New I-D: Uniform Resource Names, ISO OIDs and DNS

Internet Engineering Task Force                         Leslie L. Daigle
INTERNET-DRAFT                           Bunyip Information Systems Inc.
draft-mealling-oid-dns-00.txt                           Patrik Faltstrom
                                         Bunyip Information Systems Inc.
							Michael Mealling
 				         Georgia Institute of Technology
                                                       November 22, 1995

                  Uniform Resource Names, ISO OIDs and DNS


This paper describes a "resolution-mechanism"-independent architecture
for Unifrom Resource Name (URN) usage and name space management.  This
non-monolothic architecture allows different components of the name space to be 
managed by the appropriate level of network authority.  This not only 
integrates well with traditional Internet models, it allows flexibility in 
choice of implementation of support for each layer of the name space.

An implementation for the architecture, using OIDs and DNS-based 
infrastructure, is outlined.

Status of this draft

    This document  is  an  Internet-Draft.    Internet-Drafts  are
    working documents  of  the  Internet  Engineering  Task  Force
    (IETF), its  areas,  and  its  working  groups.     Note  that
    other  groups  may  also   distribute  working  documents   as

    Internet-Drafts are  draft documents  valid for  a maximum  of
    six months.    Internet-Drafts may  be updated,  replaced,  or
    obsoleted by  other  documents  at  any  time.     It  is  not
    appropriate to use  Internet-Drafts as  reference material  or
    to cite them other  than as a  ``working draft'' or ``work  in

    To learn  the current  status  of any  Internet-Draft,  please
    check the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-
    Drafts Shadow Directories  on,,, or

    This Internet Draft expires June 9, 1996.


This paper describes a "resolution-mechanism"-independent architecture
for Unifrom Resource Name (URN) usage and name space management.  This
non-monolothic architecture allows different components of the name space to be 
managed by the appropriate level of network authority.  This not only 
integrates well with traditional Internet models, it allows flexibility in 
choice of implementation of support for each layer of the name space.

An implementation for the architecture, using OIDs and DNS-based 
infrastructure, is outlined.

This paper has been revised to conform to the jointly-proposed URN syntax
that came out of the Knoxville meeting of URN system architects (October 30,
31, 1995).

Issues Concerning Uniform Resource Names

Apart from the basic requirements of Uniform Resource Naming, some specific
issues underly the architecture and implementation proposed in this paper:

  1. One architecture to  serve several communities

     Historically, different communities have developed specialized naming
     systems.  For example, ISBNs and DNS evolved different architectures  and
     implementations as name spaces for different communities. Ideally, URNs 
     must accommodate name spaces from several different communities, and
     should do so in a way that requires minimal changes to their name 

  2. Persistence vs. transcribability of Uniform Resource Names
     In order to achieve some degree of persistence of URNs over time (i.e.,
     to avoid the kinds of expiration problems that URLs have), the name space
     has to be optimized for structure.  However, arguments have been put
     forward that suggest that URNs will not be usable if they are so
     arbitrary and complex as to be meaningless to humans -- increasing the
     number of transcription errors, etc.

  3. Support for multiple URN resolution protocols

     For pragmatic reasons, it is apparent that URN resolution should be 
     capable of supporting multiple protocols. In order to accomplish this 
     there must be some method to identify the name space and the resolution 
     protocol. Within a URN, the name space is identified by a scheme. 

  4. Modular vs. monolithic name space maintenance

     URN resolution can be treated as a "black box" service -- given 
     a URN, return an information resource, a pointer, or some description
     of the resource.  However, to implement a resolution service in such
     a monolithic fashion would require the maintainer of the service to
     accurately track information at a very fine level of granularity.  As
     an alternative, a single name space can be handled in a modular fashion,
     leaving authors closer to the maintenance of their documents, publishers
     in charge of the editorial content of their collections, service
     providers in charge of network details, etc.

One of the difficulties with more transcribable names is the very 
semantics that are  ascribed to the identifier strings.  This has already
caused problems with domain name registration as people rush to register
domains that they expect will be sought after, law suits are launched over
the usage of particular phrases, etc.  The proposed architecture addresses
these issues by separating out URN collection identifiers (which are
definitive, and not particularly prone to semantic interpretation by human
readers) and collection aliases (which are transmutable).  This is
described in more detail below.

The Architecture

URN Syntax and Semantics

The proposed URN syntax is as follows:

	URN:<collection name>[:<CUI>]


	URN   indicates to the client (human or machine) that the rest of
	      the identifier conforms to URN standards (for distinguishability
	      of <collection name> and <CUI>, etc).

	<collection name>  identifies the collection in which the resource
	      was originally published.  URN syntax places no requirements
	      on the semantics of this identifier, although it is required
	      (for the sake of interoperability of all URN resolution systems)
	      that this be a hierarchical top-level-first slash-delimited name
	      of the authority that assigned the URN, and the name should,
	      through some transformation algorithm, be a valid DNS name.

	:     designated separator between collection name and the CUI

	<CUI> or "collection-unique identifier" is an identifier of no
	      globally-specified syntax or structure (opaque) that is only
	      required to be unique within the given collection.  The CUI is 
	      optional so that the collection itself can be identified.

Thus, URNs are globally unique by requiring that collection names are unique
across the URN name space.  Pragmatically, this means that a collection name
is brought into existence once, by a collection publisher.  Thereafter,
the rights to that collection name may be conferred to another publisher,
but only resources published by such authorized publishers will contain
that collection name, and these URNs will contain that collection name
for all time, irrespective of where the underlying resource migrates.  
Individual collections are left to select object-identifiers in any way they 
choose, as long as they are unique for that collection for all time.  This 
facilitates the incorporation of existing object name spaces -- an existing 
library of information can assign URNs for its material by creating a collection
name and using the resources' existing names as the CUI.  In order to be usable 
as CUI strings, the only requirement placed on an object name space is that it 
never reuse a name.  If this is not inherently characteristic of the object name
space (e.g., as in file systems), the assigner of the name may choose to append 
a unique suffix -- e.g., time stamp or serial number.

A sample URN might look like:


It is proposed that the collection name may be either a Collection Alias
(preferred), or a Collection ID. The Collection Alias is a logical name for a 
collection, while the Collection ID identifies definitively the entity that is 
responsible for naming authority.  Collection Aliases must be resolved into a 
single Collection ID, although many aliases can exist for a single ID.  
Collection IDs are associated with one or more resolution services (at 
different sites, using different protocols, etc).

Note that the complete URN identifier consists of the combined collection
name and CUI strings.  The distinction between the components is provided
in the syntax in order to permit the implementation of efficient support
mechanisms for partitioning the search space when resolving the URN.
That is, the collection's naming authority is the first logical place
to try to resolve the CUI.  If that is not successful (discussed in more
detail below), the URN string remains a valid resource identifier; more
general resolution mechanisms must be applied across a larger portion of the 
URN name space.

>From URN to Resource...

In the ideal case, the process of locating a resource identiried by a URN can 
be represented as follows:

             Collection Name
                 (one of)
          |                    | 
          v                    v 
      Collection           Collection
        Alias                ID 
          |                   |
          |                   |
          |        +----------+
          |        |
          |        |
          v        v
    +----------------+   Collection Alias, or Collection ID  
    | Collection     |--------------+         [if previous was Collection Alias]
    | Authority      |              |
    | Identification |              |
    | Service        |<-------------+
           |  (ranked in order of preference)
           |                                    |                |
           v                                    v                v
        Resolution                         Resolution         Resolution
        Service1 ID    CUI                 Service2           ServiceN
           |            |
    | BrandX         |
    | URN            |
    | Resolution     |
    | Service        |
     |              |             |
   URL            URC            UR?             

This process is proposed as a means of handling the URN identifier because
it provides modular layers of information management.  From the standpoint
of the holder of a URN, this means that much of the underlying support
for a given URN or collection may change without disrupting the identification
capacities of the URN.  For example, the resolution service(s) used by
a collection may move or change format entirely, without affecting the
validity of the URN.

Also, the information maintenance required for each level is isolated to 
that level.  The Collection Authority Identification Service is responsible for 
maintaining the mapping information from Collection Aliases to Collection IDs, 
and for Collection IDs to Resolution Service IDs.   This can be done 
straightforwardly by having each collection notify the Collection Authority
ID Service of any relevant changes -- which should be relatively 
infrequent.  Each Resolution Service is responsible for maintaining mapping 
information from the CUI to the URx results.  This will require
more frequent maintenance, but is localized to a single collection.  The holder 
of the resource at the end of the URx is responsible for that information 
(e.g., the site holding the document accessible by a URL).  As a result of
this modularity, each one of these services can be provided by completely 
independent entities.

>From Author to URN...

URNs are assigned through a publishing process. Details of the formality of
this process are up to the individual maintainers of collections, and
are not relevant beyond the requirement that they yield the unique identifier
as described above.  Recall that  a resource's URN includes the name of the 
collection under which it was published, irrespective of where the resource 
migrates over time.

>From the author's perspective, a resource is published by submitting it
to a publisher.  The publisher will store the resource in a collection (either 
locally, or at some service it subscribes to) and thereafter undertakes to
maintain a copy of the resource.  A CUI is assigned by the publisher (possibly
in conjunction with the collection's resolution service).  This resolution 
service may be run by the publisher, or may also be a service to which the 
publisher subscribes, and so on up the levels.

The resource may be published under a Collection ID directly, or under
a Collection Alias.  The latter case is preferred, since any given Collection
may use Collection Aliases to further partition and identify its resources.
It is also simpler to confer rights to an entire collection than it is
to handle migration of individual resources (discussed below), and it
is therefore interesting to keep a fairly fine-grained set of Collection 

Life of a URN

One of the highly desirable characteristics of URNs is their persistence
as identifiers of a resource.  That is, the URN should not expire or become
unresolvable until or unless the resource to which it was assigned expires
or becomes irretrievable (and even then, it would be best of the system
could provide an indication of that condition).

The above architecture provides several degrees of freedom in terms of
the flexibility of the infrastructure that supports a given URN.  For
example, if a collection authority changes the underlying resolution
service it uses, this simply yields a different reference when the 
collection name is resolved.  Similarly, if a Collection Alias is used
in the URN, the rights to the whole collection can be passed to another entity
with a completely different collection name authority -- the Collection Alias
now resolves to a new Collection ID.

However, this idealized architecture does not handle the case of collections 
that are split at some point in time.  The most obvious example of such
an occurrence would be if a single document migrates to another collection.
There are some implications of publishing that should reduce the number
of such occurrences (e.g., if the act of publishing includes the rights
to the material, the author cannot arbitrarily move the document to another
collection; arguably, if the author had wanted to maintain that control over
the resource, it should have been self-published). 

Nevertheless, resources will migrate and collections will be split up.
In view of this fact, the Collection Name component of the URN can be
viewed as a guide as to where to look first for the resource.  The goal 
of a global Collection Authority Identifier Service is to provide 
efficient shortcuts to the source of the resource in as many cases as
possible.  Two things can be done to handle other cases:

	1. The resolver can pass back new URNs, when the collection authority 
	   remains "friendly" to the migrated resource

	2. A global index of "orphaned" URNs can be maintained.

The latter option is to be avoided if at all possible because it carries
several inherent difficulties that may be exacerbated over time:

	. distance from original author => reduced likelihood of accurate
	  and up to date information regarding resource

	. it will only grow...

The first option is proposed because, although it may be assumed that the
newer the URN, the less likely it is to be "orphaned", it is not appropriate
to assume that old URNs will be accessed only infrequently --  there are
definitive versions of some types of resources. Therefore, it would be useful 
to have  the ability to refer enquiries from the original Collection 
to a newer collection, with the expectation that the client would perform
necessary updates and that the number of such referrals would decrease over


An Implementation

A Practical Implementation of Collection Identifiers

Since the proposed URN syntax requires that the collection name be
algorithmically mappable to a valid DNS name, it is tempting to consider
using either the existing DNS name space or one loosely based on it by 
starting with a new hierarchy but still attempting to use existing names. 
This may work for small publishers that have very simple name spaces but large 
organizations with multiple levels of "resource promotion" or movement of 
authority will have trouble with semantically incorrect names in URNs. For 
example, if Microsoft purchased Intuit and the rights to all of its URNs, 
those URNs that have the string "intuit" in the authority portion of the string 
are semantically incorrect because the entity "Intuit" has ceased to exist. 

Nevertheless, DNS is already deployed across the globe, and is recognized
as a system that has been designed (and is being improved) to support
resolution of global name spaces.  It is therefore interesting to consider
leveraging its strengths for URNs.

We now consider a semantically unbiased name space that can be mapped into
DNS.  This name space should have few rules regarding name assignment. In order 
to have Collection IDs that are free from human-ascribable semantics (as 
described above) it seems reasonable to assume that the character set must be 
limited to either all numbers or a few numbers and letters (ala hex). It is also
desired that the rules concerning name assignment be only structured to the
extent that sub-authorities can be assigned.

These two preferences allow several solutions,  but an existing name space 
would be preferable since it facilitates acceptance. One existing solution is 
the International Standards Organization Object Identifier or OID which has been
used by the IETF for several years in identifying MIBs and other objects.
OIDs are based on a hierarchical name space using only numbers delimited by
periods with the right most element being most significant. This is how OIDs
have been broken down for use by the IETF for various functions:

1                   iso
1.3                 org
1.3.6               dod             internet           directory           mgmt         mib-2 ifType      transmission   transmission.ppp      application      mta           experimental           private         enterprise           security           SNMPv2           mail

Delegation of authority is unspecified and thus is left up to the owner of a
given portion of the hierarchy. For example, is 'owned' by
The Georgia Institute of Technology. It could as easily be owned by the
Library of Congress. Also, at this time delegation below that is by
department. If this organization of authority changes then no change must
occur in the name because it is transparent.

Another important feature of OIDs is that they are recognized by ISO and thus 
are an internationally recognized standard. 

DNS as a practical implementation of a Collection Authority ID Service

The proposed URN syntax requires that the collection name  component
be mappable onto a valid DNS name.  While this does not mean that the
collection name is in any way required to be resolvable to a site name,
the DNS infrastructure can be used to support URN resolution.  The existing 
Domain Name System used extensivly on the Internet is by far the largest and 
most accessible distributed database in the world.  The Internet's reliance on 
it means that most Internet-aware software is already primed with the ability 
to interact with DNS.  For this reason it is a good candidate for one of the 
possible implementations of a Collection Authority ID Services.

When resolving an OID, we get information about what service to use when
resolving other data bound to the OID. You also get the hostname and port
number of the server itself. We call this information a Naming Authority
Pointer (NAPTR) record.

Each OID gives us a record with enough data to be know what resolution
service that organization, or part of that organization, uses. Note that if
one organization uses several resolution services, they can simply delegate
OIDs, one for each service, for the different resolution methods.

Collection Aliases, or User Friendly Naming

We also introduce the concept of a UFN ("User Friendly Name" -- since OIDs
are not) record in DNS  to handle Collection Aliases.  (There is no relationship
between this User Friendly Name and a User Friendly Name in X.500).

The UFN itself doesn't have to have the same meaning as the OID, i.e. we can
use this aliasing as a mechanism for having the UFN name the publisher, and
the OID name the authority which is responsible for the name delegation. This
makes it easy to allow publishers to purchase resolution services from
entities more suited to the task.

As an example, suppose Acme, Inc. decides to be a publisher of culinary recipes
and treatises on obscure points of international law.  URNs for the material in
these collections could take the form:

     URN:/com/acme/recipe:<string particular to the document>

     URN:/com/acme/intlaw:<string particular to the document>

The decision to identify an entity as a publisher is distinct from
undertaking to maintain an operational  URN resolution service.  That is, if
Acme does decide to run its own service, the UFNs and will map to the OID for Acme, Inc.  On the other hand,
if Acme, Inc. decides that running such a service requires more Internet
expertise and/or service than they can supply (e.g., Acme is in fact a
cottage industry run out of a cabin in backwoods Vermont), it can pay
for resolution services from a provider that specializes in them.  In that
case, the UFN will map to the provider's OID, and resolution will continue
by identifying the types and locations of the provider's resolution services.

For example, the UFN can map to the OID for Bunyip,, but if Bunyip is not interested in managing the OID
name space, the UFN can map onto the OID for The Georgia Institute
of Technology. This means that when we resolve the UFN, we are
referred to for further resolution of other data bound to
the UFN.

This flexibility can also facilitate other things like promotion to library
grade cataloging and management.  It supports persistence of URNs by
encapsulating certain maintenance responsibilities at different levels in
the name space.  For example, if Acme, Inc. goes out of business, its recipe 
and international law collections can be moved elsewhere (or made part of 
another collection), and all that needs to change is the registration that 
maps the UFNs and to an OID.  In fact, the two
collections can be taken over by 2 separate entities, and the UFNs may now map
to distinct OIDs.  The semantics understood by users hasn't changed. The
name space management has adapted to a very pragmatic approach to supporting
the continued existence of a collection.

The UFN record is syntactically (and implementably) identical to the
current CNAME resource record except that it is not burdened with CNAMEs
restrictive semantics. For example, it is not possible to have both a
CNAME record and any other kind of DNS record (e.g., MX record) for one
domain name in DNS.  (This is one reason why UFN records are proposed,
instead of continuing to use CNAME records).  A UFN and an MX record can be
intermixed with no side effects.

The NAPTR gives the information needed, given an URN collection name, needed
for further resolution of the CUI in a URN. The information given is the:

         precedence - to allow the client to choose among
                     multiple NAPTR records for a Naming
                     Authority. An unsigned short. Multiple
                     records can mean several possible things:

                        a) the NA offers multiple resolution
                           methods. Each method gets its own
                           preference as specified the the
                           resolving agent.

                        b) the NA offers multiple resolving
                           servers around the net as a load
                           sharing mechanism.

                        c) a combination of a and b

                        d) an unspecified reason

                     Client software should choose the record of
                     lowest-precedence that has a 'scheme' (see below)
                     that it recognizes.  Beyond that, client developers
                     should not infer any global semantics of
                     precedence numbers.

        algorithm  - The resolution method used to resolve the
                     end service. Current examples would be
                     'path','whois++','handle','x-dns-2'. These
                     do not specify the actual protocol used to
                     finally resolve the CUI but instead specify
                     the next step in the resolution process.
                     For example, the client looks up /a/b/c/d and
                     finds that the method is 'path'. At that point
                     the client can assume that it can follow the
                     standard path resolution mechanisms. If instead
                     it had found 'handle' it could then assume that
                     it could contact the root and such as prescribed
                     by the handle method.

        host       - a DNS compresses hostname to connect to for this service.

        port       - The port connect to on 'hostname'. An unsigned short.

        method-specific-string - a text field that only has meaning when
                    coupled with the algoirthm from above. For example,
                    if the algorithm were 'path' then this would be
                    the place in which a string specifying variable
                    substitution could be found. If the algorithm were
                    'whois++' it might contain the whois++ server name
                    or a template name.

It is important to bear in mind that the Collection Alias concept in
the proposed architecture allows mapping from any kind of name to any other
kind of name.  This can be used by other (non-DNS-space) name spaces to map
onto OIDs, or indeed for DNS-space names to map onto other name spaces.
To distinguish a Collection Alias from a real Collection ID within a URN,  we 
simply require that any URN authority field must, after 1 or more iterations
through the Collection Authority ID Service, map to something that is
identified as a bona fide Collection ID.


Suppose the UFN is resolved by a Whois++ service at The Georgia
Institute of Technology, but some Georgia Tech departments use other resolution
services.  Georgia Tech uses the OID for Whois++, for DNS etc. The UFN therefore refers to the 
OID, and when looking up information about that OID, we get 
the following information:

  Preference: 10
  Service: WHOIS
  Portnr: 63

To be as flexible as possible in supporting multiple resolution services,
we also introduce a Preference on the NAPTR record. In this way, a single OID
can resolve to several NAPTR records, each with a different metric.  This
is the same way MX records are handled in DNS.  The record with the 
lowest metric is to be used first, and if that fails, the second lowest is
used etc. It is important to realize that the actual value or original
meaning of the of the metric is inaccessible and inherently nonportable.
It is therefore not recommended to make assumptions about given
reference metrics.

This gives us another method to implement the above possible need for
multiple resolution services. Let's say that for redundancy and customer
service reasons Bunyip wishes to provide all possible method of URN
resolution but that it prefers whois++. It therefore puts several NAPTR
records in with different resolution scheme/preference pairs.

If the UFN is mapped to the OID, that in turn
can map into these two NAPTR records:

  Preference: 10
  Service: WHOIS
  Portnr: 63

  Preference: 20
  Service: HTTP
  Portnr: 80

We can resolve the collection name into a number of UFN or NAPTR records.
If it is a UFN then it is further resolved into a Collection ID name
which is then queried for an NAPTR record. Each NAPTR record is then used
in the order the Preference states to resolve the CUI in the URN.

The full resolution process is now:

   Get the URN
    Look up the Collection Name of the URN and ask for both UFN and NAPTR 
    If there is a valid UFN record for this then
        Look up one or several NAPTR records that the UFN points to;
    else if there is one or more valid NAPTR record for this then
        fall through;
    else die;

    For each NAPTR found above,
        contact the services in the order specified by the Preference,
        Look up a URC using the CUI
    until we have a URC

An example DNS entry follows: IN UFN IN NAPTR (
          10                  ; metric
 ; hostname
          63                  ; port nr
          "whois"             ; protocol
          "GATECH01"  )       ; auxiliary data for Whois

          10                  ; metric
 ; hostname
          63                  ; port nr
          "whois"             ; protocol
          "GATECH01"  )       ; auxiliary data for Whois IN NAPTR (
          20                  ; metric
 ; hostname
          80                  ; port nr
          "http"             ; protocol
          "text/urc"  )       ; auxiliary data for HTTP IN NAPTR (
          10                  ; metric
 ; hostname
          80                  ; port nr
          "http"             ; protocol
          "text/urc"  )       ; auxiliary data for HTTP

Let's say that the very small company Acme Inc has published some materials
which they want to give a URN. They have unfortunately not registered a OID
yet, so they buy a OID space from the company Publish It Inc. They register
this by creating a UFN record which points from to which is an OID delegated from the Publish It Inc OID

But, the company Publish It Inc is not connected to the Internet, so the
registration of the different documents is done by the company Big Net. The
NAPTR record therefore points to the Whois++ server at the company Big Net,
and they actually runs a separate Whois++ server for the documents of
Publish It Inc on port 7070.

The Big Net company in turn cooperates with the network provider Small Net.
They both mirror each others databases each night to be able to let their
customers use the other companies servers if their own have crashed. So,
they run secondary nameserver, secondary MX and secondary NAPTR records for
each other.

The UFN and the NAPTR records therefore looks like this: IN UFN IN NAPTR (
          10                  ; metric
 ; hostname
          7070                ; port nr
          "whois"             ; protocol
          "BIGNET01"  )       ; auxiliary data for Whois IN NAPTR (
          20                  ; metric
      ; hostname
          6212                ; port nr
          "whois"             ; protocol
          "SMALLNET01"  )     ; auxiliary data for Whois

Final Remarks

The point of determining a common URN syntax at the Knoxville meeting
was to promote interoperability of different URN-resolving strategies. 
This paper presents one such strategy, and proposed implementation structures
for URNs.  Of course, this strategy is not limited to use by OIDs. Within DNS 
any name can have an NAPTR record. This facilitates use of this resolution 
method by any hierarchical, DNS accessible name space. We know the difference 
between a UFN and a real URN authority by which record is returned for a DNS 

It is also important to realize that the use of DNS is not necesary for this
scheme to work. It is possible to use protocols like Whois++ for each one of 
the steps as long as you can, given a something like a UFN, get a real 
authority, and given a real authority get one or several things like an NAPTR 
record.  The decision to use Whois++ over DNS, or vice versa, is in the
hands of the client software writer.  The important step here is to provide
at least _one_ URN-resolution name space management and resolution 
infrastructure, without precluding the evolution of others.

Author's Addresses

Leslie L. Daigle
Bunyip Information Systems Inc.

Patrik Faltstrom
Bunyip Information Systems Inc.

Michael Mealling
Georgia Institute of Technology

Received on Monday, 27 November 1995 12:33:09 UTC