Network Working Group A. Newton Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc. Expires: February 12, 2003 August 14, 2002 Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) draft-ietf-crisp-iris-core Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 12, 2003. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document describes an application layer client-server protocol for a framework of representing the query and result operations of the information services of Internet registries. Specified in XML, the protocol defines generic query and result operations and a mechanism for extending these operations for specific registry service needs. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 1] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Use of XML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 General Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Framework Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1 Protocol Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2 Request Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.1 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.2 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3 Response Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.1 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.2 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3.3 Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Extension Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1 Derived Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2 Registry Identifier Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3 Entity Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4 Names of Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.5 References to Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. URI Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Database Serialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Formal XML Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 C. Considerations on XML-based RPC's . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 2] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 1. Introduction The specification outlined in this document is based on the functional requirements described in CRISP[1]. 1.1 Use of XML This document describes the specification for the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS), an XML text protocol with the purpose of describing the query types and result types of various registry information services. IRIS is specified using the Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 as described in [2], XML Schema notation as described in [4] and [5], and XML Namespaces as described in [3]. It is important to note that XML is case sensitive. XML specifications and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the exact character case presented to develop a conforming implementation. 1.2 General Concepts Each type of Internet registry, such as address, routing, and domain, are identified by a registry identifier (ID). This registry identifier is a URI, more specifically a URN, used within the XML instances to identify the XML schema formally describing the set of queries, results, and entity classes allowed within that type of registry. A registry information server may handle queries and serve results for multiple registry types. Each registry type that a particular registry operator serves is a registry service instance. IRIS and the XML schema formally describing IRIS do not specify any registry, registry identifier, or knowledge of a particular service instance or set of instances. IRIS is a specification for a framework with which these registries can be defined, used, and in some cases interoperate. The framework merely specifies the elements for registry identification and the elements which must be used to derive query elements and result elements. This framework allows a registry type to define its own structure for naming, entities, queries, etc. through the use of XML namespaces and XML schemas (hence, a registry type is identified by the same URI that identifies its XML namespace). In order to be useful, a registry type's specification must extend from this framework. The framework does define certain structures that can be common to all registry types, such as references to entities, search Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 3] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 continuations, entity classes, and more. A registry type may declare its own definitions for all of these, or it may mix its derived definitions with the base definitions. IRIS defines two types of referrals, an entity URI and a search continuation. An entity URI indicates specific knowledge about an individual entity, and a search continuation allows for distributed searches. Both types may span differing registry types and instances. No assumptions or specifications are made about roots, bases, or meshes of entities. Finally, the IRIS framework attempts to be transport neutral. 1.3 Framework Layers The IRIS framework can conceptually be thought of as having three layers. ---------------------------- Registry-Specific |domain | address | routing| ---------------------------- Common-Registry | IRIS | ---------------------------- Application-Transport | beep, etc... | ---------------------------- The differing layers have the following responsibilities: Registry-Specific :: Defines queries, results, and entity classes of a specific type of registry. Each specific type of registry is identified by a URN. Common-Registry :: Defines base operations and semantics common to all registry types such as referrals, entity references, etc. It also defines the syntaxes for talking about specific registry types (using the registry ID's). Application-Transport :: Defines the mechanisms for authentication, message passing, connection and session management, etc. It also defines the URI syntax specific to the application-transport mechanism. 1.4 Definitions For clarity, the following definitions are supplied: registry identifier (ID) - The identifier used to specify a particular type of registry. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 4] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 registry type - A registry serving a specific function, such as a domain registry or an address registry. Each type of registry is assigned a registry identifier. registry schema - The definition for a registry type specifying the queries, results, and entity classes. entity class - A group of entities with a common type or common set of characteristics. entity name - The identifier used to refer to a single entity within an entity class. entity URI - A formal pointer to an entity. This URI contains a registry ID, entity class, and entity name. The terms "derivative", "derive", and "derivation" are used with the same meaning for deriving one type of element from another as specified in XML_SS[5]. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 5] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 2. Protocol Description Each protocol data unit MUST be one and only one complete and valid XML instance. The XML instance MUST contain either one request element or one response element. No requirements are made concerning the synchronization of the request and the response in this document. However, a transport mapping of IRIS MAY make such requirements if necessary. In addition, no methods are provided in this document for session or connection creation or termination; a transport mapping of IRIS MAY make such requirements if necessary. The following description of the protocol does not describe every detailed aspect necessary for implementation. While reading these following sections, please reference Section 6 for needed details on the formal XML specification. 2.1 Protocol Identification The root element of all IRIS XML instances must be . This element identifies the start of the IRIS elements, the XML namespace used as the identifier for IRIS, and the location of the schema. This element and the associated closing tag MUST be applied to all requests and responses sent by both clients and servers. An example: The use of the schema location URI in the element is OPTIONAL with respect to its use by this specification, and IRIS implementations MAY resolve it to retrieve the schema or they MAY use a locally cached version of the schema. The presence of this URI is mandatory according to [5]. The URI MUST be a valid URI, and SHOULD resolve if the appropriate network resources are available. Versioning of the IRIS protocol is the responsibility of the application-transport layer but MUST be associated with the XML namespace[3] URI representing IRIS. A change in this URI indicates a change of the underlying schema and therefore a new version of the protocol. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 6] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 2.2 Request Format A element holds children representing the different requests that can be made from a client to a server. 2.2.1 Request The element enables the client to query for a list of registry identifiers. 2.2.2 Request The element enables a client to query a particular registry identified by its registry ID. It may have two element types as children: and . The children of the element are the and elements. The 'registryID' attribute is the registry identifier for the registry type in which the lookup operation is to take place. The element MUST contain the token identifying the index for which the lookup operation is to take place, and the element MUST contain the name of the entity to lookup. The element is abstract and MAY NOT legally appear in an XML instance. It provides the base type to be used by registry schemas to define derived query types. 2.3 Response Format The element holds children of the different response types returned from a server to a client. 2.3.1 Response The element MUST be returned to the client in response to any errors that would have disabled the processing of the corresponding request. The MUST contain one of these child elements: o MUST be the response if the server is unable to correctly parse the corresponding request according to the rules of [5] and [4]. o MUST be the response if the server is unable to process the corresponding request for any other reason. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 7] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 2.3.2 Response The element is a response to the . This element MUST contain child elements of . The contents of each child MUST contain one registry identifier. The element MUST contain a child element for each registry type for which the server allows queries. 2.3.3 Response The element is a response to a request. The children MUST be one of the following types: o is an abstract element and MAY NOT be legally placed in an XML instance. It provides the base type to be used by registry schemas to define derived result types. o The contents of is a URI. This element notifies the client of a reference to an entity. The URI SHOULD be an IRIS URI. Resolution of the URI is OPTIONAL by the client. o The element children MUST contain one element and one element. Registry schemas MAY derive a new type from to match transport protocol needs. o The following error elements: * - the corresponding query requires resources unobtainable by the server. * - a name given in a query is not syntactically correct. * - parameters of the corresponding query are not semantically meaningful. * - the corresponding query requires more resources than allowed. * - the name given in a query does not match a known entity. * - the authentication given does not allow access to a specific result entry. This is not the same as denying access to all responses because of Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 8] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 failed authentication. * A derivative of . Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 9] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 3. Extension Framework Because the IRIS schema defines no useful query types, no registry structure, and no result types, it is useless by itself. Extension of IRIS is accomplished through the use a base IRIS schema, as defined in XML_SD[4] and XML_SS[5], and extension of it by schemas constructed on top of IRIS. 3.1 Derived Elements The XML Schema definition of IRIS requires schemas of registry types to derive element types from base types in the IRIS definition. The registry schemas MUST derive elements for definition of typed queries and results. While the IRIS schema definition does not prohibit the derivation of any elements, registry schemas SHOULD restrict the derivations to the following types: o - as defined this element contains no content and has no valid attributes. It is abstract and therefore only derivatives of it MUST appear in an XML instance. Registry schemas derive from this element to define the queries allowed. o - as defined this element contains no content and has no valid attributes. It is abstract and therefore only derivatives of it MUST appear in an XML instance. Registry schemas derive from this element to define results that may be returned from a query. o - as defined, this element is an instance of codeType. Registry schemas MUST derive from this element and MUST NOT use it as it is an abstract element. It MAY contain the elements and to further describe the nature of the error. o - as defined this element represents the identifier for an entity class. Registry schemas SHOULD derive from this element or MAY use it directly. o - contains one or more elements. This element indicates one or more references to entities that have indirect association with a parent element representing an entity. Registry schemas MAY derive from this element or MAY use it directly. o - as defined this element contains a , , and elements. Derivations SHOULD extend the content to include information necessary establishing sessions by Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 10] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 lower layer protocols, but MUST NOT restrict derivations to content less than what is defined. 3.2 Registry Identifier Requirements The identifier for a registry and the XML namespace identifier used by the XML Schema describing the registry MUST be the same. These identifiers MUST be restricted to any valid URN[8]. This is a restriction on XML_NS[3], which specifies an XML namespace identifier is any valid URI[7]. When possible, registry identifiers SHOULD be URN's defined by XML_URN[13]. Because these URN's represent namespace identifiers which are to be used in XML documents for the purposes of XML namespaces as specified by XML_NS[3], they MUST be of the class "ns" as defined in XML_URN[13]. In certain circumstances when registry identifiers are URN's defined by XML_URN[13] and the class component is "ns", they MAY be abbreviated to the part following the class component and its separator of the URN. For example, the full URN "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:dreg1" may be abbreviated to "dreg1", but the full URN "urn:otherOrg:ns:myreg1" cannot be abbreviated. The use of this abbreviation MUST be specifically noted for the set of conditions where it may be used, otherwise the full URN MUST be used. These circumstances and conditions MUST be specified in other sections of this document and other documents related to IRIS where it is used. This abbreviation MUST NOT be used inside of XML instances in use with IRIS where XML Schema[4] specifies the use of a URI for schema identification or where XML_NS[3] specifies the use of a URI for XML namespace identification. 3.3 Entity Classes Entity classes are provided in IRIS to help avoid collisions with entity names with in any given registry type. Their specification in queries also allows server implementations to quickly narrow search or lookup scopes to a single index. A registry schema derives the list of valid entity classes from the element. For instance, the entity name "10.0.1.1" would refer to separate entities in the "nameServer" and "network" classes. The entity "10.0.1.1" in the "nameServer" class may refer to the name server host that is also multi-homed by address 192.178.0.1 and known in DNS as "ns.foo.com", whereas the entity "10.0.1.1" in the "network" class may refer to the network 10.0.1/24. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 11] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 IRIS defines one default entity class of "QUERY" which MAY NOT be redefined. This class is for the naming of canned queries by registries. Therefore an entity lookup of a canned query MAY result in a search continuation on the same registry. When used in URI's (see Section 4), this is a type of boot-strapping procedure. Therefore, the resolution of "iris://com/dreg1/QUERY/registrars" may result in the list of registrars currently registering domains. The set of canned queries are not specified by IRIS. 3.4 Names of Entities The names of entities in a registry schema MUST be of type normalizedString defined by XML_SD[4]. Their use SHOULD be transcribable. Names of entities SHOULD be unique within an instance of any particular entity class within a registry. Two entities SHOULD NOT have the same name, but a single entity MAY be known by multiple names. In situations where a single name may result in two entities, the registry schema SHOULD make allowances by defining result types that contain entity references to both entities (i.e. "foo.com" can refer to both the domain foo.com and the host foo.com). However, this type of conflict SHOULD generally be avoided by the proper use of entity classes. When specifying elements that represent entities, registry schemas SHOULD attach the attribute of "thisEntityURI" with the datatype of anyURI as specified by XML_SD[4]. This aids clients in understanding which parts of a result set represent an entity. The URI value in the XML instance SHOULD be an IRIS URI. 3.5 References to Entities The element allows references to entities in result sets, either as a direct child of or within a more complex structure that derives from . Registry schemas MUST NOT derive elements from this element so that clients will have a better understanding of what is and what isn't an entity reference. This is especially useful to clients when dealing with XML conversion technologies such as XPath. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 12] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 4. URI Requirements IRIS does not have single URI definition because of the dependencies on a URI by the mapping between IRIS and a transport protocol. However, any valid IRIS URI definition MUST meet the following requirements: o Using the layout form syntax of RFC2396[7], each IRIS URI MUST contain a component within its component. The component MUST be composed of the registry identifier, a '/' (slash) character, the entity class, a '/' (slash) character, and the name of an entity within the registry. The layout form syntax of the component MUST be: // o The URI MUST be an absolute URI, therefore the scheme component is always present. o The URI MUST contain the URI component as defined above. This component MUST contain the component, the component, and the component and therefore MUST always be an IRIS entity reference. o The component MAY be abbreviated according to Section 3.2. o Each transport mapping MUST define a URI scheme. The scheme name MAY NOT be used by other IRIS transport mappings. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 13] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 5. Database Serialization A database of IRIS entities can be serialized to file storage with XML[2] using the IRIS defined element. This element MUST only contain children which are a derivative of the element, which SHOULD be elements describing entities. Because fragmentation is not defined in URI's for XML media types[14], the "file:" URI scheme cannot be safely used for serialization of entity URI's. Therefore, serialization of IRIS entity references SHOULD use the element instead of the element. This element is a derivative of the element. It contains the REQUIRED attributes "registryID", "entityClass", and "entityName". These attributes MUST be used to denote the unique identification of an entity. In addition, the OPTIONAL attribute "fileName" may also be used to specify the name of a file where the entity can be found. The actual content of the element MUST conform to the datatype of anyURI. A serialization process SHOULD attempt to formulate a valid IRIS URI to be placed in this element. If an element describing an entity contains the "thisEntityURI" attribute as specified in Section 3.4, the value of this URI should be equal to the value of the URI in any element referring to it. The following is an example of serialized IRIS. thecobblershoppe.com iris://com/dreg1/hostHandle/research7 Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 14] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 iris://com/dreg1/hostHandle/nso1184 beb140 Bill Eckels The Cobbler Shoppe bille@bjmk.com
21 North Main Street
Britt IA 50423 US 515-843-3521
iris://com/dreg1/contactHandle/VGRS
Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 15] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 nsol184 ns1.netsol.com 216.168.224.200 iris://com/dreg1/contactHandle/mak21
Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 16] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 6. Formal XML Syntax IRIS is specified in XML Schema notation. The formal syntax presented here is a complete schema representation of IRIS suitable for automated validation of IRIS XML instances. Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) Schema v1 Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 17] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 19] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 20] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 21] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 22] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 7. Internationalization Considerations IRIS is represented in XML, which provides native support for encoding information using the double-byte Unicode character set and its more compact representations including UTF-8. Compliant XML processors are required to understand both UTF-8 and raw Unicode character sets; XML also includes a provision for identifying other character sets through use of an "encoding" attribute in an processing instruction. The complete list of character set encoding identifiers is maintained by IANA and is described in [15] and [9]. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 23] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 8. IANA Considerations XML schemas require a URI for unique identification. Schemas MUST be registered to ensure URI uniqueness, but the IETF does not currently have a recommended repository for the registration of XML schemas. This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas. IANA SHOULD maintain a registry of XML namespace and schema URI assignments. Per policies described in [10], URI assignment requests SHOULD be reviewed by a designated expert, and values SHOULD be assigned only as a result of standards action taken by the IESG. This document makes use of a proposed XML namespace and schema registry specified in XML_URN[13]. Accordingly, the following URN will need to be registered with IANA: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:iris1 Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 24] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 9. Security Considerations IRIS provides no authentication or privacy facilities of its own. It relies on the application-transport layer for all of these abilities. Implementers need to fully understand the application-transports employed by IRIS. Referral IRIS registry results may contain entity lookups and search continuations which result in a client query operation against another registry service. The authentication credentials used to obtain the registry results SHOULD NOT be used to conduct a subsequent entity lookup or search continuation. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 25] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 References [1] Newton, A, "Cross Registry Internet Service Protocol (CRISP) Requirements", draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-00 (work in progress), August 2002. [2] World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0", W3C XML, February 1998, . [3] World Wide Web Consortium, "Namespaces in XML", W3C XML Namespaces, January 1999, . [4] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C XML Schema, October 2000, . [5] World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C XML Schema, October 2000, . [6] World Wide Web Consortium, "Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) Version 1.0", W3C XSL, November 2000, . [7] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R.T. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998. [8] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997. [9] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "ASSIGNED NUMBERS", RFC 1700, STD 2, October 1994. [10] Narten, T. and H.T. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, BCP 26, October 1998. [11] Newman, C., "Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP", RFC 2595, June 1999. [12] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997. [13] Mealling, M, "The IETF XML Registry", draft-mealling-iana-xmlns-registry-03 (work in progress), November 2001. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 26] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 [14] Murata, M., St.Laurent, S. and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types", RFC 3023, January 2001. [15] Author's Address Andrew L. Newton VeriSign, Inc. 21345 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 USA Phone: +1 703 948 3382 EMail: anewton@verisignlabs.com URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com/ Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 27] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 Appendix A. 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 RFC2119[12]. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 28] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 Appendix B. Acknowledgements The terminology used in this document to describe namespaces and namespaces of namespaces is now much clearer thanks to the skillful debating tactics of Leslie Daigle. Previously, it was much more confusing. Many other technical complexities were proved to be unnecessary by David Blacka and have been removed. And his IRIS implementation has helped smooth out the rougher edges. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 29] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 Appendix C. Considerations on XML-based RPC's Observations have been made about the similarity between IRIS and XML-based RPC mechanisms, specifically SOAP and XML-RPC. And while IRIS is not based on a general RPC mechanism, it could easily be modeled on top of one, especially SOAP. The use of XML-RPC and SOAP has been weighed, and its pay-off has been found to be unsatisfactory. XML-RPC and SOAP are abstraction layers intended to separate a programmer from the details of protocols and to allow the programmer to simply use structures and procedures native to a programming language (or genericized to only the RPC mechanism). The appeal is that the programmer needs to know very little about implementation details so that the task of gluing custom logic is inexpensive. Supposedly, with little to implement, the job can be done faster or easier. However, this appeal starts to vanish if the programmer must begin to go beyond the native language and familiar tools. And the nature of IRIS defined by the CRISP requirements tend to lead an implementer down this path. For example, the use of DNS via SRV or NAPTR resource records to locate authoritative servers is not available in the interfaces of XML-RPC and SOAP. Furthermore, XML-RPC and SOAP 1.0 are bound to HTTP. This use, or misuse, of HTTP violates RFC 3205. It is possible to put XML-RPC or SOAP 1.1 on other application-transports, but the overwhelming majority of SOAP and XML-RPC implementations are for HTTP. Therefore, chances are that an implementer may have to do this work as well. In addition, what makes XML-RPC or SOAP much more enticing than other similar XML-based mechanisms, such as XMOP or ebXML? And why just XML-based solutions? What makes them better than CORBA or DCOM? Finally, the intended use of IRIS is more akin to a directory service than a remote procedure interface. Basing it on a generic mechanism could easily go from lookup( domain ) to register( domain ). The latter being clearly out-of-scope for CRISP and rightly in the purview of PROVREG. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 30] Internet-Draft iris August 2002 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). 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. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Newton Expires February 12, 2003 [Page 31]