mirror of
https://gitee.com/acl-dev/acl.git
synced 2024-12-06 05:49:34 +08:00
1012 lines
41 KiB
Plaintext
1012 lines
41 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Network Working Group M. Mealling
|
|||
|
Request for Comments: 2915 Network Solutions, Inc.
|
|||
|
Updates: 2168 R. Daniel
|
|||
|
Category: Standards Track DATAFUSION, Inc.
|
|||
|
September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) DNS Resource Record
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Status of this Memo
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
|
|||
|
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
|
|||
|
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
|
|||
|
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
|
|||
|
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright Notice
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Abstract
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document describes a Domain Name System (DNS) resource record
|
|||
|
which specifies a regular expression based rewrite rule that, when
|
|||
|
applied to an existing string, will produce a new domain label or
|
|||
|
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). Depending on the value of the
|
|||
|
flags field of the resource record, the resulting domain label or URI
|
|||
|
may be used in subsequent queries for the Naming Authority Pointer
|
|||
|
(NAPTR) resource records (to delegate the name lookup) or as the
|
|||
|
output of the entire process for which this system is used (a
|
|||
|
resolution server for URI resolution, a service URI for ENUM style
|
|||
|
e.164 number to URI mapping, etc).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This allows the DNS to be used to lookup services for a wide variety
|
|||
|
of resource names (including URIs) which are not in domain name
|
|||
|
syntax. Reasons for doing this range from URN Resource Discovery
|
|||
|
Systems to moving out-of-date services to new domains.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document updates the portions of RFC 2168 specifically dealing
|
|||
|
with the definition of the NAPTR records and how other, non-URI
|
|||
|
specific applications, might use NAPTR.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 1]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Table of Contents
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
|
|||
|
2. NAPTR RR Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
|
|||
|
3. Substitution Expression Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
|
|||
|
4. The Basic NAPTR Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
|
|||
|
5. Concerning How NAPTR Uses SRV Records . . . . . . . . . . . 9
|
|||
|
6. Application Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
|
|||
|
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
|
|||
|
7.1 Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
|
|||
|
7.2 Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
|
|||
|
7.3 Example 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
|
|||
|
8. DNS Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
|
|||
|
9. Master File Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
|
|||
|
10. Advice for DNS Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
|
|||
|
11. Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
|
|||
|
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
|
|||
|
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
|
|||
|
14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
|
|||
|
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
|
|||
|
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
|
|||
|
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Introduction
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This RR was originally produced by the URN Working Group [3] as a way
|
|||
|
to encode rule-sets in DNS so that the delegated sections of a URI
|
|||
|
could be decomposed in such a way that they could be changed and re-
|
|||
|
delegated over time. The result was a Resource Record that included
|
|||
|
a regular expression that would be used by a client program to
|
|||
|
rewrite a string into a domain name. Regular expressions were chosen
|
|||
|
for their compactness to expressivity ratio allowing for a great deal
|
|||
|
of information to be encoded in a rather small DNS packet.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The function of rewriting a string according to the rules in a record
|
|||
|
has usefulness in several different applications. This document
|
|||
|
defines the basic assumptions to which all of those applications must
|
|||
|
adhere to. It does not define the reasons the rewrite is used, what
|
|||
|
the expected outcomes are, or what they are used for. Those are
|
|||
|
specified by applications that define how they use the NAPTR record
|
|||
|
and algorithms within their contexts.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Flags and other fields are also specified in the RR to control the
|
|||
|
rewrite procedure in various ways or to provide information on how to
|
|||
|
communicate with the host at the domain name that was the result of
|
|||
|
the rewrite.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 2]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The final result is a RR that has several fields that interact in a
|
|||
|
non-trivial but implementable way. This document specifies those
|
|||
|
fields and their values.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document does not define applications that utilizes this rewrite
|
|||
|
functionality. Instead it specifies just the mechanics of how it is
|
|||
|
done. Why its done, what the rules concerning the inputs, and the
|
|||
|
types of rules used are reserved for other documents that fully
|
|||
|
specify a particular application. This separation is due to several
|
|||
|
different applications all wanting to take advantage of the rewrite
|
|||
|
rule lookup process. Each one has vastly different reasons for why
|
|||
|
and how it uses the service, thus requiring that the definition of
|
|||
|
the service be generic.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
|
|||
|
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
|
|||
|
in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
All references to Uniform Resource Identifiers in this document
|
|||
|
adhere to the 'absoluteURI' production of the "Collected ABNF"
|
|||
|
found in RFC 2396 [9]. Specifically, the semantics of URI
|
|||
|
References do not apply since the concept of a Base makes no sense
|
|||
|
here.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. NAPTR RR Format
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The format of the NAPTR RR is given below. The DNS type code [1] for
|
|||
|
NAPTR is 35.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Domain TTL Class Type Order Preference Flags Service Regexp
|
|||
|
Replacement
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Domain
|
|||
|
The domain name to which this resource record refers. This is the
|
|||
|
'key' for this entry in the rule database. This value will either
|
|||
|
be the first well known key (<something>.uri.arpa for example) or
|
|||
|
a new key that is the output of a replacement or regexp rewrite.
|
|||
|
Beyond this, it has the standard DNS requirements [1].
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
TTL
|
|||
|
Standard DNS meaning [1].
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Class
|
|||
|
Standard DNS meaning [1].
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Type
|
|||
|
The Type Code [1] for NAPTR is 35.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 3]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Order
|
|||
|
A 16-bit unsigned integer specifying the order in which the NAPTR
|
|||
|
records MUST be processed to ensure the correct ordering of
|
|||
|
rules. Low numbers are processed before high numbers, and once a
|
|||
|
NAPTR is found whose rule "matches" the target, the client MUST
|
|||
|
NOT consider any NAPTRs with a higher value for order (except as
|
|||
|
noted below for the Flags field).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Preference
|
|||
|
A 16-bit unsigned integer that specifies the order in which NAPTR
|
|||
|
records with equal "order" values SHOULD be processed, low
|
|||
|
numbers being processed before high numbers. This is similar to
|
|||
|
the preference field in an MX record, and is used so domain
|
|||
|
administrators can direct clients towards more capable hosts or
|
|||
|
lighter weight protocols. A client MAY look at records with
|
|||
|
higher preference values if it has a good reason to do so such as
|
|||
|
not understanding the preferred protocol or service.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The important difference between Order and Preference is that
|
|||
|
once a match is found the client MUST NOT consider records with a
|
|||
|
different Order but they MAY process records with the same Order
|
|||
|
but different Preferences. I.e., Preference is used to give weight
|
|||
|
to rules that are considered the same from an authority
|
|||
|
standpoint but not from a simple load balancing standpoint.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Flags
|
|||
|
A <character-string> containing flags to control aspects of the
|
|||
|
rewriting and interpretation of the fields in the record. Flags
|
|||
|
are single characters from the set [A-Z0-9]. The case of the
|
|||
|
alphabetic characters is not significant.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
At this time only four flags, "S", "A", "U", and "P", are
|
|||
|
defined. The "S", "A" and "U" flags denote a terminal lookup.
|
|||
|
This means that this NAPTR record is the last one and that the
|
|||
|
flag determines what the next stage should be. The "S" flag
|
|||
|
means that the next lookup should be for SRV records [4]. See
|
|||
|
Section 5 for additional information on how NAPTR uses the SRV
|
|||
|
record type. "A" means that the next lookup should be for either
|
|||
|
an A, AAAA, or A6 record. The "U" flag means that the next step
|
|||
|
is not a DNS lookup but that the output of the Regexp field is an
|
|||
|
URI that adheres to the 'absoluteURI' production found in the
|
|||
|
ABNF of RFC 2396 [9]. Since there may be applications that use
|
|||
|
NAPTR to also lookup aspects of URIs, implementors should be
|
|||
|
aware that this may cause loop conditions and should act
|
|||
|
accordingly.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 4]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The "P" flag says that the remainder of the application side
|
|||
|
algorithm shall be carried out in a Protocol-specific fashion.
|
|||
|
The new set of rules is identified by the Protocol specified in
|
|||
|
the Services field. The record that contains the 'P' flag is the
|
|||
|
last record that is interpreted by the rules specified in this
|
|||
|
document. The new rules are dependent on the application for
|
|||
|
which they are being used and the protocol specified. For
|
|||
|
example, if the application is a URI RDS and the protocol is WIRE
|
|||
|
then the new set of rules are governed by the algorithms
|
|||
|
surrounding the WIRE HTTP specification and not this document.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The remaining alphabetic flags are reserved for future versions
|
|||
|
of the NAPTR specification. The numeric flags may be used for
|
|||
|
local experimentation. The S, A, U and P flags are all mutually
|
|||
|
exclusive, and resolution libraries MAY signal an error if more
|
|||
|
than one is given. (Experimental code and code for assisting in
|
|||
|
the creation of NAPTRs would be more likely to signal such an
|
|||
|
error than a client such as a browser). It is anticipated that
|
|||
|
multiple flags will be allowed in the future, so implementers
|
|||
|
MUST NOT assume that the flags field can only contain 0 or 1
|
|||
|
characters. Finally, if a client encounters a record with an
|
|||
|
unknown flag, it MUST ignore it and move to the next record. This
|
|||
|
test takes precedence even over the "order" field. Since flags
|
|||
|
can control the interpretation placed on fields, a novel flag
|
|||
|
might change the interpretation of the regexp and/or replacement
|
|||
|
fields such that it is impossible to determine if a record
|
|||
|
matched a given target.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The "S", "A", and "U" flags are called 'terminal' flags since
|
|||
|
they halt the looping rewrite algorithm. If those flags are not
|
|||
|
present, clients may assume that another NAPTR RR exists at the
|
|||
|
domain name produced by the current rewrite rule. Since the "P"
|
|||
|
flag specifies a new algorithm, it may or may not be 'terminal'.
|
|||
|
Thus, the client cannot assume that another NAPTR exists since
|
|||
|
this case is determined elsewhere.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
DNS servers MAY interpret these flags and values and use that
|
|||
|
information to include appropriate SRV and A,AAAA, or A6 records
|
|||
|
in the additional information portion of the DNS packet. Clients
|
|||
|
are encouraged to check for additional information but are not
|
|||
|
required to do so.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Service
|
|||
|
Specifies the service(s) available down this rewrite path. It may
|
|||
|
also specify the particular protocol that is used to talk with a
|
|||
|
service. A protocol MUST be specified if the flags field states
|
|||
|
that the NAPTR is terminal. If a protocol is specified, but the
|
|||
|
flags field does not state that the NAPTR is terminal, the next
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 5]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
lookup MUST be for a NAPTR. The client MAY choose not to perform
|
|||
|
the next lookup if the protocol is unknown, but that behavior
|
|||
|
MUST NOT be relied upon.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The service field may take any of the values below (using the
|
|||
|
Augmented BNF of RFC 2234 [5]):
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
service_field = [ [protocol] *("+" rs)]
|
|||
|
protocol = ALPHA *31ALPHANUM
|
|||
|
rs = ALPHA *31ALPHANUM
|
|||
|
; The protocol and rs fields are limited to 32
|
|||
|
; characters and must start with an alphabetic.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For example, an optional protocol specification followed by 0 or
|
|||
|
more resolution services. Each resolution service is indicated by
|
|||
|
an initial '+' character.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note that the empty string is also a valid service field. This
|
|||
|
will typically be seen at the beginning of a series of rules,
|
|||
|
when it is impossible to know what services and protocols will be
|
|||
|
offered by a particular service.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The actual format of the service request and response will be
|
|||
|
determined by the resolution protocol, and is the subject for
|
|||
|
other documents. Protocols need not offer all services. The
|
|||
|
labels for service requests shall be formed from the set of
|
|||
|
characters [A-Z0-9]. The case of the alphabetic characters is
|
|||
|
not significant.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The list of "valid" protocols for any given NAPTR record is any
|
|||
|
protocol that implements some or all of the services defined for
|
|||
|
a NAPTR application. Currently, THTTP [6] is the only protocol
|
|||
|
that is known to make that claim at the time of publication. Any
|
|||
|
other protocol that is to be used must have documentation
|
|||
|
specifying:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* how it implements the services of the application
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* how it is to appear in the NAPTR record (i.e., the string id
|
|||
|
of the protocol)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The list of valid Resolution Services is defined by the documents
|
|||
|
that specify individual NAPTR based applications.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It is worth noting that the interpretation of this field is
|
|||
|
subject to being changed by new flags, and that the current
|
|||
|
specification is oriented towards telling clients how to talk
|
|||
|
with a URN resolver.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 6]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Regexp
|
|||
|
A STRING containing a substitution expression that is applied to
|
|||
|
the original string held by the client in order to construct the
|
|||
|
next domain name to lookup. The grammar of the substitution
|
|||
|
expression is given in the next section.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The regular expressions MUST NOT be used in a cumulative fashion,
|
|||
|
that is, they should only be applied to the original string held
|
|||
|
by the client, never to the domain name produced by a previous
|
|||
|
NAPTR rewrite. The latter is tempting in some applications but
|
|||
|
experience has shown such use to be extremely fault sensitive,
|
|||
|
very error prone, and extremely difficult to debug.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Replacement
|
|||
|
The next NAME to query for NAPTR, SRV, or address records
|
|||
|
depending on the value of the flags field. This MUST be a fully
|
|||
|
qualified domain-name. Unless and until permitted by future
|
|||
|
standards action, name compression is not to be used for this
|
|||
|
field.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. Substitution Expression Grammar
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The content of the regexp field is a substitution expression. True
|
|||
|
sed(1) and Perl style substitution expressions are not appropriate
|
|||
|
for use in this application for a variety of reasons stemming from
|
|||
|
internationalization requirements and backref limitations, therefore
|
|||
|
the contents of the regexp field MUST follow the grammar below:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
subst_expr = delim-char ere delim-char repl delim-char *flags
|
|||
|
delim-char = "/" / "!" / ... <Any non-digit or non-flag character
|
|||
|
other than backslash '\'. All occurances of a delim_char
|
|||
|
in a subst_expr must be the same character.>
|
|||
|
ere = POSIX Extended Regular Expression
|
|||
|
repl = 1 * ( OCTET / backref )
|
|||
|
backref = "\" 1POS_DIGIT
|
|||
|
flags = "i"
|
|||
|
POS_DIGIT = %x31-39 ; 0 is not an allowed backref
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The definition of a POSIX Extended Regular Expression can be found in
|
|||
|
[8], section 2.8.4.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The result of applying the substitution expression to the original
|
|||
|
URI MUST result in either a string that obeys the syntax for DNS
|
|||
|
domain-names [1] or a URI [9] if the Flags field contains a 'u'.
|
|||
|
Since it is possible for the regexp field to be improperly specified,
|
|||
|
such that a non-conforming domain-name can be constructed, client
|
|||
|
software SHOULD verify that the result is a legal DNS domain-name
|
|||
|
before making queries on it.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 7]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Backref expressions in the repl portion of the substitution
|
|||
|
expression are replaced by the (possibly empty) string of characters
|
|||
|
enclosed by '(' and ')' in the ERE portion of the substitution
|
|||
|
expression. N is a single digit from 1 through 9, inclusive. It
|
|||
|
specifies the N'th backref expression, the one that begins with the
|
|||
|
N'th '(' and continues to the matching ')'. For example, the ERE
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(A(B(C)DE)(F)G)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
has backref expressions:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
\1 = ABCDEFG
|
|||
|
\2 = BCDE
|
|||
|
\3 = C
|
|||
|
\4 = F
|
|||
|
\5..\9 = error - no matching subexpression
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The "i" flag indicates that the ERE matching SHALL be performed in a
|
|||
|
case-insensitive fashion. Furthermore, any backref replacements MAY
|
|||
|
be normalized to lower case when the "i" flag is given.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The first character in the substitution expression shall be used as
|
|||
|
the character that delimits the components of the substitution
|
|||
|
expression. There must be exactly three non-escaped occurrences of
|
|||
|
the delimiter character in a substitution expression. Since escaped
|
|||
|
occurrences of the delimiter character will be interpreted as
|
|||
|
occurrences of that character, digits MUST NOT be used as delimiters.
|
|||
|
Backrefs would be confused with literal digits were this allowed.
|
|||
|
Similarly, if flags are specified in the substitution expression, the
|
|||
|
delimiter character must not also be a flag character.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. The Basic NAPTR Algorithm
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The behavior and meaning of the flags and services assume an
|
|||
|
algorithm where the output of one rewrite is a new key that points to
|
|||
|
another rule. This looping algorithm allows NAPTR records to
|
|||
|
incrementally specify a complete rule. These incremental rules can
|
|||
|
be delegated which allows other entities to specify rules so that one
|
|||
|
entity does not need to understand _all_ rules.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The algorithm starts with a string and some known key (domain).
|
|||
|
NAPTR records for this key are retrieved, those with unknown Flags or
|
|||
|
inappropriate Services are discarded and the remaining records are
|
|||
|
sorted by their Order field. Within each value of Order, the records
|
|||
|
are further sorted by the Preferences field.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The records are examined in sorted order until a matching record is
|
|||
|
found. A record is considered a match iff:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 8]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o it has a Replacement field value instead of a Regexp field value.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o or the Regexp field matches the string held by the client.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The first match MUST be the match that is used. Once a match is
|
|||
|
found, the Services field is examined for whether or not this rule
|
|||
|
advances toward the desired result. If so, the rule is applied to
|
|||
|
the target string. If not, the process halts. The domain that
|
|||
|
results from the regular expression is then used as the domain of the
|
|||
|
next loop through the NAPTR algorithm. Note that the same target
|
|||
|
string is used throughout the algorithm.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This looping is extremely important since it is the method by which
|
|||
|
complex rules are broken down into manageable delegated chunks. The
|
|||
|
flags fields simply determine at which point the looping should stop
|
|||
|
(or other specialized behavior).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Since flags are valid at any level of the algorithm, the degenerative
|
|||
|
case is to never loop but to look up the NAPTR and then stop. In
|
|||
|
many specialized cases this is all that is needed. Implementors
|
|||
|
should be aware that the degenerative case should not become the
|
|||
|
common case.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5. Concerning How NAPTR Uses SRV Records
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When the SRV record type was originally specified it assumed that the
|
|||
|
client did not know the specific domain-name before hand. The client
|
|||
|
would construct a domain-name more in the form of a question than the
|
|||
|
usual case of knowing ahead of time that the domain-name should
|
|||
|
exist. I.e., if the client wants to know if there is a TCP based
|
|||
|
HTTP server running at a particular domain, the client would
|
|||
|
construct the domain-name _http._tcp.somedomain.com and ask the DNS
|
|||
|
if that records exists. The underscores are used to avoid collisions
|
|||
|
with potentially 'real' domain-names.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In the case of NAPTR, the actual domain-name is specified by the
|
|||
|
various fields in the NAPTR record. In this case the client isn't
|
|||
|
asking a question but is instead attempting to get at information
|
|||
|
that it has been told exists in an SRV record at that particular
|
|||
|
domain-name. While this usage of SRV is slightly different than the
|
|||
|
SRV authors originally intended it does not break any of the
|
|||
|
assumptions concerning what SRV contains. Also, since the NAPTR
|
|||
|
explicitly spells out the domain-name for which an SRV exists, that
|
|||
|
domain-name MUST be used in SRV queries with NO transformations. Any
|
|||
|
given NAPTR record may result in a domain-name to be used for SRV
|
|||
|
queries that may or may not contain the SRV standardized underscore
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 9]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
characters. NAPTR applications that make use of SRV MUST NOT attempt
|
|||
|
to understand these domains or use them according to how the SRV
|
|||
|
specification structures its query domains.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6. Application Specifications
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It should be noted that the NAPTR algorithm is the basic assumption
|
|||
|
about how NAPTR works. The reasons for the rewrite and the expected
|
|||
|
output and its use are specified by documents that define what
|
|||
|
applications the NAPTR record and algorithm are used for. Any
|
|||
|
document that defines such an application must define the following:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o The first known domain-name or how to build it
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o The valid Services and Protocols
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o What the expected use is for the output of the last rewrite
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o The validity and/or behavior of any 'P' flag protocols.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o The general semantics surrounding why and how NAPTR and its
|
|||
|
algorithm are being used.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
7. Examples
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
NOTE: These are examples only. They are taken from ongoing work and
|
|||
|
may not represent the end result of that work. They are here for
|
|||
|
pedagogical reasons only.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
7.1 Example 1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
NAPTR was originally specified for use with the a Uniform Resource
|
|||
|
Name Resolver Discovery System. This example details how a
|
|||
|
particular URN would use the NAPTR record to find a resolver service.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Consider a URN namespace based on MIME Content-Ids. The URN might
|
|||
|
look like this:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
urn:cid:39CB83F7.A8450130@fake.gatech.edu
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Note that this example is chosen for pedagogical purposes, and does
|
|||
|
not conform to the CID URL scheme.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The first step in the resolution process is to find out about the CID
|
|||
|
namespace. The namespace identifier [3], 'cid', is extracted from
|
|||
|
the URN, prepended to urn.arpa. 'cid.urn.arpa' then becomes the first
|
|||
|
'known' key in the NAPTR algorithm. The NAPTR records for
|
|||
|
cid.urn.arpa looked up and return a single record:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 10]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
cid.urn.arpa.
|
|||
|
;; order pref flags service regexp replacement
|
|||
|
IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "" "/urn:cid:.+@([^\.]+\.)(.*)$/\2/i" .
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There is only one NAPTR response, so ordering the responses is not a
|
|||
|
problem. The replacement field is empty, so the pattern provided in
|
|||
|
the regexp field is used. We apply that regexp to the entire URN to
|
|||
|
see if it matches, which it does. The \2 part of the substitution
|
|||
|
expression returns the string "gatech.edu". Since the flags field
|
|||
|
does not contain "s" or "a", the lookup is not terminal and our next
|
|||
|
probe to DNS is for more NAPTR records where the new domain is '
|
|||
|
gatech.edu' and the string is the same string as before.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note that the rule does not extract the full domain name from the
|
|||
|
CID, instead it assumes the CID comes from a host and extracts its
|
|||
|
domain. While all hosts, such as mordred, could have their very own
|
|||
|
NAPTR, maintaining those records for all the machines at a site as
|
|||
|
large as Georgia Tech would be an intolerable burden. Wildcards are
|
|||
|
not appropriate here since they only return results when there is no
|
|||
|
exactly matching names already in the system.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The record returned from the query on "gatech.edu" might look like:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
;; order pref flags service regexp replacement
|
|||
|
IN NAPTR 100 50 "s" "z3950+I2L+I2C" "" _z3950._tcp.gatech.edu.
|
|||
|
IN NAPTR 100 50 "s" "rcds+I2C" "" _rcds._udp.gatech.edu.
|
|||
|
IN NAPTR 100 50 "s" "http+I2L+I2C+I2R" "" _http._tcp.gatech.edu.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Continuing with the example, note that the values of the order and
|
|||
|
preference fields are equal in all records, so the client is free to
|
|||
|
pick any record. The flags field tells us that these are the last
|
|||
|
NAPTR patterns we should see, and after the rewrite (a simple
|
|||
|
replacement in this case) we should look up SRV records to get
|
|||
|
information on the hosts that can provide the necessary service.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Assuming we prefer the Z39.50 protocol, our lookup might return:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
;; Pref Weight Port Target
|
|||
|
_z3950._tcp.gatech.edu. IN SRV 0 0 1000 z3950.gatech.edu.
|
|||
|
IN SRV 0 0 1000 z3950.cc.gatech.edu.
|
|||
|
IN SRV 0 0 1000 z3950.uga.edu.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
telling us three hosts that could actually do the resolution, and
|
|||
|
giving us the port we should use to talk to their Z39.50 server.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Recall that the regular expression used \2 to extract a domain name
|
|||
|
from the CID, and \. for matching the literal '.' characters
|
|||
|
separating the domain name components. Since '\' is the escape
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 11]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
character, literal occurances of a backslash must be escaped by
|
|||
|
another backslash. For the case of the cid.urn.arpa record above,
|
|||
|
the regular expression entered into the master file should be
|
|||
|
"/urn:cid:.+@([^\\.]+\\.)(.*)$/\\2/i". When the client code actually
|
|||
|
receives the record, the pattern will have been converted to
|
|||
|
"/urn:cid:.+@([^\.]+\.)(.*)$/\2/i".
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
7.2 Example 2
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Even if URN systems were in place now, there would still be a
|
|||
|
tremendous number of URLs. It should be possible to develop a URN
|
|||
|
resolution system that can also provide location independence for
|
|||
|
those URLs. This is related to the requirement that URNs be able to
|
|||
|
grandfather in names from other naming systems, such as ISO Formal
|
|||
|
Public Identifiers, Library of Congress Call Numbers, ISBNs, ISSNs,
|
|||
|
etc.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The NAPTR RR could also be used for URLs that have already been
|
|||
|
assigned. Assume we have the URL for a very popular piece of
|
|||
|
software that the publisher wishes to mirror at multiple sites around
|
|||
|
the world:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Using the rules specified for this application we extract the prefix,
|
|||
|
"http", and lookup NAPTR records for http.uri.arpa. This might
|
|||
|
return a record of the form
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
http.uri.arpa. IN NAPTR
|
|||
|
;; order pref flags service regexp replacement
|
|||
|
100 90 "" "" "!http://([^/:]+)!\1!i" .
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This expression returns everything after the first double slash and
|
|||
|
before the next slash or colon. (We use the '!' character to delimit
|
|||
|
the parts of the substitution expression. Otherwise we would have to
|
|||
|
use backslashes to escape the forward slashes and would have a regexp
|
|||
|
in the zone file that looked like "/http:\\/\\/([^\\/:]+)/\\1/i".).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Applying this pattern to the URL extracts "www.foo.com". Looking up
|
|||
|
NAPTR records for that might return:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
www.foo.com.
|
|||
|
;; order pref flags service regexp replacement
|
|||
|
IN NAPTR 100 100 "s" "http+I2R" "" _http._tcp.foo.com.
|
|||
|
IN NAPTR 100 100 "s" "ftp+I2R" "" _ftp._tcp.foo.com.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Looking up SRV records for http.tcp.foo.com would return information
|
|||
|
on the hosts that foo.com has designated to be its mirror sites. The
|
|||
|
client can then pick one for the user.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 12]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
7.3 Example 3
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A non-URI example is the ENUM application which uses a NAPTR record
|
|||
|
to map an e.164 telephone number to a URI. In order to convert the
|
|||
|
phone number to a domain name for the first iteration all characters
|
|||
|
other than digits are removed from the the telephone number, the
|
|||
|
entire number is inverted, periods are put between each digit and the
|
|||
|
string ".e164.arpa" is put on the left-hand side. For example, the
|
|||
|
E.164 phone number "+1-770-555-1212" converted to a domain-name it
|
|||
|
would be "2.1.2.1.5.5.5.0.7.7.1.e164.arpa."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For this example telephone number we might get back the following
|
|||
|
NAPTR records:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
$ORIGIN 2.1.2.1.5.5.5.0.7.7.1.e164.arpa.
|
|||
|
IN NAPTR 100 10 "u" "sip+E2U" "!^.*$!sip:information@tele2.se!" .
|
|||
|
IN NAPTR 102 10 "u" "mailto+E2U" "!^.*$!mailto:information@tele2.se!" .
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This application uses the same 'u' flag as the URI Resolution
|
|||
|
application. This flag states that the Rule is terminal and that the
|
|||
|
output is a URI which contains the information needed to contact that
|
|||
|
telephone service. ENUM also uses the same format for its Service
|
|||
|
field except that it defines the 'E2U' service instead of the 'I2*'
|
|||
|
services that URI resolution uses. The example above states that the
|
|||
|
available protocols used to access that telephone's service are
|
|||
|
either the Session Initiation Protocol or SMTP mail.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
8. DNS Packet Format
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The packet format for the NAPTR record is:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1 1 1 1 1 1
|
|||
|
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
|
|||
|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|
|||
|
| ORDER |
|
|||
|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|
|||
|
| PREFERENCE |
|
|||
|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|
|||
|
/ FLAGS /
|
|||
|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|
|||
|
/ SERVICES /
|
|||
|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|
|||
|
/ REGEXP /
|
|||
|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|
|||
|
/ REPLACEMENT /
|
|||
|
/ /
|
|||
|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 13]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
where:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FLAGS A <character-string> which contains various flags.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
SERVICES A <character-string> which contains protocol and service
|
|||
|
identifiers.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
REGEXP A <character-string> which contains a regular expression.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
REPLACEMENT A <domain-name> which specifies the new value in the
|
|||
|
case where the regular expression is a simple replacement
|
|||
|
operation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
<character-string> and <domain-name> as used here are defined in
|
|||
|
RFC1035 [1].
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
9. Master File Format
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The master file format follows the standard rules in RFC-1035 [1].
|
|||
|
Order and preference, being 16-bit unsigned integers, shall be an
|
|||
|
integer between 0 and 65535. The Flags and Services and Regexp
|
|||
|
fields are all quoted <character-string>s. Since the Regexp field
|
|||
|
can contain numerous backslashes and thus should be treated with
|
|||
|
care. See Section 10 for how to correctly enter and escape the
|
|||
|
regular expression.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
10. Advice for DNS Administrators
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Beware of regular expressions. Not only are they difficult to get
|
|||
|
correct on their own, but there is the previously mentioned
|
|||
|
interaction with DNS. Any backslashes in a regexp must be entered
|
|||
|
twice in a zone file in order to appear once in a query response.
|
|||
|
More seriously, the need for double backslashes has probably not been
|
|||
|
tested by all implementors of DNS servers.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The "a" flag allows the next lookup to be for address records (A,
|
|||
|
AAAA, A6) rather than SRV records. Since there is no place for a
|
|||
|
port specification in the NAPTR record, when the "A" flag is used the
|
|||
|
specified protocol must be running on its default port.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The URN Syntax draft defines a canonical form for each URN, which
|
|||
|
requires %encoding characters outside a limited repertoire. The
|
|||
|
regular expressions MUST be written to operate on that canonical
|
|||
|
form. Since international character sets will end up with extensive
|
|||
|
use of %encoded characters, regular expressions operating on them
|
|||
|
will be essentially impossible to read or write by hand.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 14]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
11. Notes
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o A client MUST process multiple NAPTR records in the order
|
|||
|
specified by the "order" field, it MUST NOT simply use the first
|
|||
|
record that provides a known protocol and service combination.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o When multiple RRs have the same "order" and all other criteria
|
|||
|
being equal, the client should use the value of the preference
|
|||
|
field to select the next NAPTR to consider. However, because it
|
|||
|
will often be the case where preferred protocols or services
|
|||
|
exist, clients may use this additional criteria to sort
|
|||
|
the records.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o If the lookup after a rewrite fails, clients are strongly
|
|||
|
encouraged to report a failure, rather than backing up to pursue
|
|||
|
other rewrite paths.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o Note that SRV RRs impose additional requirements on clients.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
12. IANA Considerations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The only registration function that impacts the IANA is for the
|
|||
|
values that are standardized for the Services and Flags fields. To
|
|||
|
extend the valid values of the Flags field beyond what is specified
|
|||
|
in this document requires a published specification that is approved
|
|||
|
by the IESG.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The values for the Services field will be determined by the
|
|||
|
application that makes use of the NAPTR record. Those values must be
|
|||
|
specified in a published specification and approved by the IESG.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
13. Security Considerations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The interactions with DNSSEC are currently being studied. It is
|
|||
|
expected that NAPTR records will be signed with SIG records once the
|
|||
|
DNSSEC work is deployed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The rewrite rules make identifiers from other namespaces subject to
|
|||
|
the same attacks as normal domain names. Since they have not been
|
|||
|
easily resolvable before, this may or may not be considered a
|
|||
|
problem.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Regular expressions should be checked for sanity, not blindly passed
|
|||
|
to something like PERL.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document has discussed a way of locating a service, but has not
|
|||
|
discussed any detail of how the communication with that service takes
|
|||
|
place. There are significant security considerations attached to the
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 15]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
communication with a service. Those considerations are outside the
|
|||
|
scope of this document, and must be addressed by the specifications
|
|||
|
for particular communication protocols.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
14. Acknowledgments
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The editors would like to thank Keith Moore for all his consultations
|
|||
|
during the development of this memo. We would also like to thank
|
|||
|
Paul Vixie for his assistance in debugging our implementation, and
|
|||
|
his answers on our questions. Finally, we would like to acknowledge
|
|||
|
our enormous intellectual debt to the participants in the Knoxville
|
|||
|
series of meetings, as well as to the participants in the URI and URN
|
|||
|
working groups.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
References
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
|
|||
|
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD
|
|||
|
13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[3] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[4] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
|
|||
|
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
|
|||
|
February 2000.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[5] Crocker, D., "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF",
|
|||
|
RFC 2234, November 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[6] Daniel, R., "A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in URN
|
|||
|
Resolution", RFC 2169, June 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[7] Daniel, R. and M. Mealling, "Resolution of Uniform Resource
|
|||
|
Identifiers using the Domain Name System", RFC 2168, June 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[8] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information Technology - Portable
|
|||
|
Operating System Interface (POSIX) - Part 2: Shell and Utilities
|
|||
|
(Vol. 1)", IEEE Std 1003.2-1992, January 1993.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[9] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R.T. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
|
|||
|
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August
|
|||
|
1998.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 16]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Authors' Addresses
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael Mealling
|
|||
|
Network Solutions, Inc.
|
|||
|
505 Huntmar Park Drive
|
|||
|
Herndon, VA 22070
|
|||
|
US
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Phone: +1 770 921 2251
|
|||
|
EMail: michaelm@netsol.com
|
|||
|
URI: http://www.netsol.com
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ron Daniel
|
|||
|
DATAFUSION, Inc.
|
|||
|
139 Townsend Street, Ste. 100
|
|||
|
San Francisco, CA 94107
|
|||
|
US
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Phone: +1 415 222 0100
|
|||
|
EMail: rdaniel@datafusion.net
|
|||
|
URI: http://www.datafusion.net
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 17]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 2915 NAPTR DNS RR September 2000
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Full Copyright Statement
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mealling & Daniel Standards Track [Page 18]
|
|||
|
|