 Download Location:   A demonstration client for the Windows 95/Nt platforms is available   for public download through anonymous ftp at:   ftp.mci.net/pub/ietf/company/demo.exe, or via the web:ftp://ftp.mci.net/pub/ietf/company/demo.exe   File size is approximately 1.9 MB.6.2.2 Setup Instructions:   a) Download the client installation software from the site mentioned      above to a local 32 bit Windows computer. The client installation      software has been compressed using the self-extracting archive      application from InstallShield The default name for the download      is "demo.exe".   b) Double click on the file through File Explorer or run the program      through the START menu.   c) Select "Setup" to allow InstallShield to uncompress the files      needed to install the demonstration client to a temporary      directory. InstallShield will then automatically launch the main      application Setup program.   d) The main setup program will install the demo application files and      make the necessary additions to the Windows Registry. No user      action is required.   e) Upon completion of installation you will be prompted to run the      application or to exit setup.Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 19986.2.3 Paranoia:   What did you just do to my computer?   Files Copied:   companyname.exe    Main program executable   whois.ocx          WhoIs module from Mabry Software   led.ocx            LED module from Mabry Software   msvbvm50.dll       Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file   stdole2.tlb        Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file   oleaut32.dll       Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file   olepro32.dll       Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file   comcat.dll         Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file   asyncfilt.dll      Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file   crtl3d32.dll       Installshield control used for installation only   Registry Changes:   Created key under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT called Who   This entry is used to enable the Microsoft Internet Explorer's   pluggable protocol handler. The key contains several sub-entries that   list the path and command to the companyname executable. The   pluggable protocol hander provides the necessary hooks to launch the   companyname application whenever the WHO:// URL is submitted in the   address line of Internet Explorer.6.2.4 Using the Program6.2.4.1 Standalone Operation:   From the Start Menu, select the Programs \ Companyname \ companyname.   Alternatively, it can be launched from Start:     Run c:\windows\companyname.exe   Enter the name of the company that you are attempting to locate and   press OK.   A status box will be displayed while the client is communicating with   the server until a response is returned. The possible returns are:      a) Message box saying that,  "Your request was not found."         This means that the company information that was submitted was         not found in the database.Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 1998      b) A list box containing 2 - 10 company names sorted high to         low by score. Highlight one of the names and press the launch         button. The program will launch the default web browser for         your computer and navigate to the site.      c) The default web browser launches and navigates to a site.         This means that only one match was found in the database and         that match is opened directly without user intervention.6.2.4.2 Within Internet Explorer   From the Address Line within the web browser, enter "WHO://" followed   by the name of the company that you wish to search for and press the   enter key.      Note:  Since the company name is entered within the URL space             of the browser, it can not contain spaces.   If you wish to send a search string that contains spaces, enter   "WHO://" with no company information.  The application will display   the dialogue window as described in standalone mode for you to enter   the search criteria.   A status box will be displayed while the client is communicating with   the server until a response is returned. The possible returns are:      a) Message box saying that,  "Your request was not found."         This means that the company information that was submitted was         not found in the database.      b) A list box containing 2 - 10 company names sorted high to         low by score. Highlight one of the names and press the launch         button. The program will launch the default web browser for         your computer and navigate to the site.      c) The default web browser launches and navigates to a site.         This means that only one match was found in the database and         that match is opened directly without user intervention.6.2.5 Client Customization   The name of the Whois server is hardcoded within the application to   "companies.mci.net". No initialization file or registry keys are   needed for the default configuration.  Realizing  that some testers   may have proxy servers on their corporate systems and that others may   wish to test the client against a different Whois server, the client   supports a mechanism for changing the default server.  To enable the   server customization, follow these steps:Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 1998      a) Create a new directory in the root of the         C: Drive called "companyname"      b) Using Notepad or any text editor create a new file         called "whois.ini"      c) Add a new line to the file beginning with         "SERVER= <server name>". Do not include the double quotes         around the tag. <server name> would be the IP Address or DNS         name of the new Whois or proxy server.      d) End the line with a carriage return.      e) Save the file as a plain text file back to         "c:\companyname\whois.ini"6.2.6 Client Limitations:   The demonstration software and database are provided "as is". No   warranties are stated or implied. Use at your own risk.   The demonstration client is supported only on 32 bit Intel Windows   platforms. It has been tested on  Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0 and   Windows 98 beta RC0.   Use of the WHO:// URL moniker from within the web browser is   supported only under Microsoft Internet Explorer.   TCP Port 43 must be cleared through firewalls for client to   communicate with the server. Refer to the section on client   customization if you need to utilize a proxy server to traverse a   firewall.   When using the Address Line entry method within Microsoft Internet   Explorer, spaces are not permitted within the search string.7. References   [ABNF]  Crocker, D., and P. Overell, Eds., "Augmented BNF for Syntax   Specifications: ABNF",RFC 2234, November 1997.   [RFC1591]  Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation",RFC 1591, March 1994.   [GOPHER] Anklesaria, F., McCahill, M., Lindner, P., Johnson, D.,   John, D., Torrey, D., and B. Alberti, "The Internet Gopher Protocol   (a distributed document search and retrieval protocol)",RFC 1436,   March 1993.Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 1998   [LDAP]  Yeong, W., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory   Access Protocol",RFC 1777, March 1995.   [RWHOIS]   Williamson, S., and M. Kosters, "Referral Whois Protocol   (RWhois)",RFC 1714, December 1994.   [URL]   Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform   Resource Locators (URL)",RFC 1738, December 1994.   [WHOIS] Feinler, E., Harrenstien, K., and M. Stahl, "NICNAME/WHOIS",RFC 954, October 1985.   [WHOIS++]  Deutsch, P., Schoultz, R., Faltstrom, P., and C. Weider,   "Architecture of the WHOIS++ service",RFC 1835, August 1995.   [X500]  Wright, R., Getchell, A., Howes, T., Sataluri, S., Yee, P.,   and W. Yeong, "Recommendations for an X.500 Production Directory   Service",RFC 1803, June 1995.   [Z39.50]  Lynch, C., "Using the Z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol   in the Internet Environment",RFC 1729, December 1994.8. Security Considerations   This suggested use of the WHOIS protocol adds no significant security   risks to those of traditional applications of the protocol which is   one of the most widely-deployed applications on the Internet.  As   usual, servers should expect to use the string sent to them as an   information retrieval key, not as a function to be executed in some   way.  A more significant risk would arise if the server supporting   the translation function were somehow spoofed; in that case, an   incorrect URL might be returned for a particular company. As with the   possibility of finding an incorrect page using naming conventions,   the best protection against the risks that could then occur is   careful attention to certificates, signatures, and other   authenticity-indicating information.9.  IANA Considerations   As provided insection 3.3, above, this experiment requests that IANA   maintain a registry of query variation forms and that the registry be   initialized with the two values specified in that section.Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                     [Page 12]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 199810. Acknowledgements   This memo was inspired by a many discussions over the last few years   about the status and uses of the domain name system, information   location using conventions about domain names, exposure of URLs to   end users, and convergence of directory and search protocols.  While   the people involved are too numerous to attempt to list, the authors   would like to acknowledge their contributions and comments.   Martin Hamilton, Keith Moore, Tom Thornbury and Ed Trembicki-Guy made   important suggestions that have contributed to the revision of this   memo.11. Authors' Addresses   John C. Klensin   MCI Internet Architecture   800 Boylston St, 7th floor   Boston, MA 02199   USA   Phone: +1 617 960 1011   EMail: klensin@mci.net   Ted Wolf, Jr.   Electronic Commerce   Dun & Bradstreet Information Services   3 Sylvan Way   Parsippany, NJ 07054   USA   Phone: +1 201 605 6308   EMail: ted@usa.net   Gary W. Oglesby   MCI Internet Architecture   842 N. Ahoy Dr.   Gilbert, AZ 85234   USA   Phone: +1 415 538 1100   EMail: gary@mci.netKlensin, et. al.              Experimental                     [Page 13]

RFC 2345        Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval         May 199812.  Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.   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.Klensin, et. al.              Experimental                     [Page 14]