分享
 
 
 

RFC2345 - Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group J. Klensin

Request for Comments: 2345 MCI

Category: EXPerimental T. Wolf

Dun & Bradstreet

G. Oglesby

MCI

May 1998

Domain Names and Company Name Retrieval

Status of this Memo

This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet

community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

Location of web information for particular companies based on their

names has become an increasingly difficult problem as the Internet

and the web grow. The use of a naming convention and the domain

name system (DNS) for that purpose has caused complications for the

latter while not solving the problem. While there have been several

proposals to use contemporary, high-capability, Directory service and

search protocols to redUCe the dependencies on DNS conventions, none

of them have been significantly deployed.

This document proposes a company name to URL mapping service based on

the oldest and least complex of Internet directory protocols, whois,

in order to explore whether an extremely simple and widely-deployed

protocol can succeed where more complex and powerful options have

failed or been excessively delayed.

1. Introduction and Context

In recent months, there have been many discussions in various

segments of the Internet community about "the top level domain

problem". Perhaps characteristically, that term is used by different

groups to identify different, and perhaps nearly orthogonal, issues.

Those issues include:

1.1. A "domain administration policy" issue.

1.2. A "name ownership" issue, of which the trademark issue may

constitute a special case.

1.3. An information location issue, specifically the problem of

locating the appropriate domain, or information tied to a

domain, for an entity given the name by which that entity is

usually known.

Of these, controversies about the first two may be inevitable

consequences of the growth of the Internet. There have been

intermittent difficulties with top level domain adminstration and

various attempts to use the domain registry function as a mechanism

for control of service providers or services from time to time since

a large number of such domains started being allocated. Those

problems led to the publication of the policy guidelines of

[RFC1591].

The third appears to be largely a consequence of the explosive growth

of the World Wide Web and, in particular, the exposure of URL formats

[URL] to the end user because no other mechanisms have been

available. The absence of an appropriate and adequately-deployed

directory service has led to the assumption that it should be

possible to locate the web pages for a company by use of a naming

convention involving that company's name or product name, i.e., for

the XYZ Company, a web page located at

http://www.xyz.com/

or

http://www.xyz-company.com/

has been assumed.

However, as the network grows and as increasing numbers of web sites

are rooted in domains other than ".COM", this convention becomes

difficult to sustain: there will be too many organizations or

companies with legitimate claims --perhaps in different lines of

business or jurisdictions-- to the same short descriptive names. For

that reason, there has been a general sense in the community for

several years that the solution to this information location problem

lies, not in changes to the domain name system, but in some type of

directory service.

But such directory services have not come into being. There has been

ongoing controversy about choices of protocols and Accessing

mechanisms. IETF has published specifications for several different

directory and search protocols, including [WHOIS++], [RWHOIS],

[LDAP], [X500], [GOPHER]. One hypothesis about why this has not

happened is that these mechanisms have been hard to select and deploy

because they are much more complex than is necessary. This document

proposes an extremely simple alternative.

2. Using WHOIS

The WHOIS protocol is the oldest directory access protocol in use on

the Internet, dating in published form to March 1982 and first

implemented somewhat earlier. The procotol itself is simple and

minimalist: the client opens a telnet connection to the WHOIS port

(43) and transmits a line over it. The server looks up the line in a

fashion that it defines, returns one or more lines of information to

the client, and closes the connection.

We suggest that modifications or add-ins be created to Web browsers

that would access a new, commercially-provided Whois server, sending

a putative company name and receiving back one or more lines, each

containing a URL followed by one or more blanks and then a matching

company name (that order was chosen to minimize parsing problems:

since URLs cannot contain blanks, the first blank character marks the

end of the URL and the next non-blank marks the beginning of the

company name). As is usual with Whois, the criteria used by the

server to match the incoming string is at the server's discretion.

The difference between this and the protocol as documented in [WHOIS]

is that exactly one company name is returned per line (see section 3

for details of syntax).

The client would then be expected to:

(i) If a single line (company name and URL) is returned, either

ask for confirmation or simply fetch the associated URL as if it

had been typed by the user.

(ii) If multiple lines (names) are returned, present the user with

a choice, presumably showing company names rather than (or

supplemented by) URLs, then fetch using the URL selected.

Obviously, while the most convenient use of the services contemplated

in this document would occur through a client that was part of, or

intimately connected with, a Web browser, a user without that type of

facility could utilize a traditional WHOIS client and paste or

otherwise transfer the relevant information into the target location

of a browser.

3. Formats, versions, and international character sets

Preliminary work with the approach suggested above suggests that some

specific conventions about syntax and variations would be useful.

3.1 Line sent from client to server.

These lines may take either of two forms:

(i) A simple 7-bit ASCII string, containing a "company name"

(ii) A string in the format (using the ABNF notation of RFC2234

[ABNF]):

Variation "/" 1*Octet

Variation :== "0" ( Non-zero-digit 1*Digit)

Non-zero-digit :== 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Digit :== 0 Non-zero-digit

Where Octet is any eight-bit sequence, representing a prefixed

variation number.

The first form will be construed as equivalent to the second form

with the leading string "0/". Variation numbers are specified in

section 3.3.

In all cases, the interpretation of what "company name" might mean

and, in particular, what variations of form or spelling,

abbreviations, and so on, might be accepted is strictly up to the

interpretation of the server. If rules driving the server lead to

the conclusion that a string matches some company in its data, the

correctness or incorrectness of that decision is not covered by this

specification.

For variation 0 and, by default, for all others, any alphabetic text

in lines is to be construed in a case-insensitive fashion.

3.2 Lines sent from server to client.

The server is expected to return one or more lines to the client,

depending on its interpretation of the input string. In general,

each line will consist, as described above, of a URL, a space, and a

"company name". This document deliberately does not specify the

content or semantics of the "company name" string. It might be a

name, or a name and descriptive information such as location and type

of business, or other information at the option of the server. The

expectation, as mentioned above, is that the information will be

displayed by the client to aid users in selecting the appropriate

URL.

These lines, consistent with normal Internet practice, will be

terminated by a CR LF sequence (rather than one or the other of those

control characters).

When and if different variation numbers are introduced, their

specifications may include variations on what the server is expected

to return.

In lieu of "URL and company name" responses, the Server may also

return "error messages". These take the form of lines containing:

"///" SP String

where the String is 7-bit ASCII with no control characters other

than SP, unless the variation associated with the variation number

specifies otherwise. For this experiment, all "error messages" but

the following two are discouraged:

/// Not found

Indicating that the "company name" does not match

anything

/// Variation not supported

Indicating that the variation number supplied by the

client is not recognized by the server.

3.3. Registered variations

The following two variations are established as part of this

specification:

0/ Query and response are in 7-bit ASCII, no controls other

than SP, "Company name" separated from URL by one or more

SP characters.

1/ Query and response are in UTF-8, no controls other than

SP, "Company name" separated from URL by one or more SP

characters, no specification of language on either input or

output.

The IANA will maintain a registry of additional variations which it

is hoped will be very short. Requests for additional variations

should be sent via email to: iana@iana.org.

4. Alternatives not chosen

Few comments on the initial drafts of this document addressed the

basic model or protocol design for the service discussed. Instead,

they focused on inquiring about the decisions we didn't make and

about beliefs about the protocol specification that were not intended

by the authors. The latter have been, we hope, corrected. Questions

of the following three types predominated in the first category.

4.1. Why didn't you use <insert-favorite-directory-protocol-here>?

Many notes raised the question of how much more could be done with a

higher-powered directory protocol rather than the extremely simple

WHOIS. Questions were raised about LDAP, X.500 DAP, CCSO, RWHOIS,

and WHOIS++. We had several reasons for avoiding them. The most

important has been a strong commitment to see how much can be done

with an extremely simplistic approach, and WHOIS represented the most

simplistic approach we could find. If it turns out to be too simple

in practice, things can always evolve to one or more of the more

advanced protocols. But, if we started with one of them, we would

never get that information. Other issues included:

* None of the existing directory proposals has really emerged as

the "right" solution with a large installed base. The deployed

base of WHOIS and WHOIS clients is huge, and using it avoids either

having to make a premature choice of "winner" or to become

embroiled in the debate.

* For the casual user, the mechanisms needed to activate the

extensive attribute-based directory searches of the stronger

protocols are just too complicated and may actually act as a

deterrent to effective use.

* Substantially since the dawn of the ARPANET, the Internet

experience has been that setting up a directory service is easy,

but that maintaining one and keeping the records up-to-date is

extremely difficult. The economics of operating an effective

directory service and keeping everything up to date may will

require a revenue-producing product. Use of a very simple protocol

for the basic service creates a situation in which basic service

can rationally be given away while more advanced service are

operated on a charge or subscription basis.

4.2 And why not use a Web search engine?

Web search engines are immensely effective and powerful, but address

a different problem than this protocol. The protocol model here does

involve a directory lookup, using a presumed company name as a key.

The quality of the result will depend on the quality of the

underlying directory and the editorial and research work that goes

into its construction (neither of which are matters for the protocol

itself -- we trust that marketplace pressures will separate good

servers from poor ones). Web search engines are often more effective

at locating information about companies than the specific company-

designated web pages.

4.3 Why not return a more highly structured information format

rather than a simple pair of URL and "company name"?

Again, the goal was to keep things extremely simple and, in

particular, permit minimal interpretation between the user's input

and the query and between the response and a display or action. Some

of the inquiries on this subject were due to misunderstandings about

the implications of the "company name" field; the semantics of that

field have been clarified above. We also wanted to avoid the level

of standardization implied by a tagging scheme: highly-structured

fields might lead either to interoperability problems or excessive

restriction on what might be returned.

5. Thoughts on Directory Providers

There is no technical reason why there should be only one provider of

company name to URL mapping services using this protocol, nor is

there any reason for registries of such providers. Presumably,

servers that provide the best-quality mappings will eventually

prevail in the marketplace. However, as with most traditional uses

of WHOIS, it is desirable for implementations of clients (or Web

browsers supporting this protocol) to allow for user choice of

servers through configuration options or the equivalent.

6. Demo Application

To illustrate the proposed functionality of this document, a

prototype of both the server and client have been made able for

demonstration purposes.

6.1 Server

The TLD-WHOIS demonstration server is available at

"companies.mci.net". The server contains a database of approximately

209,000 company entries provided by Dun and Bradstreet.

The server will generally respond back to a query within 15 seconds.

If the server has the response cached from a previous query, the

return time will be significantly shorter.

If 10 or more entries are found in the database for the query, only

the top 10 will be returned in the response.

For the purposes of this demonstration, there is no provision for

submitting additions or changes to the database. The authors and the

sponsoring companies are not responsible for the accuracy of the data

provided by this prototype. Our apologies if your company is not

listed.

6.2 Client

6.2.1 Download Location:

A demonstration client for the Windows 95/Nt platforms is available

for public download through anonymous FTP at:

ftp.mci.net/pub/ietf/company/demo.exe, or via the web:

ftp://ftp.mci.net/pub/ietf/company/demo.exe

File size is approximately 1.9 MB.

6.2.2 Setup Instructions:

a) Download the client installation software from the site mentioned

above to a local 32 bit Windows computer. The client installation

software has been compressed using the self-extracting archive

application from InstallShield The default name for the download

is "demo.exe".

b) Double click on the file through File Explorer or run the program

through the START menu.

c) Select "Setup" to allow InstallShield to uncompress the files

needed to install the demonstration client to a temporary

directory. InstallShield will then automatically launch the main

application Setup program.

d) The main setup program will install the demo application files and

make the necessary additions to the Windows Registry. No user

action is required.

e) Upon completion of installation you will be prompted to run the

application or to exit setup.

6.2.3 Paranoia:

What did you just do to my computer?

Files Copied:

companyname.exe Main program executable

whois.ocx WhoIs module from Mabry Software

led.ocx LED module from Mabry Software

msvbvm50.dll Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file

stdole2.tlb Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file

oleaut32.dll Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file

olepro32.dll Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file

comcat.dll Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file

asyncfilt.dll Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0 runtime file

crtl3d32.dll Installshield control used for installation only

Registry Changes:

Created key under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT called Who

This entry is used to enable the Microsoft Internet Explorer's

pluggable protocol handler. The key contains several sub-entries that

list the path and command to the companyname executable. The

pluggable protocol hander provides the necessary hooks to launch the

companyname application whenever the WHO:// URL is submitted in the

address line of Internet Explorer.

6.2.4 Using the Program

6.2.4.1 Standalone Operation:

From the Start Menu, select the Programs \ Companyname \ companyname.

Alternatively, it can be launched from Start:

Run c:\windows\companyname.exe

Enter the name of the company that you are attempting to locate and

press OK.

A status box will be displayed while the client is communicating with

the server until a response is returned. The possible returns are:

a) Message box saying that, "Your request was not found."

This means that the company information that was submitted was

not found in the database.

b) A list box containing 2 - 10 company names sorted high to

low by score. Highlight one of the names and press the launch

button. The program will launch the default web browser for

your computer and navigate to the site.

c) The default web browser launches and navigates to a site.

This means that only one match was found in the database and

that match is opened directly without user intervention.

6.2.4.2 Within Internet Explorer

From the Address Line within the web browser, enter "WHO://" followed

by the name of the company that you wish to search for and press the

enter key.

Note: Since the company name is entered within the URL space

of the browser, it can not contain spaces.

If you wish to send a search string that contains spaces, enter

"WHO://" with no company information. The application will display

the dialogue window as described in standalone mode for you to enter

the search criteria.

A status box will be displayed while the client is communicating with

the server until a response is returned. The possible returns are:

a) Message box saying that, "Your request was not found."

This means that the company information that was submitted was

not found in the database.

b) A list box containing 2 - 10 company names sorted high to

low by score. Highlight one of the names and press the launch

button. The program will launch the default web browser for

your computer and navigate to the site.

c) The default web browser launches and navigates to a site.

This means that only one match was found in the database and

that match is opened directly without user intervention.

6.2.5 Client Customization

The name of the Whois server is hardcoded within the application to

"companies.mci.net". No initialization file or registry keys are

needed for the default configuration. Realizing that some testers

may have proxy servers on their corporate systems and that others may

wish to test the client against a different Whois server, the client

supports a mechanism for changing the default server. To enable the

server customization, follow these steps:

a) Create a new directory in the root of the

C: Drive called "companyname"

b) Using Notepad or any text editor create a new file

called "whois.ini"

c) Add a new line to the file beginning with

"SERVER= <server name>". Do not include the double quotes

around the tag. <server name> would be the IP Address or DNS

name of the new Whois or proxy server.

d) End the line with a carriage return.

e) Save the file as a plain text file back to

"c:\companyname\whois.ini"

6.2.6 Client Limitations:

The demonstration software and database are provided "as is". No

warranties are stated or implied. Use at your own risk.

The demonstration client is supported only on 32 bit Intel Windows

platforms. It has been tested on Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0 and

Windows 98 beta RC0.

Use of the WHO:// URL moniker from within the web browser is

supported only under Microsoft Internet Explorer.

TCP Port 43 must be cleared through firewalls for client to

communicate with the server. Refer to the section on client

customization if you need to utilize a proxy server to traverse a

firewall.

When using the Address Line entry method within Microsoft Internet

Explorer, spaces are not permitted within the search string.

7. References

[ABNF] Crocker, D., and P. Overell, Eds., "Augmented BNF for Syntax

Specifications: ABNF", RFC2234, November 1997.

[RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation",

RFC1591, March 1994.

[GOPHER] Anklesaria, F., McCahill, M., Lindner, P., Johnson, D.,

John, D., Torrey, D., and B. Alberti, "The Internet Gopher Protocol

(a distributed document search and retrieval protocol)", RFC1436,

March 1993.

[LDAP] Yeong, W., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory

Access Protocol", RFC1777, March 1995.

[RWHOIS] Williamson, S., and M. Kosters, "Referral Whois Protocol

(RWhois)", RFC1714, December 1994.

[URL] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform

Resource Locators (URL)", RFC1738, December 1994.

[WHOIS] Feinler, E., Harrenstien, K., and M. Stahl, "NICNAME/WHOIS",

RFC954, October 1985.

[WHOIS++] Deutsch, P., Schoultz, R., Faltstrom, P., and C. Weider,

"Architecture of the WHOIS++ service", RFC1835, August 1995.

[X500] Wright, R., Getchell, A., Howes, T., Sataluri, S., Yee, P.,

and W. Yeong, "Recommendations for an X.500 Production Directory

Service", RFC1803, June 1995.

[Z39.50] Lynch, C., "Using the Z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol

in the Internet Environment", RFC1729, December 1994.

8. Security Considerations

This suggested use of the WHOIS protocol adds no significant security

risks to those of traditional applications of the protocol which is

one of the most widely-deployed applications on the Internet. As

usual, servers should expect to use the string sent to them as an

information retrieval key, not as a function to be executed in some

way. A more significant risk would arise if the server supporting

the translation function were somehow spoofed; in that case, an

incorrect URL might be returned for a particular company. As with the

possibility of finding an incorrect page using naming conventions,

the best protection against the risks that could then occur is

careful attention to certificates, signatures, and other

authenticity-indicating information.

9. IANA Considerations

As provided in section 3.3, above, this experiment requests that IANA

maintain a registry of query variation forms and that the registry be

initialized with the two values specified in that section.

10. Acknowledgements

This memo was inspired by a many discussions over the last few years

about the status and uses of the domain name system, information

location using conventions about domain names, exposure of URLs to

end users, and convergence of directory and search protocols. While

the people involved are too numerous to attempt to list, the authors

would like to acknowledge their contributions and comments.

Martin Hamilton, Keith Moore, Tom Thornbury and Ed Trembicki-Guy made

important suggestions that have contributed to the revision of this

memo.

11. Authors' Addresses

John C. Klensin

MCI Internet Architecture

800 Boylston St, 7th floor

Boston, MA 02199

USA

Phone: +1 617 960 1011

EMail: klensin@mci.net

Ted Wolf, Jr.

Electronic Commerce

Dun & Bradstreet Information Services

3 Sylvan Way

Parsippany, NJ 07054

USA

Phone: +1 201 605 6308

EMail: ted@usa.net

Gary W. Oglesby

MCI Internet Architecture

842 N. Ahoy Dr.

Gilbert, AZ 85234

USA

Phone: +1 415 538 1100

EMail: gary@mci.net

12. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING

BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有