Network Working Group N. Popp
Request for Comments: 2972 RealNames Corporation
Category: Informational M. Mealling
Network Solutions
L. Masinter
AT&T Labs
K. Sollins
MIT
October 2000
Network Working Group N. Popp
Request for Comments: 2972 RealNames Corporation
Category: Informational M. Mealling
Network Solutions
L. Masinter
AT&T Labs
K. Sollins
MIT
October 2000
Context and Goals for Common Name Resolution
通用名称解析的上下文和目标
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2000年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
This document establishes the context and goals for a Common Name Resolution Protocol. It defines the terminology used concerning a "Common Name" and how one might be "resolved", and establishes the distinction between "resolution" and more elaborate search mechanisms. It establishes some expected contexts for use of Common Name Resolution, and the criteria for evaluating a successful protocol. It also analyzes the various motivations that would cause services to provide Common Name resolution for both public, private and commercial use.
本文档为通用名称解析协议建立了上下文和目标。它定义了与“通用名称”有关的术语以及如何“解析”，并确定了“解析”与更复杂的搜索机制之间的区别。它为公共名称解析的使用建立了一些预期的上下文，以及评估成功协议的标准。它还分析了导致服务为公共、私人和商业用途提供通用名称解析的各种动机。
This document is intended as input to the formation of a Common Name
Resolution Protocol working group. Please send any comments to
cnrp-ietf@lists.internic.net. To review the mail archives, see
<http://lists.internic.net/archives/cnrp-ietf.html>
This document is intended as input to the formation of a Common Name
Resolution Protocol working group. Please send any comments to
cnrp-ietf@lists.internic.net. To review the mail archives, see
<http://lists.internic.net/archives/cnrp-ietf.html>
People often refer to things in the real world by a common name or phrase, e.g., a trade name, company name, or a book title. These names are sometimes easier for people to remember and enter than URLs; many people consider URLs hard to remember or type. Furthermore, because of the limited syntax of URLs, companies and individuals are finding that the ones that might be most reasonable
人们通常用一个共同的名字或短语来指代现实世界中的事物，例如商品名、公司名或书名。这些名字有时比URL更容易记忆和输入；很多人认为URL很难记住或键入。此外，由于URL的语法有限，公司和个人都发现可能是最合理的
for their resources are already being used elsewhere and therefore unavailable. Common names are not URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers) in that they lack the syntactic structure imposed by URIs; furthermore, unlike URNs, there is no requirement of uniqueness or persistence of the association between a common name and a resource. These common names are expected to be used primarily by humans (as opposed to machine agents).
因为他们的资源已经在其他地方使用，因此无法获得。通用名称不是URI（统一资源标识符），因为它们缺少URI强加的语法结构；此外，与URN不同，公共名称和资源之间的关联不需要唯一性或持久性。这些通用名称预计主要由人类使用（与机器代理相反）。
Common name "resolution" is a process of mapping from common names to Internet resources; a Common Name Resolution Protocol (CNRP) is a network protocol used in such a process.
通用名称“解析”是一个从通用名称映射到Internet资源的过程；通用名称解析协议（CNRP）是在这种过程中使用的网络协议。
A useful analogy for understanding the purpose and scope of common names, and CNRP, are everyday (human language) dictionaries. These cover a given language (namespace) -- perhaps a spoken language, or some specific subset (e.g., technical terms, etc). Some dictionaries give definitions, others give translations (e.g., to other languages). Different entities publish dictionaries that cover the same language -- e.g., Larousse and Collins can both publish French-language dictionaries. Thus, the dictionary publisher is the analog to the resolution service provider -- the service can provide a value-add and build up name recognition for itself, but does not impede other entities from providing definitions for precisely the same strings in the language.
日常（人类语言）词典是理解通用名称和CNRP的目的和范围的一个有用的类比。它们涵盖了一种给定的语言（名称空间）——可能是一种口语，或者某些特定的子集（例如，技术术语等）。一些词典给出定义，另一些词典给出翻译（如其他语言）。不同的实体发布涵盖相同语言的词典——例如，拉鲁斯和柯林斯都可以发布法语词典。因此，字典发布者类似于解析服务提供者——该服务可以为自己提供增值和建立名称识别，但不会妨碍其他实体为语言中完全相同的字符串提供定义。
Services are arising that offer a mapping from common names to Internet resources (e.g., as identified by a URI). These services often resolve common name categories such as company names, trade names, or common keywords. Thus, such a resolution service may operate in one or a small number of categories or domains, or may expect the client to limit the resolution scope to a limited number of categories or domains. For example, the phrase "Internet Engineering Task Force" is a common name in the "organization" category, as is "Moby Dick" in the book category. A single common name may be associated with different data records, and more than one resolution service is expected to exist. Any common name may be used in any resolution service.
出现的服务提供了从通用名称到Internet资源的映射（例如，由URI标识）。这些服务通常解析常见名称类别，如公司名称、商品名称或常见关键字。因此，这样的解析服务可以在一个或少量类别或域中操作，或者可以期望客户端将解析范围限制在有限数量的类别或域中。例如，短语“互联网工程任务组”是“组织”类别中的一个常见名称，就像书籍类别中的“白鲸”一样。一个通用名称可能与不同的数据记录相关联，并且应该存在多个解析服务。任何解析服务中都可以使用任何通用名称。
Two classes of clients of such services are being built: browser improvements and web accessible front-end services. Browser enhancements modify the "open" or "address" field of a browser so that a common name can be entered instead of a URL. Internet search sites integrate common name resolution services as a complement to search. In both cases, these may be clients of back-end resolution services. In the browser case, the browser must talk to a service that will resolve the common name. The search sites are accessed via
这类服务的两类客户端正在构建中：浏览器改进和可访问web的前端服务。浏览器增强功能修改浏览器的“打开”或“地址”字段，以便可以输入通用名称而不是URL。Internet搜索站点集成通用名称解析服务，作为搜索的补充。在这两种情况下，它们都可能是后端解析服务的客户端。在浏览器的情况下，浏览器必须与将解析公共名称的服务对话。搜索网站可通过以下方式访问：
a browser. In some cases, the search site may also be the back-end resolution service, but in others, the search site is a front-end to a collection of back-end services.
浏览器。在某些情况下，搜索站点也可能是后端解析服务，但在其他情况下，搜索站点是后端服务集合的前端。
This effort is about the creation of a protocol for client applications to communicate with common name resolution services, as exemplified in both the browser enhancement and search site paradigms. Although the protocol's primary function is resolution, it is intended to address the issues of internationalization, authentication and privacy as well. Name resolution services are not generic search services and thus do not need to provide complex Boolean query, relevance ranking or similar capabilities. The protocol is expected to be a simple, minimal interoperable core. Mechanisms for extension will be provided, so that additional capabilities can be added later.
这项工作是为客户端应用程序创建一个协议，以便与通用名称解析服务通信，如浏览器增强和搜索站点范例所示。尽管该协议的主要功能是解析，但其目的是解决国际化、身份验证和隐私问题。名称解析服务不是通用搜索服务，因此不需要提供复杂的布尔查询、相关性排序或类似功能。该协议预期是一个简单的、可互操作性最低的核心。将提供扩展机制，以便以后可以添加其他功能。
Several other issues, while of importance to the deployment of common name resolution services, are outside of the resolution protocol itself and are not in the initial scope of the proposed effort. These include discovery and selection of resolution service providers, administration of resolution services, name registration, name ownership, and methods for creating, identifying or insuring unique common names.
其他几个问题虽然对公共名称解析服务的部署很重要，但不在解析协议本身的范围内，也不在拟议工作的初始范围内。这些包括发现和选择解析服务提供商、管理解析服务、名称注册、名称所有权以及创建、识别或确保唯一通用名称的方法。
The key deliverable is a protocol for parameterized resolution. "Resolution" is defined as the retrieval of data associated (a priori) with descriptors that match the input request. "Parameterized" means the ability to have a multi-component descriptor both as part of the query and the response. These descriptors are attribute-value pairs. They are not required to provide unique identification, therefore 0 or more records may be returned to meet a specific input query. The protocol will define:
关键可交付成果是参数化解决方案的协议。“分辨率”定义为检索与匹配输入请求的描述符相关的（先验）数据。“参数化”意味着能够将多组件描述符作为查询和响应的一部分。这些描述符是属性值对。它们不需要提供唯一标识，因此可以返回0个或多个记录以满足特定的输入查询。该协议将定义：
- client requests/server responses to identify the specific parameters accepted and/or required on input requests
- 客户端请求/服务器响应，以确定输入请求中接受和/或需要的特定参数
- client request/server responses to identify properties to be returned in the result set
- 用于标识要在结果集中返回的属性的客户端请求/服务器响应
- expression of parameterized input query
- 参数化输入查询的表达式
- expression of result sets
- 结果集的表示
- standard expression of error conditions
- 误差条件的标准表达式
To avoid creating a general search protocol with unbounded complexity, and to keep the protocol simple enough so that different implementations will have similar behavior, the resolution protocol should be limited to sub-string matches against parameter values. To support full internationalization, UTF-8 encoding of strings and sub-strings is preferred.
为了避免创建具有无限复杂度的通用搜索协议，并保持协议足够简单，以使不同的实现具有相似的行为，解析协议应限制为针对参数值的子字符串匹配。为了支持完全国际化，字符串和子字符串的UTF-8编码是首选。
In addition, the working group should define one sample service based on this protocol -- the resolution of so-called "common names", or resolution of non-unique, registered strings to resource descriptions.
此外，工作组应该基于该协议定义一个示例服务——解析所谓的“公共名称”，或者将非唯一的注册字符串解析为资源描述。
The goal of CNRP is to create a lightweight search protocol with a simple query interface, with a focus on making the common case of substring search with a single result most efficient. In addition, efficient support for keyed value search is important. Each key is a named meta property of the resource (e.g. category, language, geographical region.). Some of these properties could be standardized (e.g. the common name property). The goal is to support partial specification of query parameters and even partial and fuzzy matches on names. CNRP is intended to be simpler than LDAP for simple applications.
CNRP的目标是创建一个具有简单查询接口的轻量级搜索协议，重点是使具有单个结果的子字符串搜索最为有效。此外，对键控值搜索的有效支持也很重要。每个键都是资源的命名元属性（例如类别、语言、地理区域）。其中一些属性可以标准化（例如，通用名称属性）。其目标是支持查询参数的部分指定，甚至支持名称的部分和模糊匹配。对于简单的应用程序，CNRP比LDAP更简单。
Besides simplicity, the CNRP protocol should be consistent with efficient implementation of a simple and intuitive user interface. The emphasis on the common name as the common denominator to find a wide range of resources reduces the UI to its minimal expression (the user types a few words in a text box and presses enter).
除了简单性，CNRP协议还应与简单直观的用户界面的高效实现保持一致。强调公共名称作为查找广泛资源的公共分母，将UI简化为其最小表达式（用户在文本框中键入几个单词，然后按enter键）。
CNRP should provide interoperability with multiple common name databases (section 4 presents many examples of such databases). The query interface should be extensible and customizable to the specific needs of a specific type of resolution service. However, the need for interoperability across databases and resolution services combined with the need to ensure the scalability of search (across millions of names from multiple providers) have lead this group to consider the explicit requirement of supporting categories in CNRP. This requirement is discussed further in section 5.
CNRP应提供与多个通用名称数据库的互操作性（第4节介绍了此类数据库的许多示例）。查询接口应该是可扩展的，并且可以根据特定类型的解析服务的特定需求进行定制。然而，跨数据库和分辨率服务的需要与确保搜索的可扩展性（跨多个供应商的数百万名）的需要导致了该组考虑在CNRP支持分类的明确要求。第5节将进一步讨论此要求。
Commercial companies have already developed and deployed common name
resolution services such as RealNames (http://www.realnames.com) and
NetWords (http://www.netword.com). These commercial implementations
are mainly focused on trade names, such as company names, brands and
Commercial companies have already developed and deployed common name
resolution services such as RealNames (http://www.realnames.com) and
NetWords (http://www.netword.com). These commercial implementations
are mainly focused on trade names, such as company names, brands and
trademarks. These services constitute a concrete example of common name namespaces implementation and are useful to understand the scope of the CNRP effort.
商标。这些服务构成了通用名称空间实现的具体示例，有助于理解CNRP工作的范围。
CNRP is also directly targeted at directory service providers. CNRP is relevant to these services to increase their reach through integration into larger Web sites such as the search portals. For example, IAtlas has developed a directory service for businesses that it distributes through its Web site and Inktomi. IAtlas could immediately leverage CNRP to distribute their service through their external distribution partners.
CNRP还直接针对目录服务提供商。CNRP与这些服务相关，通过集成到更大的网站（如搜索门户）来增加其覆盖范围。例如，IAtlas为企业开发了一个目录服务，通过其网站和Inktomi分发。IAtlas可以立即利用CNRP通过其外部分销合作伙伴分销其服务。
Directory services must not be confused with search engines. Directory services use highly structured information to identify a resource. This information is external to the actual resource and is called metadata. In contrast, search engines mainly rely on the content of the resource (e.g. the text of a Web page).
目录服务不能与搜索引擎混淆。目录服务使用高度结构化的信息来标识资源。此信息位于实际资源之外，称为元数据。相比之下，搜索引擎主要依赖于资源的内容（例如网页的文本）。
CNRP plays well with directory services that present a critical piece of information about the resource in the form of a textual identifier, a title or a terse description (the common name). Numerous examples come instantly to mind: company names, book titles, people names, songs, ISBNs, and social security numbers. In all cases, the common name is the natural property for users to lookup the resource. The common name is always simple and intuitive: it has no syntax, it is multilingual, memorable and can often be guessed.
CNRP与目录服务配合得很好，目录服务以文本标识符、标题或简短描述（通用名称）的形式提供有关资源的关键信息。许多例子立刻浮现在脑海中：公司名称、书名、人名、歌曲、ISBN和社会保险号码。在所有情况下，公共名称都是用户查找资源的自然属性。通用名称总是简单直观的：它没有语法，它是多语言的，令人难忘的，并且经常可以猜测。
The following list is intended to put in prospective the wide range of applications for CNRP:
以下列表旨在为CNRP提供广泛的应用前景：
- Business directories (SEC, NASDAQ, E*Trade, .). The resource is company information (address, products, SEC filings, stock quotes, etc.). The common name is the company name.
- 业务目录（SEC、纳斯达克、E*Trade等）。资源是公司信息（地址、产品、SEC文件、股票报价等）。通用名称是公司名称。
- White pages (BigFoot, WhoWhere, Switchboard, ...): The resource a person (current address, telephone numbers, email addresses, employer, ...). The common name is a last name, a telephone number or an email address.
- 白页（大脚怪、whohere、总机等）：一个人的资源（当前地址、电话号码、电子邮件地址、雇主等）。通用名是姓氏、电话号码或电子邮件地址。
- E-commerce directories: The resource is a product for sale (car, house, furniture, actually almost any type of consumption item). The common name is a brand name or a description.
- 电子商务目录：资源是一种销售产品（汽车、房子、家具，实际上几乎是任何类型的消费品）。通用名称是一个品牌名称或描述。
- Publishing directories: The resource is one of many things: a book, a poem, a CD, an MP3 download. The common name is an ISBN, a song title, an artist's name. The common name is typically the title of a publication.
- 出版目录：资源是很多东西之一：一本书，一首诗，一张CD，一个MP3下载。常见的名字是ISBN，一首歌的名字，一个艺术家的名字。通用名称通常是出版物的标题。
- Entertainment directories: The resource is an event (a movie, a concert, a TV show). The common name is the name or a description for the event, the movie title, a rock band name, a show.
- 娱乐目录：资源是一个事件（电影、音乐会、电视节目）。通用名称是事件的名称或描述、电影标题、摇滚乐队名称、演出。
- Yellow pages services: Here again, the resource can be very diverse: a house for sale, a restaurant, a car dealership or other type of establishment or service that can be found in the traditional yellow pages. The common name can be a street address, the name of a business, or a description.
- 黄页服务：在这里，资源可以非常多样化：出售房屋、餐厅、汽车经销商或其他类型的机构或服务，可以在传统的黄页中找到。通用名称可以是街道地址、企业名称或描述。
- News feeds: The resource is a press article. The common name is the headline.
- 新闻提要：资源是一篇新闻文章。通用名称是标题。
- Vertical directories: the DNS TLD categories, the ISO country codes.
- 垂直目录：DNS TLD类别、ISO国家代码。
A set of common names within a category (books, news, businesses, etc.) is called a common name "namespace". The term "namespace" only refers to the set of names. It does not encompass the bindings or associations between a name and data about the name (such as a resource, identified by a URI). Such bindings might be created and maintained by a common name resolution services. Resolution services may create binding that are relevant for the type of service that they offer.
类别（书籍、新闻、企业等）中的一组通用名称称为通用名称“名称空间”。术语“名称空间”仅指名称集。它不包含名称和有关名称的数据（例如由URI标识的资源）之间的绑定或关联。此类绑定可能由通用名称解析服务创建和维护。解析服务可以创建与其提供的服务类型相关的绑定。
It is useful to distinguish between "private" and "public" namespaces. A namespace is private if owned by an authority that controls the right to assign the names. A namespace is private even if the right to assign those names is held by a neutral party.
区分“私有”和“公共”名称空间很有用。如果名称空间由控制名称分配权的机构拥有，则名称空间是私有的。名称空间是私有的，即使分配这些名称的权利由中立方持有。
A namespace is public when not controlled by any single authority or resolution provider. Assignment of the names is distributed. However, it is reasonable to expect that people who assign names will tend to pick names that have a minimum of collisions. For some of these namespaces, there will even be mechanisms to discourage duplicate assignment, but all of them are inherently ambiguous. Public namespaces are not controlled. Examples of public namespaces are:
命名空间在不受任何单一授权机构或解析提供程序控制时是公共的。名称的分配是分布式的。然而，合理的预期是，分配姓名的人倾向于选择冲突最少的姓名。对于其中一些名称空间，甚至会有阻止重复分配的机制，但它们都具有内在的模糊性。公共名称空间不受控制。公共名称空间的示例包括：
- Titles of books, movies, songs, poems, short stories, plays, or compilations - Place names - Street names - People's names
- 书籍、电影、歌曲、诗歌、短篇小说、戏剧或汇编的标题-地名-街道名-人名
Because these namespaces are unbounded and open to any types of name assignment, they will have scalability problems. To support these namespaces, CNRP must provide at least one standard mechanism to filter a large list of related results. A filtering mechanism must allow the user to narrow the search further down to a smaller result set, because the common name alone may not be enough.
由于这些名称空间是无限的，并且可以接受任何类型的名称分配，因此它们将存在可伸缩性问题。为了支持这些名称空间，CNRP必须至少提供一种标准机制来过滤大量相关结果。过滤机制必须允许用户将搜索范围进一步缩小到较小的结果集，因为仅使用通用名称可能不够。
One possible search filter is related to the notion of categories. Because categories create a structure to organize named resources, large resolution services are likely to support some sort of categorization system (whether flat or hierarchical). Although categories constitute an efficient search filter, defining standard vocabularies for common name categories is beyond the scope of the protocol design. The protocol design for CNRP should not require a standardized taxonomy for categories in order to be effective. For example, CNRP resolution could use free-form keywords; the end-user would use these keywords as part of the query. Each service would then be responsible for mapping the keywords to zero, one or many categories in their own classification. The keywords would remain classification independent and different services could use different categorization schemes without compromising interoperability. It would then be up to the service to provide its own mapping. For example, let us assume that one namespace is resolving names under the category: "Hobby & Interests > collecting > antique > books". Assume that a second namespace has decided to organize the names of similar resources under the classification: "Arts > Humanities > Literature > History of Books and Printing > antiques". Although the two taxonomies are different, a CNRP query specifying category_keywords = "antique books" would allow each service to identify the appropriate category. This mechanism may ensure that the two result lists are small and coherent enough to be merged into one unique result set. It is important to note that this approach would work whether the classification is hierarchical or not.
一个可能的搜索过滤器与类别的概念有关。因为类别创建了一个组织命名资源的结构，所以大型解析服务可能支持某种分类系统（无论是平面的还是层次的）。虽然类别构成了一个有效的搜索过滤器，但为通用名称类别定义标准词汇表超出了协议设计的范围。为了有效，CNRP的协议设计不应要求对类别进行标准化分类。例如，CNRP解析可以使用自由形式的关键字；最终用户将使用这些关键字作为查询的一部分。然后，每个服务将负责将关键字映射到零、一个或多个类别。关键字将保持分类独立，不同的服务可以使用不同的分类方案，而不会影响互操作性。然后由服务提供自己的映射。例如，让我们假设一个名称空间正在解析类别下的名称：“爱好和兴趣>收藏>古董>书籍”。假设第二个名称空间已决定将类似资源的名称组织在分类下：“艺术>人文>文学>书籍和印刷史>古董”。尽管这两种分类法不同，但指定category_keywords=“antique books”的CNRP查询将允许每个服务识别适当的类别。这种机制可以确保两个结果列表足够小和连贯，可以合并到一个唯一的结果集中。重要的是要注意，无论分类是否分层，这种方法都会起作用。
Although this suggestion has merit, it is fair to say that it remains unproven. In particular, it is unclear that the category_keywords property would guarantee full interoperability across resolution services. In any case, free form keywords for specifying categories is just one of several possible ways of limiting the scope of a query. Although the specific mechanisms are not agreed upon a this time, CNRP will provide at least one standard mechanism for limiting scope.
虽然这一建议有其优点，但可以公平地说，它尚未得到证实。特别是，目前尚不清楚category_keywords属性是否能保证整个解析服务的完全互操作性。在任何情况下，用于指定类别的自由格式关键字只是限制查询范围的几种可能方法之一。虽然此次未就具体机制达成一致，但CNRP将提供至少一个标准机制来限制范围。
We anticipate two main categories of distributors for common namespaces. The first category is made of the Web portals such as search engines (Yahoo, MSN, Lycos, Infoseek, AltaVista, ...). A
对于通用名称空间，我们预计有两大类分发服务器。第一类是门户网站，如搜索引擎（雅虎、MSN、Lycos、Infoseek、AltaVista等）。A.
common name resolution service will typically address only one very specialized aspect of search (company names or book titles or people names, ..). This type of focused lookup service is a useful complement to generic search. Hence, portals are likely to integrate several types of common name services. CNRP solves the difficult problem of integrating multiple external independent services within one Web site. Today, the lack of standardization in performance requirements and query interface leads to loose integration (co-branded pages hosted on virtual domains) or maintenance problems (periodical data dumps). CNRP is aimed at solving some of these issues. CNRP facilitates the deployment of embedded services by creating a common interface to all common name services.
通用名称解析服务通常只处理搜索的一个非常特殊的方面（公司名称、书名或人名等）。这种类型的重点查找服务是对一般搜索的有益补充。因此，门户可能会集成几种类型的通用名称服务。CNRP解决了在一个网站中集成多个外部独立服务的难题。如今，性能要求和查询接口缺乏标准化，导致松散集成（虚拟域上托管的联名页面）或维护问题（定期数据转储）。CNRP旨在解决其中一些问题。CNRP通过为所有公共名称服务创建一个公共接口来促进嵌入式服务的部署。
The second category of distributors is made of the Web browser companies. Netscape's smart browsing (http://home.netscape.com/communicator/v4.5/index.html#smart) and Microsoft's IE5 auto-search features (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Ie/Features/AutoSearch/default.asp) demonstrate that the two dominant Web browser companies understand the value of navigation and search from the command line of the browser. It is very clear how this command line could be used as the main user interface to common name resolution services through CNRP. In many ways, it is actually the most natural user interface to resolve a common name. For this strategic component of the browser's user interface to remain truly open to all common name resolution services, it is key that there exists a standard resolution protocol (and a service discovery mechanism). CNRP will give users access to the largest selection of services and providers and the ability to select a specific resolution service over another. To preserve the user from proprietary implementations, the existence of CNRP is a prerequisite.
第二类分销商由网络浏览器公司组成。网景的智能浏览(http://home.netscape.com/communicator/v4.5/index.html#smart)以及微软的IE5自动搜索功能(http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Ie/Features/AutoSearch/default.asp)演示两个主要的Web浏览器公司从浏览器的命令行了解导航和搜索的价值。很清楚，这个命令行如何通过CNRP作为公共名称解析服务的主要用户界面。在许多方面，它实际上是解析通用名称的最自然的用户界面。要使浏览器用户界面的这一战略性组件真正对所有通用名称解析服务开放，关键在于存在标准解析协议（和服务发现机制）。CNRP将使用户能够访问最多选择的服务和提供商，并能够选择特定的解决方案服务而不是其他解决方案服务。为了保护用户不受专有实现的影响，CNRP的存在是一个先决条件。
The following discussion of possible business models for common name namespaces is intended to prove that they are commercially viable, hence that CNRP will be used in the market place. This section presents 5 different cost recovery models.
以下对通用名称空间可能的商业模式的讨论旨在证明它们在商业上是可行的，因此CNRP将在市场上使用。本节介绍5种不同的成本回收模式。
a. Licensing the lookup service
a. 授权查找服务
In such model, the owner of the database owner licenses the data and the resolution service to a portal. This is a proven model. For example, Looksmart (a directory service) recently licensed all their data to MSN. Another possibility is to sell access to the service directly to the user. For some vertical type of common
在这种模型中，数据库所有者的所有者将数据和解析服务许可给门户。这是一个行之有效的模式。例如，Looksmart（目录服务）最近将其所有数据授权给MSN。另一种可能是直接向用户出售对服务的访问权。对于一些常见的垂直类型
names service (e.g. patent search), it is also conceivable that a specific type of users (e.g., lawyers) would be willing to pay for accessing a precise resolution service.
名称服务（如专利搜索），也可以想象特定类型的用户（如律师）愿意为访问精确解析服务付费。
b. Sharing revenue generated by banner advertising
b. 分享横幅广告产生的收入
In this model, the database owner licenses his infrastructure (data and resolution service) to a portal. Prepaid banner ads are placed on the result pages. The revenue is shared between the resolution service provider and the portal that hosts the pages.
在此模型中，数据库所有者将其基础结构（数据和解析服务）许可给门户。预付横幅广告放置在结果页面上。收入由解决方案服务提供商和托管页面的门户共享。
c. Selling the names (charge the customer a fee for subscribing a name)
c. 出售姓名（向客户收取订阅姓名的费用）
This is a proven business model as well (NSI, GOTO, RealNames, Netword, for of the name has a large user reach (search engines sell keywords for instance).
这也是一种经过验证的商业模式（NSI、GOTO、RealNames、Netword等），因为该名称的用户范围很大（例如，搜索引擎出售关键字）。
d. Value added service
d. 增值服务
Another model is to build a common name as a free added value service in order to make a core service more compelling to users. For example, Amazon.com could create a common name namespace of book titles and make it freely available to its users. Amazon.com would not make any money from the resolution service per se. However, it would indirectly since the service would help the users find hence buy more books from Amazon.com.
另一种模式是建立一个公共名称作为免费增值服务，以使核心服务对用户更有吸引力。例如，Amazon.com可以创建书名的通用名称空间，并使其用户可以免费使用。Amazon.com本身不会从解析服务中赚钱。然而，它会间接地，因为该服务将帮助用户从Amazon.com找到并购买更多的书籍。
e. "Some-strings-attached" free names
e. “附加某些字符串”自由名称
A namespace may give users a name for free in exchange for something else (capturing the user's profile that can be sold to merchants, capturing the user's email address in order to send advertising emails, etc.).
名称空间可以免费为用户提供一个名称，以换取其他内容（捕获可出售给商家的用户配置文件，捕获用户的电子邮件地址以发送广告电子邮件等）。
This document describes the goals of a system for multi-valued Internet identifiers. This document does not discuss resolution; thus questions of secure or authenticated resolution mechanisms are out of scope. It does not address means of validating the integrity or authenticating the source or provenance of Common Names. Issues regarding intellectual property rights associated with objects identified by the various Common Names are also beyond the scope of this document, as are questions about rights to the databases that might be used to construct resolvers.
本文档描述了多值Internet标识符系统的目标。本文件不讨论决议；因此，安全或认证的解决机制问题超出了范围。它不涉及验证通用名称的完整性或验证其来源或出处的方法。与各种通用名称标识的对象相关的知识产权问题也超出了本文件的范围，关于可能用于构建解析器的数据库的权利问题也超出了本文件的范围。
Larry Masinter AT&T Labs 75 Willow Road Menlo Park, CA 94025
加利福尼亚州门罗公园柳树路75号Larry Masinter AT&T实验室，邮编94025
Phone: +1 650 463 7059
EMail: LMM@acm.org
http://larry.masinter.net
Phone: +1 650 463 7059
EMail: LMM@acm.org
http://larry.masinter.net
Michael Mealling Network Solutions 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon, VA 22070
迈克尔·米林网络解决方案，弗吉尼亚州赫恩登市亨特马公园大道505号，邮编22070
Phone: (770) 935-5492 Fax: (703) 742-9552 EMail: michaelm@netsol.com
电话：（770）935-5492传真：（703）742-9552电子邮件：michaelm@netsol.com
Nicolas Popp RealNames Corporation 2 Circle Star Way San Carlos, CA 94070-1350
Nicolas Popp RealNames Corporation 2 Circle Star Way San Carlos，加利福尼亚州94070-1350
Phone: 1-650-298-5549 EMail: nico@realnames.com
电话：1-650-298-5549电子邮件：nico@realnames.com
Karen Sollins MIT Laboratory for Computer Science 545 Technology Sq. Cambridge, MA 02139
卡伦·索林麻省理工学院计算机科学实验室，马萨诸塞州剑桥545技术广场，邮编：02139
Phone: +1 617 253 6006
EMail: sollins@lcs.mit.edu
Phone: +1 617 253 6006
EMail: sollins@lcs.mit.edu
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2000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。
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。