Network Working Group M. Mealling
Request for Comments: 3401 VeriSign
Updates: 2276 October 2002
Obsoletes: 2915, 2168
Category: Informational
Network Working Group M. Mealling
Request for Comments: 3401 VeriSign
Updates: 2276 October 2002
Obsoletes: 2915, 2168
Category: Informational
Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS
动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第一部分：综合DDDS
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 (2002). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2002年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
This document specifies the exact documents that make up the complete Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS). DDDS is an abstract algorithm for applying dynamically retrieved string transformation rules to an application-unique string.
本文档指定了构成完整的动态委派发现系统（DDDS）的确切文档。DDDS是一种抽象算法，用于将动态检索的字符串转换规则应用于应用程序唯一的字符串。
This document along with RFC 3402, RFC 3403 and RFC 3404 obsolete RFC 2168 and RFC 2915, as well as updates RFC 2276.
本文件连同RFC 3402、RFC 3403和RFC 3404一起，已过时的RFC 2168和RFC 2915，以及RFC 2276的更新。
This document and the documents that it references are intended for anyone attempting to implement or understand the generic DDDS algorithm, URI Resolution, ENUM telephone number to URI resolution, and the NAPTR DNS resource record. The reader is warned that reading one of the documents in this series without reading the others will probably lead to misunderstandings and interoperability problems.
本文档及其引用的文档适用于试图实现或理解通用DDDS算法、URI解析、枚举电话号码到URI解析以及NAPTR DNS资源记录的任何人。警告读者，阅读本系列中的一个文档而不阅读其他文档可能会导致误解和互操作性问题。
The Dynamic Delegation Discovery System is used to implement lazy binding of strings to data, in order to support dynamically configured delegation systems. The DDDS functions by mapping some unique string to data stored within a DDDS Database by iteratively applying string transformation rules until a terminal condition is reached. This document defines the entire DDDS by listing the documents that make up the complete specification at this time.
动态委托发现系统用于实现字符串到数据的延迟绑定，以支持动态配置的委托系统。DDDS通过迭代应用字符串转换规则将某些唯一字符串映射到DDDS数据库中存储的数据，直到达到终端条件为止。本文档通过列出此时构成完整规范的文档来定义整个DDD。
This document along with RFC 3402, RFC 3403 and RFC 3404 obsoletes RFC 2168 [8] and RFC 2915 [6], as well as updates RFC 2276 [5]. This document will be updated and or obsoleted when changes are made to the DDDS specifications. Thus the reader is strongly encouraged to check the IETF RFC repository for any documents that obsoletes or updates this one.
本文件以及RFC 3402、RFC 3403和RFC 3404废除了RFC 2168[8]和RFC 2915[6]，并更新了RFC 2276[5]。本文件将在DDDS规范变更时更新和/或作废。因此，强烈建议读者检查IETF RFC存储库中是否有任何废弃或更新此存储库的文档。
The DDDS algorithm is defined by RFC 3402 [1]. That document defines the following DDDS concepts:
DDDS算法由RFC 3402[1]定义。该文件定义了以下DDDS概念：
o The basic DDDS vocabulary.
o 基本DDDS词汇表。
o The algorithm.
o 算法。
o The requirements on applications using the algorithm.
o 对使用该算法的应用程序的要求。
o The requirements on databases that store DDDS rules.
o 对存储DDDS规则的数据库的要求。
RFC 3402 is the actual DDDS Algorithm specification. But the specification by itself is useless without some additional document that defines how and why the algorithm is used. These documents are called Applications and do not actually make up part of the DDDS core specification. Applications require databases in which to store their Rules. These databases are called DDDS Databases and are usually specified in separate documents. But again, these Database specifications are not included in the DDDS core specification itself.
RFC 3402是实际的DDDS算法规范。但是，如果没有一些额外的文档来定义如何以及为什么使用该算法，规范本身是无用的。这些文档称为应用程序，实际上并不构成DDDS核心规范的一部分。应用程序需要存储其规则的数据库。这些数据库称为DDDS数据库，通常在单独的文档中指定。但是，这些数据库规范并没有包含在DDDS核心规范中。
No implementation can begin without an Application specification, as this is what provides the concrete instantiation details for the DDDS Algorithm. Without them the DDDS is nothing more than a general algorithm. Application documents define the following:
没有应用程序规范，任何实现都无法开始，因为这为DDDS算法提供了具体的实例化细节。没有它们，DDDS只不过是一种通用算法。申请文件定义如下：
o the Application Unique String (the thing the delegation rules act on).
o 应用程序唯一字符串（委托规则作用的对象）。
o the First Well Known Rule (the Rule that says where the process starts).
o 第一条众所周知的规则（说明流程从何处开始的规则）。
o the list of valid Databases (you can't just use any Database).
o 有效数据库的列表（不能只使用任何数据库）。
o the final expected output.
o 最终的预期产出。
Some sample Applications are documented in:
一些示例应用程序记录在：
o "E.164 number and DNS" (RFC 2916) [7]. This Application uses the DDDS to map a telephone number to service endpoints such as SIP or email.
o “E.164编号和DNS”（RFC 2916）[7]。此应用程序使用DDD将电话号码映射到服务端点，如SIP或电子邮件。
o "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Resolution Application" (RFC 3404) [3]. This Application uses the DDDS to resolve any URI to a set of endpoints or 'resolvers' that can give additional information about the URI independent of its particular URI scheme.
o “动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第四部分：统一资源标识符（URI）解析应用程序”（RFC 3404）[3]。此应用程序使用DDD将任何URI解析为一组端点或“解析程序”，这些端点或“解析程序”可以独立于特定的URI方案提供有关URI的附加信息。
Any DDDS Application must use some type of DDDS Database. Database documents define the following:
任何DDDS应用程序都必须使用某种类型的DDDS数据库。数据库文档定义了以下内容：
o the general spec for how the Database works.
o 数据库工作方式的通用规范。
o formats for Keys.
o 键的格式。
o formats for Rules.
o 规则的格式。
o Key lookup process.
o 密钥查找过程。
o rule insertion procedures.
o 规则插入程序。
o collision avoidance measures.
o 避碰措施。
A Database cannot be used on its own; there must be at least one Application that uses it. Multiple Databases and Applications are defined, and some Databases will support multiple Applications. However, not every Application uses each Database, and vice versa. Thus, compliance is defined by the combination of a Database and Application specification.
数据库不能单独使用；必须至少有一个应用程序使用它。定义了多个数据库和应用程序，有些数据库将支持多个应用程序。但是，并非每个应用程序都使用每个数据库，反之亦然。因此，法规遵从性是由数据库和应用程序规范的组合来定义的。
One sample Database specification is documented in:
一个示例数据库规范记录在：
o "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database" (RFC 3402) [1]. (This document is the official specification for the NAPTR DNS Resource Record.)
o “动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第三部分：域名系统（DNS）数据库”（RFC 3402）[1]。（本文档是NAPTR DNS资源记录的官方规范。）
Any known security issues that arise from the use of algorithms and databases must be specified in the respective specifications. They must be completely and fully described. It is not required that the database and algorithms be secure or that it be free from risks, but
由于使用算法和数据库而产生的任何已知安全问题必须在各自的规范中指定。必须对它们进行完整和充分的描述。数据库和算法不要求安全，也不要求没有风险，但
that the known risks be identified. Publication of a new database type or algorithm does require a security review, and the security considerations section should be subject to continuing evaluation. Additional security considerations should be addressed by publishing revised versions of the database and algorithm specifications.
识别已知的风险。发布新的数据库类型或算法确实需要进行安全审查，安全注意事项部分应接受持续评估。应通过发布数据库和算法规范的修订版本来解决其他安全问题。
While this document itself does not create any new requirements for the IANA, the documents in this series create many varied requirements. The IANA Considerations sections in those documents should be reviewed by the IANA to determine the complete set of new registries and requirements. Any new algorithms, databases or applications should take great care in what they require the IANA to do in the future.
虽然本文档本身没有为IANA创建任何新的需求，但本系列中的文档创建了许多不同的需求。IANA应审查这些文件中的IANA注意事项部分，以确定整套新登记册和要求。任何新的算法、数据库或应用程序都应该非常注意它们在未来需要IANA做什么。
References
工具书类
[1] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, October 2002.
[1] Mealling，M.，“动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第二部分：算法”，RFC3402，2002年10月。
[2] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three: The Doman Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403, October 2002.
[2] Mealling，M.“动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第三部分：域名系统（DNS）数据库”，RFC3403，2002年10月。
[3] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Resolution Application", RFC 3404, October 2002.
[3] Mealling，M.“动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第四部分：统一资源标识符（URI）解析应用”，RFC3404，2002年10月。
[4] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures", RFC 3405, October 2002.
[4] Mealling，M.“动态委托发现系统（DDDS）第五部分：URI.ARPA分配程序”，RFC 3405，2002年10月。
[5] Sollins, K., "Architectural Principles of Uniform Resource Name Resolution", RFC 2276, January 1998.
[5] Sollins，K.，“统一资源名称解析的体系结构原则”，RFC 2276，1998年1月。
[6] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "The Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) DNS Resource Record", RFC 2915, August 2000.
[6] Mealling，M.和R.Daniel，“命名机构指针（NAPTR）DNS资源记录”，RFC 2915，2000年8月。
[7] Faltstrom, P., "E.164 number and DNS", RFC 2916, September 2000.
[7] Faltstrom，P.，“E.164号码和域名系统”，RFC 29162000年9月。
[8] Daniel, R. and M. Mealling, "Resolution of Uniform Resource Identifiers using the Domain Name System", RFC 2168, June 1997.
[8] Daniel，R.和M.Mealling，“使用域名系统解析统一资源标识符”，RFC 2168，1997年6月。
Author's Address
作者地址
Michael Mealling VeriSign 21345 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 US
Michael Mealling VeriSign 21345 Ridgetop Circle Sterling，弗吉尼亚州，美国20166
EMail: michael@neonym.net
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com
EMail: michael@neonym.net
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2002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。