Network Working Group J. Klensin
Request for Comments: 2345 MCI
Category: Experimental T. Wolf
Dun & Bradstreet
G. Oglesby
MCI
May 1998
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
域名与公司名称检索
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
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.
这份备忘录为互联网社区定义了一个实验性协议。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。要求进行讨论并提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1998年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
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.
随着互联网和网络的发展，基于特定公司名称的网络信息定位已成为一个日益困难的问题。为此目的使用命名约定和域名系统（DNS）给后者带来了麻烦，但并没有解决问题。虽然有几项建议使用当代的、高性能的目录服务和搜索协议来减少对DNS约定的依赖，但没有一项得到显著部署。
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.
本文档提出了一种基于最古老和最不复杂的互联网目录协议whois的公司名称到URL映射服务，以探索在更复杂和强大的选项失败或被过度延迟的情况下，一个极其简单和广泛部署的协议是否能够成功。
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:
近几个月来，互联网社区的各个部分都在讨论“顶级域名问题”。也许是典型的，不同的群体使用这个术语来识别不同的，也许几乎是正交的问题。这些问题包括：
1.1. A "domain administration policy" issue.
1.1. “域管理策略”问题。
1.2. A "name ownership" issue, of which the trademark issue may constitute a special case.
1.2. “名称所有权”问题，其中商标问题可能构成特例。
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.
1.3. 一种信息定位问题，特别是为一个实体（该实体通常以其名称为人所知）定位适当的域或与域相关的信息的问题。
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].
其中，关于前两者的争议可能是互联网发展的必然结果。自开始分配大量此类域以来，在顶级域管理方面存在间歇性困难，并有各种尝试将域注册表功能用作控制服务提供商或服务的机制。这些问题导致了[RFC1591]政策指南的发布。
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
第三个问题似乎主要是由于万维网的爆炸性增长，特别是由于没有其他机制，URL格式[URL]向最终用户公开。由于缺乏适当且充分部署的目录服务，因此假设可以使用涉及公司名称或产品名称的命名约定来定位公司的网页，即，对于XYZ公司，位于以下位置的网页：
http://www.xyz.com/
or
http://www.xyz-company.com/
http://www.xyz.com/
or
http://www.xyz-company.com/
has been assumed.
已经假定。
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.
然而，随着网络的发展，以及越来越多的网站植根于“.COM”以外的域，这一惯例变得难以维持：将有太多的组织或公司对同一个简短的描述性名称拥有合法权利——可能在不同的业务线或司法管辖区。因此，多年来，社区普遍认为，解决这一信息定位问题的办法不在于改变域名系统，而在于某种类型的目录服务。
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],
但这样的目录服务还没有出现。关于协议和访问机制的选择一直存在争议。IETF发布了几种不同目录和搜索协议的规范，包括[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.
[LDAP]、[X500]、[GOPHER]。关于为什么没有发生这种情况的一个假设是，这些机制很难选择和部署，因为它们比必要的复杂得多。本文件提出了一个非常简单的备选方案。
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.
WHOIS协议是互联网上使用的最古老的目录访问协议，其发布时间可追溯到1982年3月，首次实施时间稍早。procotol本身很简单，也很简单：客户端打开一个到WHOIS端口（43）的telnet连接，并通过它传输一条线路。服务器以其定义的方式查找该行，将一行或多行信息返回给客户端，然后关闭连接。
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).
我们建议对Web浏览器进行修改或加载项，这些浏览器将访问新的、商业提供的Whois服务器，发送假定的公司名称并接收一行或多行内容，每行内容都包含一个URL，后跟一个或多个空格，然后是一个匹配的公司名称（选择该顺序是为了最大限度地减少解析问题：因为URL不能包含空格，所以第一个空白字符标记URL的结尾，下一个非空白字符标记公司名称的开头）。与Whois一样，服务器用于匹配传入字符串的标准由服务器自行决定。这与[Whois]中记录的协议之间的区别在于，每行只返回一个公司名称（有关语法的详细信息，请参见第3节）。
The client would then be expected to:
然后，客户应：
(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.
(i) 如果返回一行（公司名称和URL），请请求确认，或者简单地获取关联的URL，就像它是由用户键入的一样。
(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.
（ii）如果返回多行（名称），则向用户提供一个选项，可能显示公司名称而不是（或补充）URL，然后使用所选URL获取。
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.
显然，虽然本文件中所述服务的最方便使用将通过作为Web浏览器一部分或与Web浏览器密切连接的客户端进行，没有这类设施的用户可以利用传统的WHOIS客户端，将相关信息粘贴或以其他方式传输到浏览器的目标位置。
Preliminary work with the approach suggested above suggests that some specific conventions about syntax and variations would be useful.
上述方法的初步工作表明，一些关于语法和变体的特定约定是有用的。
3.1 Line sent from client to server.
3.1 从客户端发送到服务器的行。
These lines may take either of two forms:
这些行可以采用两种形式之一：
(i) A simple 7-bit ASCII string, containing a "company name"
(i) 一个简单的7位ASCII字符串，包含“公司名称”
(ii) A string in the format (using the ABNF notation of RFC 2234 [ABNF]):
（ii）以下格式的字符串（使用RFC 2234[ABNF]的ABNF符号）：
Variation "/" 1*Octet
变体“/”1*八位字节
Variation :== "0" | ( Non-zero-digit 1*Digit)
Non-zero-digit :== 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Digit :== 0 | Non-zero-digit
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.
其中，八位字节是任意八位序列，表示带前缀的变化数。
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.
第一种形式将被解释为等同于第二种形式，前导字符串为“0/”。第3.3节规定了变更编号。
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.
在所有情况下，对“公司名称”的含义的解释，特别是对形式或拼写、缩写等的变化的解释，严格取决于服务器的解释。如果驱动服务器的规则导致字符串与其数据中的某个公司匹配的结论，则该决定的正确性或不正确性不在本规范的范围内。
For variation 0 and, by default, for all others, any alphabetic text in lines is to be construed in a case-insensitive fashion.
对于变体0和所有其他变体，默认情况下，行中的任何字母文本都将以不区分大小写的方式进行解释。
3.2 Lines sent from server to client.
3.2 从服务器发送到客户端的行。
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
服务器需要向客户端返回一行或多行，具体取决于其对输入字符串的解释。一般来说，如上所述，每一行将由一个URL、一个空格和一个“公司名称”组成。本文档故意不指定“company name”字符串的内容或语义。它可能是一个名称，或者是一个名称和描述性信息，例如业务的位置和类型，或者是服务器选择的其他信息。这个
expectation, as mentioned above, is that the information will be displayed by the client to aid users in selecting the appropriate URL.
如上所述，预期客户机将显示信息，以帮助用户选择适当的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).
与正常互联网惯例一致，这些行将由CR LF序列（而不是这些控制字符中的一个或另一个）终止。
When and if different variation numbers are introduced, their specifications may include variations on what the server is expected to return.
如果引入了不同的变体编号，则它们的规范可能包括服务器预期返回的变体。
In lieu of "URL and company name" responses, the Server may also return "error messages". These take the form of lines containing:
代替“URL和公司名称”响应，服务器还可能返回“错误消息”。这些行的形式包括：
"///" SP String
"///" 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:
其中，字符串为7位ASCII，除SP外无其他控制字符，除非与变体编号相关的变体另有规定。对于本实验，不鼓励所有“错误消息”，但以下两条除外：
/// 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.
///未找到，表示“公司名称”与任何内容不匹配///不支持变体，表示服务器无法识别客户端提供的变体编号。
The following two variations are established as part of this specification:
以下两种变化作为本规范的一部分：
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.
0/查询和响应采用7位ASCII格式，除SP外，没有其他控件，“公司名称”由一个或多个SP字符与URL分隔。
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.
1/查询和响应采用UTF-8格式，除SP外，没有其他控件，“公司名称”由一个或多个SP字符与URL分隔，输入或输出均无语言规范。
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.
IANA将保留额外变化的登记册，希望这些变化非常短。其他变更请求应通过电子邮件发送至：iana@iana.org.
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.
对本文档初稿的评论很少涉及所讨论服务的基本模型或协议设计。相反，他们关注的是询问我们没有做出的决定，以及关于协议规范的信念，而这些信念不是作者想要的。我们希望，后者已得到纠正。以下三种类型的问题在第一类中占主导地位。
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:
许多注释提出了这样一个问题：使用更高性能的目录协议，而不是极其简单的WHOIS，可以做多少工作。提出了关于LDAP、X.500 DAP、CCSO、RWHOIS和WHOIS++的问题。我们有几个理由避开它们。最重要的是，我们坚定地承诺，看看用一种极端简单的方法可以做多少事情，谁代表了我们所能找到的最简单的方法。如果实践证明它过于简单，那么事情总是可以发展成一个或多个更高级的协议。但是，如果我们从其中一个开始，我们永远也得不到这些信息。其他问题包括：
* 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.
* 现有的目录方案中，没有一个真正成为拥有大量安装基础的“正确”解决方案。WHOIS和WHOIS客户端的部署基础是巨大的，使用它可以避免过早选择“赢家”或卷入争论。
* 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.
* 对于临时用户来说，激活更强协议的广泛基于属性的目录搜索所需的机制过于复杂，实际上可能会阻碍有效使用。
* 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.
* 从ARPANET诞生之日起，互联网的经验就是建立一个目录服务很容易，但是维护一个目录服务并保持记录的最新是极其困难的。运营一个有效的目录服务和保持一切最新的经济效益可能需要一个创收的产品。对基本服务使用非常简单的协议会造成这样一种情况，即基本服务可以合理地提供，而更高级的服务则在收费或订阅的基础上运行。
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.
Web搜索引擎非常有效和强大，但解决的问题与此协议不同。这里的协议模型确实涉及目录查找，使用假定的公司名称作为密钥。
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.
结果的质量将取决于基础目录的质量以及构建该目录所需的编辑和研究工作（这两项工作都与协议本身无关——我们相信市场压力将区分好服务器和差服务器）。网络搜索引擎通常比特定的公司指定网页更有效地定位公司信息。
4.3 Why not return a more highly structured information format rather than a simple pair of URL and "company name"?
4.3 为什么不返回一个更高度结构化的信息格式，而不是一对简单的URL和“公司名称”？
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.
同样，我们的目标是让事情变得非常简单，特别是在用户的输入和查询之间，以及在响应和显示或操作之间，允许最小的解释。关于这一主题的一些询问是由于对“公司名称”字段含义的误解；上面已经阐明了该字段的语义。我们还希望避免标记方案所隐含的标准化水平：高度结构化的字段可能导致互操作性问题或对返回内容的过度限制。
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.
没有技术上的理由说明为什么只有一个使用此协议的公司名称到URL映射服务提供商，也没有任何理由要求注册此类提供商。据推测，提供最佳质量映射的服务器最终将在市场上占上风。然而，与WHOIS的大多数传统用途一样，客户机（或支持此协议的Web浏览器）的实现需要允许用户通过配置选项或等效选项选择服务器。
To illustrate the proposed functionality of this document, a prototype of both the server and client have been made able for demonstration purposes.
为了说明本文提出的功能，我们制作了一个服务器和客户端的原型，用于演示。
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.
TLD-WHOIS演示服务器位于“companys.mci.net”。服务器包含由Dun和Bradstreet提供的约209000个公司条目的数据库。
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.
服务器通常会在15秒内回复查询。如果服务器缓存了来自上一个查询的响应，则返回时间将显著缩短。
If 10 or more entries are found in the database for the query, only the top 10 will be returned in the response.
如果在数据库中找到10个或更多查询条目，则响应中将只返回前10个条目。
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.
在本演示中，没有关于向数据库提交添加或更改的规定。作者和赞助公司不对该原型提供的数据的准确性负责。如果贵公司未上市，我们深表歉意。
6.2.1 Download Location:
6.2.1 下载位置：
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.
Windows 95/Nt平台的演示客户端可通过以下匿名ftp公开下载：ftp.mci.net/pub/ietf/company/demo.exe，或通过web：ftp://ftp.mci.net/pub/ietf/company/demo.exe 文件大小约为1.9 MB。
6.2.2 Setup Instructions:
6.2.2 安装说明：
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".
a) 从上述站点将客户端安装软件下载到本地32位Windows计算机。客户端安装软件已使用InstallShield中的自解压存档应用程序进行压缩。下载的默认名称为“demo.exe”。
b) Double click on the file through File Explorer or run the program through the START menu.
b) 通过文件资源管理器双击文件或通过“开始”菜单运行程序。
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.
c) 选择“设置”以允许InstallShield将安装演示客户端所需的文件解压缩到临时目录。InstallShield随后将自动启动主应用程序安装程序。
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.
d) 主安装程序将安装演示应用程序文件，并对Windows注册表进行必要的添加。不需要用户操作。
e) Upon completion of installation you will be prompted to run the application or to exit setup.
e) 安装完成后，系统将提示您运行应用程序或退出安装程序。
6.2.3 Paranoia:
6.2.3 偏执狂：
What did you just do to my computer?
你刚才对我的电脑做了什么？
Files Copied:
复制的文件：
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
companyname.exe主程序可执行文件whois.ocx whois模块来自Mabry软件led.ocx led模块来自Mabry软件msvbvm50.dll Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0运行时文件stdole2.tlb Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0运行时文件oleaut32.dll Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0运行时文件olepro32.dll Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0运行时文件comcat.dllMicrosoft Visual Basic 5.0运行时文件asyncfilt.dll Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0运行时文件crtl3d32.dll Installshield控件仅用于安装
Registry Changes:
注册表更改：
Created key under HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT called Who
在HKEY_CLASSES_根目录下创建了名为Who的密钥
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.
此条目用于启用Microsoft Internet Explorer的可插入协议处理程序。该键包含多个子项，列出companyname可执行文件的路径和命令。每当在Internet Explorer的地址行中提交WHO://URL时，可插拔协议hander提供必要的钩子来启动companyname应用程序。
6.2.4.1 Standalone Operation:
6.2.4.1 独立操作：
From the Start Menu, select the Programs \ Companyname \ companyname. Alternatively, it can be launched from Start: Run c:\windows\companyname.exe
从“开始”菜单中，选择程序\Companyname\Companyname。或者，也可以从以下位置启动：运行c:\windows\companyname.exe
Enter the name of the company that you are attempting to locate and press OK.
输入您要查找的公司的名称，然后按OK。
A status box will be displayed while the client is communicating with the server until a response is returned. The possible returns are:
当客户端与服务器通信时，将显示一个状态框，直到返回响应。可能的回报是：
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.
a) “找不到您的请求”的消息框。这意味着在数据库中找不到提交的公司信息。
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.
b) 一个列表框，包含2-10个按分数从高到低排序的公司名称。突出显示其中一个名称并按下启动按钮。该程序将为您的计算机启动默认web浏览器并导航到该网站。
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.
c) 默认web浏览器将启动并导航到站点。这意味着在数据库中只找到一个匹配项，并且该匹配项直接打开，无需用户干预。
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.
在web浏览器的地址行中，输入“WHO://”，后跟要搜索的公司名称，然后按enter键。
Note: Since the company name is entered within the URL space of the browser, it can not contain spaces.
注意：由于公司名称是在浏览器的URL空间中输入的，因此不能包含空格。
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.
如果要发送包含空格的搜索字符串，请输入“WHO://”，但不包含公司信息。应用程序将显示独立模式下所述的对话窗口，供您输入搜索条件。
A status box will be displayed while the client is communicating with the server until a response is returned. The possible returns are:
当客户端与服务器通信时，将显示一个状态框，直到返回响应。可能的回报是：
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.
a) “找不到您的请求”的消息框。这意味着在数据库中找不到提交的公司信息。
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.
b) 一个列表框，包含2-10个按分数从高到低排序的公司名称。突出显示其中一个名称并按下启动按钮。该程序将为您的计算机启动默认web浏览器并导航到该网站。
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.
c) 默认web浏览器将启动并导航到站点。这意味着在数据库中只找到一个匹配项，并且该匹配项直接打开，无需用户干预。
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:
Whois服务器的名称在应用程序中硬编码为“companys.mci.net”。默认配置不需要初始化文件或注册表项。意识到一些测试人员可能在他们的公司系统上有代理服务器，而其他人可能希望针对不同的Whois服务器测试客户机，客户机支持更改默认服务器的机制。要启用服务器自定义，请执行以下步骤：
a) Create a new directory in the root of the C: Drive called "companyname"
a) 在C:驱动器的根目录中创建一个名为“companyname”的新目录
b) Using Notepad or any text editor create a new file called "whois.ini"
b) 使用记事本或任何文本编辑器创建一个名为“whois.ini”的新文件
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.
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.
d) 以回车结束该行。
e) Save the file as a plain text file back to "c:\companyname\whois.ini"
e) 将文件另存为纯文本文件，并返回到“c:\companyname\whois.ini”
6.2.6 Client Limitations:
6.2.6 客户限制：
The demonstration software and database are provided "as is". No warranties are stated or implied. Use at your own risk.
演示软件和数据库按“原样”提供。未声明或暗示任何保证。使用风险自负。
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.
演示客户端仅在32位Intel Windows平台上受支持。它已经在Windows 95、Windows NT 4.0和Windows 98 beta RC0上进行了测试。
Use of the WHO:// URL moniker from within the web browser is supported only under Microsoft Internet Explorer.
只有Microsoft Internet Explorer支持在web浏览器中使用WHO://URL名字对象。
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.
TCP端口43必须通过防火墙清除，以便客户端与服务器通信。如果需要使用代理服务器穿越防火墙，请参阅“客户端自定义”部分。
When using the Address Line entry method within Microsoft Internet Explorer, spaces are not permitted within the search string.
在Microsoft Internet Explorer中使用地址行输入方法时，搜索字符串中不允许有空格。
[ABNF] Crocker, D., and P. Overell, Eds., "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[ABNF]Crocker，D.和P.Overell，编辑，“语法规范的扩充BNF:ABNF”，RFC 2234，1997年11月。
[RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994.
[RFC1591]Postel，J.，“域名系统结构和授权”，RFC15911994年3月。
[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)", RFC 1436, March 1993.
[GOPHER]Anklesaria，F.，McCahill，M.，Lindner，P.，Johnson，D.，John，D.，Torrey，D.，和B.Alberti，“互联网GOPHER协议（分布式文档搜索和检索协议）”，RFC 1436，1993年3月。
[LDAP] Yeong, W., Howes, T., and S. Kille, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol", RFC 1777, March 1995.
[LDAP]Yeong，W.，Howes，T.，和S.Kille，“轻量级目录访问协议”，RFC 17771995年3月。
[RWHOIS] Williamson, S., and M. Kosters, "Referral Whois Protocol (RWhois)", RFC 1714, December 1994.
[RWHOIS]Williamson，S.和M.Kosters，“转诊Whois协议（RWHOIS）”，RFC 17141994年12月。
[URL] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.
[URL]Berners Lee，T.，Masinter，L.，和M.McCahill，“统一资源定位器（URL）”，RFC 17381994年12月。
[WHOIS] Feinler, E., Harrenstien, K., and M. Stahl, "NICNAME/WHOIS", RFC 954, October 1985.
[WHOIS]Feinler，E.，Harrenstien，K.和M.Stahl，“NICNAME/WHOIS”，RFC 954，1985年10月。
[WHOIS++] Deutsch, P., Schoultz, R., Faltstrom, P., and C. Weider, "Architecture of the WHOIS++ service", RFC 1835, August 1995.
[WHOIS++]Deutsch，P.，Schoultz，R.，Faltstrom，P.，和C.Weider，“WHOIS++服务的体系结构”，RFC 18351995年8月。
[X500] Wright, R., Getchell, A., Howes, T., Sataluri, S., Yee, P., and W. Yeong, "Recommendations for an X.500 Production Directory Service", RFC 1803, June 1995.
[X500]Wright，R.，Getchell，A.，Howes，T.，Sataluri，S.，Yee，P.，和W.Yeong，“X.500生产目录服务的建议”，RFC 1803，1995年6月。
[Z39.50] Lynch, C., "Using the Z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol in the Internet Environment", RFC 1729, December 1994.
[Z39.50]Lynch，C.，“在互联网环境中使用Z39.50信息检索协议”，RFC 17291994年12月。
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.
WHOIS协议是互联网上部署最广泛的应用程序之一，建议使用WHOIS协议不会给该协议的传统应用程序带来重大安全风险。通常，服务器应该期望将发送给它们的字符串用作信息检索键，而不是以某种方式执行的函数。如果支持翻译功能的服务器被欺骗，则会产生更大的风险；在这种情况下，可能会为特定公司返回错误的URL。与使用命名约定查找错误页面的可能性一样，防范可能发生的风险的最佳保护措施是仔细注意证书、签名和其他真实性指示信息。
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.
如上文第3.3节所述，本实验要求IANA维护一个查询变更表注册表，并使用该节中指定的两个值初始化注册表。
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.
这份备忘录的灵感来源于过去几年中关于域名系统的现状和使用、使用域名约定的信息定位、向最终用户公开URL以及目录和搜索协议的融合的许多讨论。虽然涉及的人太多，无法尝试列出，但作者希望感谢他们的贡献和评论。
Martin Hamilton, Keith Moore, Tom Thornbury and Ed Trembicki-Guy made important suggestions that have contributed to the revision of this memo.
Martin Hamilton、Keith Moore、Tom Thornbury和Ed Trembicki Guy提出了重要建议，这些建议有助于修订本备忘录。
John C. Klensin MCI Internet Architecture 800 Boylston St, 7th floor Boston, MA 02199 USA
美国马萨诸塞州波士顿Boylston街800号7楼John C.Klesins MCI互联网架构
Phone: +1 617 960 1011
EMail: klensin@mci.net
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
Ted Wolf，Jr.美国新泽西州Sylvan Way Parsippany 3号Dun&Bradstreet电子商务信息服务公司07054
Phone: +1 201 605 6308
EMail: ted@usa.net
Phone: +1 201 605 6308
EMail: ted@usa.net
Gary W. Oglesby MCI Internet Architecture 842 N. Ahoy Dr. Gilbert, AZ 85234 USA
加里W.奥格尔斯比MCI互联网架构842 N.阿霍伊吉尔伯特博士，美国亚利桑那州85234
Phone: +1 415 538 1100
EMail: gary@mci.net
Phone: +1 415 538 1100
EMail: gary@mci.net
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1998年）。版权所有。
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.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
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.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。