Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 2967

TISDAG - Technical Infrastructure for Swedish Directory Access Gateways

Pages: 105
Informational
Part 1 of 5 – Pages 1 to 14
None   None   Next

Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                          L. Daigle
Request for Comments: 2967                      Thinking Cat Enterprises
Category: Informational                                       R. Hedberg
                                                               Catalogix
                                                            October 2000


                 TISDAG - Technical Infrastructure for
                   Swedish Directory Access Gateways

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

The strength of the TISDAG (Technical Infrastructure for Swedish Directory Access Gateways) project's DAG proposal is that it defines the necessary technical infrastructure to provide a single-access- point service for information on Swedish Internet users. The resulting service will provide uniform access for all information -- the same level of access to information (7x24 service), and the same information made available, irrespective of the service provider responsible for maintaining that information, their directory service protocols, or the end-user's client access protocol.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1 Project Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2 Executive Summary of Technical Study Result . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3 Document Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.0 Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1 End-User Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 WDSPs Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3 DAG-System Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.0 Functional Specification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2 The DAG Core. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3 Client Interface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3.1 Acceptable User Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 2
      Supported Query Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
      Matching Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
      Character Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   3.3.2 Data Output Spec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
      Schema Definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
      Referral Definition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
      Error conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   3.4 Directory Server Interface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   4.0 Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.1 Software Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.1.1 Internal Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.1.2 Referral Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.1.3 DAG-CAPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.1.4 DAG-SAPs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   4.2 Important Architectural Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   4.2.1 2 Distinct Functions:  Referrals and Chaining . . . . . . . 17
   4.2.2 Limited Query and Response Semantics. . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   4.2.3 Visibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   4.2.4 Richness of Query semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   4.2.5 N+M Protocol Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   4.2.6 DAG-CAPs and DAG-SAPs are completely independent of each
      other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   4.2.7 The Role of the DAG-CAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   4.2.8 The Role of the DAG-SAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   4.2.9 DAG/IP is internal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   4.2.10 Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   4.2.11 Future Extensions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   5.0 Software Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   5.1 Notational Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   5.2 DAG-CAP Basics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   5.2.1 Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   5.2.2 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   5.2.3 Error handling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   5.2.4 Pruning of results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   5.3 DAG-SAP Basics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   5.3.1 Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   5.3.2 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   5.3.3 Error handling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   5.3.4 Pruning of results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   5.3.5 Constraint precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   5.4 The Referral Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   5.4.1 Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   5.4.2 Interactions with WDSPs (CIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   5.4.3 Index Object Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   5.4.4 DAG-Internal I/O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   5.4.5 The Index Server. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   5.4.6 Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   5.4.7 Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 3
   5.5 Mail (SMTP) DAG-CAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   5.5.1 Mail DAG-CAP Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   5.5.2 Translation from Mail query to DAG/IP . . . . . . . . . . . 28
      Querying the Referral Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
      Querying a DAG-SAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   5.5.3 Chaining queries in Mail DAG-CAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   5.5.4 Expression of results in Mail DAG-CAP . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   5.5.5 Expression of Errors in Mail DAG-CAP. . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   5.6 Web (HTTP) DAG-CAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   5.6.1 Web DAG-CAP Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   5.6.2 Translation from Web query to DAG/IP. . . . . . . . . . . . 33
      Querying a DAG-SAP Directly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
      Querying the Referral Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
      Querying a DAG-SAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   5.6.3 Chaining queries in Web DAG-CAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   5.6.4 Expression of results in Web DAG-CAP. . . . . . . . . . . . 36
      text/html results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
      application/whoispp-response Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   5.6.5 Expression of Errors in Web DAG-CAP . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
      Standard Errors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   5.7 Whois++ DAG-CAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   5.7.1 Whois++ DAG-CAP Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
   5.7.2 Translation from Whois++ query to DAG/IP. . . . . . . . . . 39
      Querying the Referral Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
      Querying a DAG-SAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   5.7.3 Chaining in Whois++ DAG-CAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
   5.7.4 Expression of results in Whois++. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
   5.7.5 Expression of Errors in Whois++ DAG-CAP . . . . . . . . . . 41
   5.8 LDAPv2 DAG-CAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
   5.8.1 LDAPv2 DAG-CAP Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
   5.8.2 Translation from LDAPv2 query to DAG/IP . . . . . . . . . . 44
      Querying the Referral Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
      Querying a DAG-SAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
   5.8.3 Chaining queries in LDAPv2 DAG-CAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
   5.8.4 Expression of results in LDAPv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
   5.8.5 Expression of Errors in LDAPv2 DAG-CAP. . . . . . . . . . . 48
   5.9 LDAPv3 DAG-CAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
   5.9.1 LDAPv3 DAG-CAP Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
   5.9.2 Translation from LDAPv3 query to DAG/IP . . . . . . . . . . 51
      Querying the Referral Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
      Querying a DAG-SAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
   5.9.3 Chaining queries in LDAPv3 DAG-CAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
   5.9.4 Expression of results in LDAPv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
   5.9.5 Expression of Errors in LDAPv3 DAG-CAP. . . . . . . . . . . 56
   5.10 Whois++ DAG-SAP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
   5.10.1 Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
   5.10.2 Translation from DAG/IP to Whois++ query . . . . . . . . . 58
   5.10.3 Translation of Whois++ results to DAG/IP . . . . . . . . . 58
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 4
   5.11 LDAPv2 DAG-SAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
   5.11.1 Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
   5.11.2 Translation from DAG/IP to LDAPv2 query. . . . . . . . . . 59
   5.11.3 Translation of LDAPv2 results to DAG/IP. . . . . . . . . . 61
   5.12 LDAPv3 DAG-SAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
   5.12.1 Input. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
   5.12.2 Translation from DAG/IP to LDAPv3 query. . . . . . . . . . 62
   5.12.3 Translation of LDAPv3 results to DAG/IP. . . . . . . . . . 64
   5.13 Example Queries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
   5.13.1 A Whois++ Query. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
      What the Whois++ DAG-CAP Receives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
      What the Whois++ DAG-CAP sends to the Referral Index . . . . . 65
      What the Whois++ DAG-CAP Sends to an LDAP DAG-SAP. . . . . . . 65
   5.13.2 An LDAP Query. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
      What the LDAP DAG-CAP Receives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
   5.13.3 What the LDAP DAG-CAP sends to the Referral Index. . . . . 67
      What the LDAP DAG-CAP Sends to a Whois++ DAG-SAP . . . . . . . 67
      What the LDAP DAG-CAP Sends to an LDAP DAG-SAP . . . . . . . . 68
   6.0 Service Specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
   6.1 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
   6.2 WDSP Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   6.3 Load Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   6.4 Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
   7.0 Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
   7.1 Information credibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
   7.2 Unauthorized access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
   8.0 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
   Appendix A - DAG Schema Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
   A.1 DAG Personal Information Schema (DAGPERSON Schema). . . . . . 76
   A.2 DAG Organizational Role Information Schema (DAGORGROLE
      Schema). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
   Appendix B - Schema Mappings for Whois++ and LDAP . . . . . . . . 77
   B.1 LDAP and the DAG Schemas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
   B.2 Whois++ and the DAG Schemas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
   Appendix C - DAG-Internal Protocol (DAG/IP) . . . . . . . . . . . 82
   C.1 A word on the choice of DAG/IP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
   C.2 DAG/IP Input and Output -- Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
   C.3 BNF for DAG/IP input and output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
   C.3.1 The DAG/IP Input Grammar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
   C.3.2 The DAG/IP Response Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
   C.4 DAG/IP Response Messages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
   Appendix D - DAG/IP Response Messages Mapping . . . . . . . . . . 93
   Appendix E - DAG CIP Usage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
   E.1 CIP Index Object. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
   E.2 CIP Index Object Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
   E.3 CIP Index Object Sharing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
   E.3.1 Registration of Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
   E.3.2 Transmission of Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 5
   Appendix F - Summary of Technical Survey Results. . . . . . . . .100
   Appendix G - Useful References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
   Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
   Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
   Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

List of Tables

   Table 3.1 DAG-supported queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
   Table 5.1 Allowable Whois++ Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
   Table A.1 DAGPERSON schema attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
   Table A.2 DAGORGROLE schema attributes. . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
   Table B.1 Canonical DAGPERSON schema & LDAP inetorgPerson
      attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
   Table B.2 Reasonable Approximations for LDAP organizationalRole
      attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
   Table B.3 Canonical mappings for LDAP organizationalRole
      attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
   Table B.4 Canonical DAGPERSON schema & Whois++ USER attributes. .81
   Table B.5 Canonical mappings for Whois++ ORGROLE attributes . . .82
   Table C.1 List of system response codes . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
   Table D.1 LDAPv2/v3 resultcodes to DAG/IP response codes
      mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
   Table D.2 Mapping from DAG/IP response codes to LDAPv2/v3
      resultcodes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
   Table D.3 Mapping between DAG/IP and Whois++ response codes . . .94
   Table F.1 Summary of TISDAG Survey Results: Queries . . . . . . 101
   Table F.2 Summary of TISDAG Survey Results: Operational
      Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Goal

The overarching goal of this project is to develop the necessary technical infrastructure to provide a single-access-point service for searching for whitepages information on Swedish Internet users. The service must be uniform for all information -- the same level of access to information (7x24 service), and the same whitepages information made available, irrespective of the service provider responsible for maintaining that information.

1.2 Executive Summary of Technical Study Result

The strength of the TISDAG project's DAG proposal is that it defines the necessary technical infrastructure to provide a single-access- point service for information on Swedish Internet users. The resulting service will provide uniform access for all information --
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 6
   the same level of access to information (7x24 service), and the same
   information made available, irrespective of the service provider
   responsible for maintaining that information, their directory service
   protocols, or the end-user's client access protocol.

   Instead of requiring centralized mirroring of complete information
   records from Swedish directory service providers, the DAG system uses
   a well-defined index object summary of that data, updated at the
   directory service provider's convenience.  When an end-user queries
   the DAG, the referral information is used (by the end-user's
   software, or by a module within the DAG, as appropriate) to complete
   the final query directly at the directory service provider's system.
   This ensures that the end-user gets the most up-to-date complete
   information, and promotes the directory service provider's main
   interest:  its service.  The architecture of the DAG itself is very
   modular; support for future protocols can be added in the operational
   system.

1.3 Document Overview

This document is broken into 5 major sections: Requirements: As a service, the DAG system will have several different types of users. In order to be successful, those users' needs (requirements) must be met. This in turn defines certain constraints, or system requirements, that must be met. This section aims to capture the baseline requirement assumptions to be addressed by the system, and thus lays the groundwork on which the rest of the proposed system is built. Functional Specification Overview: Working from the users' requirements, specific technologies and functionality details are outlined to architect a system that will meet the stated requirements. This includes a conceptual architecture for the system. While the Requirements section outlines the needs the different users have for the eventual DAG system, implementing and providing the eventual service will entail constraints or conditions that need to be met in order to be able to participate in the overall system. Architecture: Once the system has been defined conceptually, a proposed software architecture is specified to produce the desired functionality and meet the stated requirements. Software Specifications: This section provides the specifications for software components to meet the architecture described above.
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 7
   Service Specifications: Once the software has been designed, the
   success of the DAG system will rest on its operational
   characteristics.  Details of service requirements are given in this
   section.

1.4 Terminology

DAG-CAP: Client Access Point -- point of communication between client-access software and the DAG system. DAG-System: The Directory Access Gateway system resulting from the TISDAG project. A collection of infrastructural software and services for the purpose of providing unified access to Swedish whitepages information. DAG/IP: DAG-Internal Protocol -- communication protocol used between software components of the DAG. End-User: People performing White Pages searches and look-ups (via various forms of client software). DAG-SAP: Service Access Point -- point of communication between the DAG and WDSP software. WDSP: Whitepages Directory Service Provider -- ISPs, companies, or other interested entities. Whitepages Information: Collected information coordinates for individual people. This typically includes (but is not limited to) a person's name, and e-mail address.

2.0 Requirements

There are 2 primary classes of users for the proposed Whitepages directory access gateway: - End-users - WDSPs As outlined below, needs of each of these user classes imposes a set of constraints on the design of the DAG system itself. Some of the requirements shown below are assumed starting criteria for the DAG service; others have been derived from data collected in the Technical Survey or other expertise input.
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 8

2.1 End-User Requirements

The End-User is to be provided with a specific set of search types: Name Name + Organization Role + Organization Name + Locality Name + Organization + Locality Role + Organization + Locality The search results will, if available, include the following information for each "hit": - Full name - E-mail address - Role - Organization - Locality - Full address - Telephone numbers Access to the service must be available through reasonable and current protocols -- such that directory-service-aware software can make use of it seamlessly, and there are no reasonable technological impediments to making this service useful to all Swedish Internet users. Following on that, its responses are expected to be timely; a standard search should not take more time than the average access to a web-server.

2.2 WDSPs Requirements

Given that the WDSPs that participate in this service are already in the business of providing a service of whitepages information, they have certain requirements that must be respected in order to make this a successful and useful service to all concerned. The DAG system must provide reasonable assurances of data integrity for WDSPs; the information the End-User sees should correspond directly to that provided by the WDSPs. The DAG system should be non-preferential in providing whitepages information -- the service is to the End-User, and the source of whitepages information should not influence the search and information presentation processes.
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 9
   The DAG system must be able to reflect information updates within a
   reasonable time after receipt from WDSPs; on the flip side, while the
   DAG system will function best with regular updates from WDSPs, the
   update and participation overhead for WDSPs should be held within
   reasonable bounds of what the WDSP should do to support regular
   access to its information.

   Furthermore, given that WDSPs provide directory service information
   with an eye to value-added service, wherever possible End-Users
   should be redirected to the WDSP responsible for individual directory
   service entries for final and further information.

2.3 DAG-System Requirements

In order to address the requirements of End-Users and WDSPs, the DAG system itself has certain design constraints that must be taken into account. The system must be implementable/operational by Dec 31/98 -- which implies that it must be designed and constructed with already extant technologies. The System will have certain requirements for participation -- e.g., 7x24 WDSP availability. In terms of scaling, the system should be able to handle 8M records at the outset, with a view to handling larger information systems in the future. The system must also be capable of extension to other, related applications (e.g., serving security certificate information).

3.0 Functional Specification

In the TISDAG pilotservice we have decided to apply some limitations as to what is specified for the DAG/IP. These limitations are presented in this text in the following manner: TISDAG: This is a TISDAG comment

3.1 Overview

The conceptual environment of the DAG system can be described in three major components: - client access software for end-users - the DAG system core - WDSP directory service software
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 10
   This is illustrated in Figure 3.1

   The DAG (Directory Access Gateway) is the infrastructural core of the
   service; it maintains the necessary data and transformation
   facilities to permit the smooth connection of diverse directory
   service Client Software to the existing WDSPs' directory servers.
   The key challenges in designing this portion of the system are:

   Quantity of data -- the quantity of whitepages information that will
   be made available, and diversity of its sources (different WDSPs)
   introduce challenges in terms of finding a structure that will allow
   efficient searching, and facilitate the timeliness of updating the
   necessary information.

   Multiplicity of access protocols -- in order to support the use of
   existing whitepages-aware software with a minimum of perturbation,
   the DAG system will have to present a uniform face in several
   different access protocols, each with its own information search and
   representation paradigm.

   This specification will outline the following areas:

   - the functioning of the DAG core itself
   - the interface between the DAG core and End-Users' Directory Service
     Access software
   - the interface between the DAG core and Directory Services Servers

3.2 The DAG Core

In order to reduce the quantity of data the DAG itself must maintain, and to keep the maintenance of the whitepages information as close as possible to the source of information (the WDSPs themselves), the DAG will only maintain index information and will use "query routing" to efficiently refer End-User queries to WDSPs for search refinement and retrieval of information. Although originally developed for the Whois++ protocol, query routing is being pursued in a protocol- independent fashion in the IETF's FIND WG, so the choice of this approach does not limit the selection and support of whitepages access protocols. The DAG will look after pursuing queries for access protocols that do not support referral mechanisms. In order to achieve the support of multiple access protocols and differing data paradigms, the DAG will be geared to specifically support a limited set of whitepages queries.
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 11
                                          +---------+      @
                                 +      ->|         |     -+-
                                /|Protocol|         |      |
                               / |    /   +---------+     / \
                              /  | "B"
                             +   |  /
                             |   |<-
         +-------+           |   |
    O    |       |           |   |
   -+-   |       |<--------->|   |
    |    |       | Protocol  |   |
   / \   |       |  "A"      |   |<-
         +-------+           |   |Protocol
                             |   |   \
                             +   |   "A"  +---------+      @
                              \  |     \  |         |     -+-
                               \ |      ->|         |      |
                                \|        +---------+     / \
                                 +

                             The
   End      Client           DAG           Directory   Directory
   Users    Software         System        Server      Service
                             Core          Software    Providers

           Figure 3.1 The role of the DAG system

3.3 Client Interface

The DAG will respond to End-User queries in - e-mail (SMTP) - WWW (HTTP) - LDAPv2 - Whois++ - LDAPv3 The DAG will provide responses including the agreed-upon data. For access protocols that can handle referrals, responses will be data and/or referrals in that query protocol. These are Whois++ and LDAPv3. N.B.: the LDAPv3 proposal defines a referral as a URL; no limitation is placed on the access protocol. However it cannot be assumed that all clients will be able to handle all access protocols, so only referrals to LDAPv3 servers will be returned.
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 12

3.3.1 Acceptable User Input

User Input is defined in terms of - Searchable Attributes - Matching semantics - Character sets These, in conjunction with the DAG schema, defined in Appendix A, form the basis of the required query expression. Individual queries are discussed in more detail in the Client Access Point (DAG-CAP) component descriptions for supported protocols. Supported Query Types The DAG system is designed to support fragment-matching queries on a limited set of data attributes -- "Name", "Organizational Role", "Organization", and "Locality". The selected permissible query combinations of attributes are listed in Table 3.1. From the table it can be seen that not all combinations of the three attributes are supported -- only those that are needed for the desired functionality. Symbol Description ------- ----------- N Name NL Name + Locality NO Name + Organization NOL Name + Organization + Locality RO Role + Organization ROL Role + Organization + Locality Table 3.1 DAG-supported queries The RO and ROL queries are separated from the rest as they are searches for "virtual" persons -- roles within an organization (e.g., president, or customer service desk) for which one might want to find contact information. Matching Semantics As befits the individual client query protocols, more string matching expressions may be provided. The basic semantics of the DAG expect the following to be available in all client access software (as relevant):
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 13
   - Full word, exact match
   - Word substring match (E.g., "cat" would match "scatter")
   - Case-sensitive and case-insensitive matching

      TISDAG: LDAP/X.500, supports case-sensitivity as such but some of
      the most used attributes, such as the commonName attribute, are
      defined in the standard to be of the case-insensitive
      attributetypes.  The impact on the DAG system is that even if the
      index collected from a LDAP/X.500 server might have upper and
      lower case letters in the tokens, they can not be handled as such
      since that would be inferring meaning in something which is
      natively regarded as meaningless.  The conclusion of the above is
      that The Referral Index should be case-insensitive and case-
      sensitivity should be supported by the SAPs if the native access
      protocol supports it.

   Character Sets

   Wherever possible, the DAG System supports and promotes the use of
   Unicode Version 2.0 for character sets (see [21]) specifically the
   UTF-8 encoding (see Appendix A.2 of [21] or [20]) Accommodation is
   made, where necessary, to support the deployed base of existing
   software.

   Specifically:

   DAG/IP: All internal communications using the DAG/IP are carried out
   in UTF-8.

      TISDAG: not just UTF-8, but UTF-8 based on composed UNICODE
      version 2 character encodings.

   DAG-CAP input: Where specific access protocols permit selection of
   character sets, DAG-CAPs must support UTF-8.  They may additionally
   support other anticipated character set encodings.

   DAG-SAP communications with WDSPs:  Where specific access protocols
   permit selection of character sets, DAG-SAPs must support UTF-8 and
   use UTF-8 whenever the remote WDSP supports it.  They may
   additionally support other character set encodings.

   CIP Index Objects: The Index Objects supplied by the WDSPs to the DAG
   system shall contain data encoded in UTF-8.

      TISDAG: The same limitation as for DAG/IP, that is the basic data
      should be UTF-8 encoded composed UNICODE version 2 character
      encodings.
Top   ToC   RFC2967 - Page 14

3.3.2 Data Output Spec

Schema Definition The schema used for the DAG service is defined in Appendix A. This is a very basic information schema, intended to carry the necessary information for the DAG service, and not more. Although generic "whitepages" schema definitions do exist the more sophisticated and detailed the information presentation, the more difficult it is to map the schema seamlessly across protocols of different paradigms. Thus, the "KISS" ("Keep it simple, sir") principle seems appropriate here. Individual DAG-CAPs define how they express this schema. Referral Definition For client access protocols that make use of the concept of referrals, DAG-CAP definitions will define the expression of referrals in those protocols. The DAG/IP defines the expression of referrals (see Appendix C). Error conditions Each DAG-CAP may provide more detailed error messages, but will define minimally the support for the following error conditions: - unrecognized query - too many hits Apart from these errors, the DAG-CAP may choose to refuse a query by redirecting the end-user to a different DAG-CAP of the same protocol.

3.4 Directory Server Interface

The DAG will use the Common Indexing Protocol (CIP) server-server protocol to obtain updated index objects from WDSPs. For query- routing purposes, WDSPs are expected to provide Whois++, LDAPv2 or LDAPv3 interface to their data (although their preferred access may be something completely different). N.B.: In the responses from the technical survey, all respondents currently provide access to their service in one of these protocols. In order to provide a useful and uniform service, WDSPs are expected to provide 7x24 access to their whitepages information. WDSPs are also expected to implement operations, administration, maintenance, and provisioning processes designed to minimize service down time for both planned and unplanned administration and maintenance activities.


(next page on part 2)

Next Section