Network Working Group S. Josefsson
Request for Comments: 4501 SJD
Category: Standards Track May 2006
Network Working Group S. Josefsson
Request for Comments: 4501 SJD
Category: Standards Track May 2006
Domain Name System Uniform Resource Identifiers
域名系统统一资源标识符
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
Abstract
摘要
This document defines Uniform Resource Identifiers for Domain Name System resources.
本文档定义了域名系统资源的统一资源标识符。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Usage Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. DNS URI Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Copying Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Usage Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. DNS URI Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Copying Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Domain Name System (DNS) [1] [2] is a widely deployed system used, among other things, to translate host names into IP addresses. Several protocols use Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) to refer to data. By defining a URI scheme for DNS data, the gap between these two worlds is bridged. The DNS URI scheme defined here can be used to reference any data stored in the DNS.
域名系统（DNS）[1][2]是一个广泛部署的系统，用于将主机名转换为IP地址。有几种协议使用统一资源标识符（URI）来引用数据。通过为DNS数据定义URI方案，这两个世界之间的差距得以弥合。此处定义的DNS URI方案可用于引用存储在DNS中的任何数据。
Data browsers may support DNS URIs by forming DNS queries and rendering DNS responses using HTML [12], which is similar to what is commonly done for FTP [6] resources. Applications that are Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [7] aware may tag DNS data retrieved using this scheme with the text/dns or application/dns types as specified in [15].
数据浏览器可以通过使用HTML[12]形成DNS查询和呈现DNS响应来支持DNS URI，这类似于通常对FTP[6]资源执行的操作。支持多用途Internet邮件扩展（MIME）[7]的应用程序可以使用[15]中指定的文本/DNS或应用程序/DNS类型标记使用此方案检索的DNS数据。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[3]中所述进行解释。
Refer to section 1 of [5] for an in-depth discussion of URI classifications. In particular, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the distinction between "name" and "locator". This section describes how the DNS URI scheme is intended to be used and outlines future work that may be required to use URIs with the DNS for some applications.
有关URI分类的深入讨论，请参阅[5]的第1节。特别地，假定读者熟悉“名称”和“定位器”之间的区别。本节介绍如何使用DNS URI方案，并概述在某些应用程序中将URI与DNS一起使用可能需要的未来工作。
The URI scheme described in this document focuses on the data stored in the DNS. As such, there is no provision to specify any of the fields in the actual DNS protocol. This is intended so that the URI may be used even in situations where the DNS protocol is not used directly. Two examples for this are zone file editors and DNS-related configuration files, which may use this URI scheme to identify data. The application would not use the DNS protocol to resolve the URIs.
本文档中描述的URI方案主要关注存储在DNS中的数据。因此，没有规定指定实际DNS协议中的任何字段。这样做的目的是，即使在不直接使用DNS协议的情况下，也可以使用URI。这方面的两个示例是区域文件编辑器和与DNS相关的配置文件，它们可能使用此URI方案来标识数据。应用程序不会使用DNS协议解析URI。
A limitation of this design is that it does not accommodate all protocol parameters within the DNS protocol. It is expected that, for certain applications, a more detailed URI syntax that maps more closely to the DNS protocol may be required. However, such a URI definition is not included in this document. This document specifies a URI that is primarily intended to name DNS resources, but it can also be used to locate said resources for simple, yet common, applications.
这种设计的一个限制是，它不能容纳DNS协议中的所有协议参数。预计对于某些应用程序，可能需要更详细的URI语法，以便更接近DNS协议。但是，本文档中不包括这样的URI定义。本文档指定了一个URI，该URI主要用于命名DNS资源，但也可用于为简单但常见的应用程序定位所述资源。
This section contains the registration template for the DNS URI scheme in accordance with [11].
本节包含符合[11]的DNS URI方案的注册模板。
URL scheme name: "dns".
URL方案名称：“dns”。
URL scheme syntax: A DNS URI designates a DNS resource record set, referenced by domain name, class, type, and, optionally, the authority. The DNS URI follows the generic syntax from RFC 3986 [5] and is described using ABNF [4]. Strings are not case sensitive, and free insertion of linear-white-space is not permitted.
URL方案语法：DNS URI指定DNS资源记录集，由域名、类、类型以及（可选）权限引用。DNS URI遵循RFC 3986[5]中的通用语法，并使用ABNF[4]进行描述。字符串不区分大小写，不允许自由插入线性空白。
dnsurl = "dns:" [ "//" dnsauthority "/" ]
dnsname ["?" dnsquery]
dnsurl = "dns:" [ "//" dnsauthority "/" ]
dnsname ["?" dnsquery]
dnsauthority = host [ ":" port ] ; See RFC 3986 for the ; definition of "host" and "port".
dnsauthority=主机[“：”端口]；有关详细信息，请参见RFC 3986；“主机”和“端口”的定义。
dnsname = *pchar
; See RFC 3986 for the
; definition of "pchar".
dnsname = *pchar
; See RFC 3986 for the
; definition of "pchar".
; The "dnsname" field may be a
; "relative" or "absolute" name,
; as per RFC 1034, section 3.1.
; The "dnsname" field may be a
; "relative" or "absolute" name,
; as per RFC 1034, section 3.1.
; Note further that an empty
; "dnsname" value is to be
; interpreted as the root itself.
; See below on relative dnsnames.
; Note further that an empty
; "dnsname" value is to be
; interpreted as the root itself.
; See below on relative dnsnames.
dnsquery = dnsqueryelement [";" dnsquery]
dnsquery=dnsqueryelement[“；”dnsquery]
dnsqueryelement = ( "CLASS=" dnsclassval ) / ( "TYPE=" dnstypeval )
; Each clause MUST NOT be used more
; than once.
dnsqueryelement = ( "CLASS=" dnsclassval ) / ( "TYPE=" dnstypeval )
; Each clause MUST NOT be used more
; than once.
dnsclassval = 1*digit / "IN" / "CH" /
<Any IANA registered DNS class mnemonic>
dnsclassval = 1*digit / "IN" / "CH" /
<Any IANA registered DNS class mnemonic>
dnstypeval = 1*digit / "A" / "NS" / "MD" /
<Any IANA registered DNS type mnemonic>
dnstypeval = 1*digit / "A" / "NS" / "MD" /
<Any IANA registered DNS type mnemonic>
Unless specified in the URI, the authority ("dnsauthority") is assumed to be locally known, the class ("dnsclassval") to be the Internet class ("IN"), and the type ("dnstypeval") to be the Address
除非URI中另有规定，否则授权（“dnsauthority”）假定为本地已知，类别（“dnsclassval”）为互联网类别（“in”），类型（“dnstypeval”）为地址
type ("A"). These default values match the typical use of DNS: to look up addresses for host names.
类型（“A”）。这些默认值与DNS的典型用法相匹配：查找主机名的地址。
A dnsquery element MUST NOT contain more than one occurrence of the "CLASS" and "TYPE" fields. For example, both "dns: example?TYPE=A;TYPE=TXT" and "dns:example?TYPE=A;TYPE=A" are invalid. However, the fields may occur in any order, so that both "dns: example?TYPE=A;CLASS=IN" and "dns:example?CLASS=IN;TYPE=A" are valid.
dnsquery元素不能包含多个“类”和“类型”字段。例如，“dns:example？TYPE=A；TYPE=TXT”和“dns:example？TYPE=A；TYPE=A”都无效。但是，这些字段可能以任何顺序出现，因此“dns:example？TYPE=A；CLASS=in”和“dns:example？CLASS=in；TYPE=A”都是有效的。
The digit representation of types and classes MAY be used when a mnemonic for the corresponding value is not well known (e.g., for newly introduced types or classes), but it SHOULD NOT be used for the types or classes defined in the DNS specification [2]. All implementations MUST recognize the mnemonics defined in [2].
当对应值的助记符不为人所知时（例如，对于新引入的类型或类），可使用类型和类的数字表示，但不应将其用于DNS规范中定义的类型或类[2]。所有实现必须识别[2]中定义的助记符。
To avoid ambiguity, relative "dnsname" values (i.e., those not ending with ".") are assumed to be relative to the root. For example, "dns: host.example" and "dns:host.example." both refer to the same owner name; namely, "host.example.". Further, an empty "dnsname" value is considered a degenerative form of a relative name, which refers to the root (".").
为了避免歧义，相对的“dnsname”值（即不以“.”结尾的值）被假定为相对于根。例如，“dns:host.example”和“dns:host.example.”都是指相同的所有者名称；也就是说，“host.example”。此外，空的“dnsname”值被认为是相对名称的退化形式，它引用根（“.”）。
To resolve a DNS URI using the DNS protocol [2], a query is created, using as input the dnsname, dnsclassval, and dnstypeval from the URI string (or the appropriate default values). If an authority ("dnsauthority") is given in the URI string, this indicates the server that should receive the DNS query. Otherwise, the default DNS server should receive it.
要使用DNS协议[2]解析DNS URI，将创建一个查询，使用URI字符串中的dnsname、dnsclassval和dnstypeval（或适当的默认值）作为输入。如果URI字符串中给出了权限（“dnsauthority”），则表示应接收DNS查询的服务器。否则，默认DNS服务器将接收它。
Note that DNS URIs could be resolved by other protocols than the DNS protocol, or by using the DNS protocol in some other way than as described above (e.g., multicast DNS). DNS URIs do not require the use of the DNS protocol, although it is expected to be the typical usage. The previous paragraph only illustrates how DNS URIs are resolved using the DNS protocol.
注意，DNS uri可以通过除DNS协议之外的其他协议来解析，或者通过以除上述方式以外的其他方式使用DNS协议来解析（例如，多播DNS）。DNS URI不需要使用DNS协议，尽管这是预期的典型用法。上一段仅说明如何使用DNS协议解析DNS URI。
A client MAY want to check that it understands the dnsclassval and dnstypeval before sending a query, so that it will be able to understand the response. However, a typical example of a client that would not need to check dnsclassval and dnstypeval would be a proxy that would just treat the received answer as opaque data.
在发送查询之前，客户端可能需要检查是否理解dnsclassval和dnstypeval，以便能够理解响应。但是，不需要检查dnsclassval和dnstypeval的客户机的典型示例是一个代理，它只将收到的答案视为不透明数据。
Character encoding considerations: Characters are encoded as per RFC 3986 [5]. The DNS protocol does not consider character sets; it simply transports opaque data. In particular, the "dnsname" field of the DNS URI is to be considered an internationalized domain name (IDN) unaware domain name slot, in the terminology of RFC 3940 [14]. The considerations for "host" and "port" are discussed in [5].
字符编码注意事项：字符按照RFC 3986[5]进行编码。DNS协议不考虑字符集；它只是传输不透明的数据。特别是，DNS URI的“dnsname”字段将被视为国际化域名（IDN）不知道域名槽，用RFC 3940的术语表示[14]。[5]中讨论了“主机”和“端口”的注意事项。
Because "." is used as the DNS label separator, an escaping mechanism is required to encode a "." that is part of a DNS label. The escaping mechanism is described in section 5.1 of RFC 1035 [2]. For example, a DNS label of "exa.mple" can be escaped as "exa\.mple" or "exa\046mple". However, the URI specification disallows the "\" character from occurring directly in URIs, so it must be escaped as "%5c". The single DNS label "exa.mple" is thus encoded as "exa% 5c.mple". The same mechanism can be used to encode other characters, for example, "?" and ";". Note that "." and "%2e" are equivalent within dnsname and are interchangeable.
由于“.”用作DNS标签分隔符，因此需要一种转义机制来编码作为DNS标签一部分的“.”。RFC 1035[2]第5.1节描述了逃逸机制。例如，“exa.mple”的DNS标签可以转义为“exa\.mple”或“exa\046mple”。但是，URI规范不允许“\”字符直接出现在URI中，因此必须将其转义为“%5c”。因此，单个DNS标签“exa.mple”编码为“exa%5c.mple”。同样的机制可用于编码其他字符，例如“？”和“；”。请注意，“.”和“%2e”在dnsname中是等效的，可以互换。
This URI specification allows all possible domain names to be encoded, provided the encoding rules are observed per [5]). However, certain applications may restrict the set of valid characters. Care should be taken so that invalid characters in these contexts do not cause harm. In particular, host names in the DNS have certain restrictions. It is up to these applications to limit this subset; this URI scheme places no restrictions.
此URI规范允许对所有可能的域名进行编码，前提是按照[5]遵守编码规则。但是，某些应用程序可能会限制有效字符集。应注意使这些上下文中的无效字符不会造成伤害。特别是，DNS中的主机名有一定的限制。由这些应用程序限制该子集；此URI方案没有任何限制。
Intended usage: Whenever it is useful for DNS resources to be referenced by protocol-independent identifiers. Often, this occurs when the data is more important than the access method. Since software in general has coped without this so far, it is not anticipated to be implemented widely, nor migrated to by existing systems, but specific solutions (especially security-related) may find this appropriate.
预期用途：只要DNS资源被协议独立标识符引用是有用的。通常，当数据比访问方法更重要时，就会发生这种情况。由于到目前为止，软件一般都没有这一点，因此预计它不会被广泛实施，也不会被现有系统迁移到，但特定的解决方案（尤其是与安全相关的）可能会认为这是合适的。
Applications and/or protocols that use this scheme include Security-related software, DNS administration tools, and network programming packages.
使用此方案的应用程序和/或协议包括安全相关软件、DNS管理工具和网络编程包。
Interoperability considerations: The data referenced by this URI scheme might be transferred by protocols that are not URI aware (such as the DNS protocol). This is not anticipated to have any serious interoperability impact.
互操作性注意事项：此URI方案引用的数据可能由不知道URI的协议（如DNS协议）传输。预计这不会对互操作性产生任何严重影响。
Interoperability problems may occur if one entity understands a new DNS class/type mnemonic that another entity does not. This is an interoperability problem for DNS software in general, although it is not a major practical problem for current DNS deployments, as the DNS types and classes are fairly static. To guarantee interoperability, implementations can use integers for all mnemonics not defined in [2].
如果一个实体理解另一个实体不理解的新DNS类/类型助记符，则可能会出现互操作性问题。这通常是DNS软件的互操作性问题，尽管对于当前的DNS部署来说这不是一个主要的实际问题，因为DNS类型和类是相当静态的。为了保证互操作性，实现可以对[2]中未定义的所有助记符使用整数。
Interaction with Binary Labels [10] or other extended label types has not been analyzed. However, binary labels appear to be infrequently used in practice.
尚未分析与二进制标签[10]或其他扩展标签类型的交互。然而，二进制标签在实践中似乎很少使用。
Contact: simon@josefsson.org
联系人：simon@josefsson.org
Author/Change Controller: simon@josefsson.org
Author/Change Controller: simon@josefsson.org
A DNS URI is of the following general form. This is intended to illustrate, not define, the scheme:
DNS URI的一般形式如下。这是为了说明而不是定义方案：
dns:[//authority/]domain[?CLASS=class;TYPE=type]
dns:[//authority/]domain[?CLASS=class;TYPE=type]
The following illustrates a URI for a resource with the absolute name "www.example.org.", the Internet (IN) class, and the Address (A) type:
以下说明了绝对名称为“www.example.org.”、Internet（IN）类和地址（a）类型的资源的URI：
dns:www.example.org.?clAsS=IN;tYpE=A
dns:www.example.org.?clAsS=IN;tYpE=A
Since the default class is IN and the default type is A, the same resource can be identified by a shorter URI using a relative name:
由于默认类位于中且默认类型为，因此可以使用相对名称通过较短的URI来标识相同的资源：
dns:www.example.org
域名：www.example.org
The following illustrates a URI for a resource with the name "simon.example.org" for the CERT type in the Internet (IN) class:
以下说明了Internet（in）类中证书类型的名为“simon.example.org”的资源的URI：
dns:simon.example.org?type=CERT
dns:simon.example.org？type=CERT
The following illustrates a URI for a resource with the name "ftp.example.org", in the Internet (IN) class and the address (A) type, but from the DNS authority 192.168.1.1 instead of the default authority:
以下说明了Internet（in）类中名为“ftp.example.org”且地址（a）类型为的资源的URI，但来自DNS授权192.168.1.1而非默认授权：
dns://192.168.1.1/ftp.example.org?type=A
dns://192.168.1.1/ftp.example.org?type=A
The following illustrates various escaping techniques. The owner name would be "world wide web.example\.domain.org", where "\." denotes the character "." as part of a label, and "." denotes the label separator:
下面说明了各种转义技术。所有者名称应为“world wide web.example\.domain.org”，其中“\”表示作为标签一部分的字符“.”，而“.”表示标签分隔符：
dns:world%20wide%20web.example%5c.domain.org?TYPE=TXT
dns:world%20wide%20web.example%5c.domain.org？TYPE=TXT
The following illustrates a strange but valid DNS resource:
以下说明了一个奇怪但有效的DNS资源：
dns://fw.example.org/*.%20%00.example?type=TXT
dns://fw.example.org/*.%20%00.example?type=TXT
Thanks to Stuart Cheshire, Donald Eastlake, Pasi Eronen, Bill Fenner, Ted Hardie, Russ Housley, Peter Koch, Andrew Main, Larry Masinter, Michael Mealling, Steve Mattson, Marcos Sanz, Jason Sloderbeck, Paul Vixie, Sam Weiler, and Bert Wijnen for comments and suggestions. The author acknowledges RSA Laboratories for supporting the work that led to this document.
感谢斯图亚特·柴郡、唐纳德·伊斯特莱克、帕西·埃隆、比尔·芬纳、特德·哈迪、罗斯·霍斯利、彼得·科赫、安德鲁·梅因、拉里·马斯特、迈克尔·米林、史蒂夫·马特森、马科斯·桑兹、杰森·斯洛德贝克、保罗·维克西、萨姆·韦勒和伯特·维恩的评论和建议。作者感谢RSA Laboratories对本文档的支持。
If a DNS URI references domains in the Internet DNS environment, both the URI itself and the information referenced by the URI is public information. If a DNS URI is used within an "internal" DNS environment, both the DNS URI and the data referenced should be handled using the same considerations that apply to DNS data in the "internal" environment.
如果DNS URI引用Internet DNS环境中的域，则URI本身和URI引用的信息都是公共信息。如果在“内部”DNS环境中使用DNS URI，则应使用适用于“内部”环境中DNS数据的相同注意事项来处理DNS URI和引用的数据。
If information referenced by DNS URIs are used to make security decisions (such data includes, but is not limited to, certificates stored in the DNS [9]), implementations may need to employ security techniques such as Secure DNS [16], CMS [13], or OpenPGP [8], to protect the data during transport. How to implement this will depend on the usage scenario, and it is not up to this URI scheme to define how the data referenced by DNS URIs should be protected.
如果DNS URI引用的信息用于做出安全决策（此类数据包括但不限于DNS中存储的证书[9]），则实现可能需要采用安全技术，如安全DNS[16]、CMS[13]或OpenPGP[8]，以在传输期间保护数据。如何实现这一点将取决于使用场景，而不是由此URI方案来定义DNS URI引用的数据应如何保护。
If applications accept unknown dnsqueryelement values in a URI (e.g., URI "dns:www.example.org?secret=value") without knowing what the "secret=value" dnsqueryelement means, a covert channel used to "leak" information may be enabled. The implications of covert channels should be understood by applications that accept unknown dnsqueryelement values.
如果应用程序在不知道“secret=value”dnsqueryelement的含义的情况下接受URI中未知的dnsqueryelement值（例如URI“dns:www.example.org？secret=value”），则可启用用于“泄漏”信息的隐蔽通道。接受未知dnsqueryelement值的应用程序应该理解隐蔽通道的含义。
Slight variations, such as the difference between upper and lower case in the dnsname field, can be used as a covert channel to leak information.
细微的变化，例如dnsname字段中大写和小写之间的差异，可以用作泄漏信息的隐蔽通道。
The IANA has registered the DNS URI scheme, using the template in section 3, in accordance with RFC 2717 [11].
IANA已根据RFC 2717[11]，使用第3节中的模板注册了DNS URI方案。
Copyright (c) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Simon Josefsson
版权所有（c）2000、2001、2002、2003、2004、2005、2006 Simon Josefsson
Regarding this entire document or any portion of it, the author makes no guarantees and is not responsible for any damage resulting from its use. The author grants irrevocable permission to anyone to use, modify, and distribute it in any way that does not diminish the rights of anyone else to use, modify, and distribute it, provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain misleading author or version information. Derivative works need not be licensed under similar terms.
对于本文件的全部或任何部分，作者不作任何保证，也不对因使用本文件而造成的任何损坏负责。作者向任何人授予不可撤销的使用、修改和分发许可，允许其以任何方式使用、修改和分发，但不得削弱任何其他人使用、修改和分发的权利，前提是重新分发的衍生作品不包含误导性的作者或版本信息。衍生作品无需根据类似条款获得许可。
[1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[1] Mockapetris，P.，“域名-概念和设施”，STD 13，RFC 1034，1987年11月。
[2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[2] Mockapetris，P.，“域名-实现和规范”，STD 13，RFC 10351987年11月。
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[4] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
[4] Crocker，D.和P.Overell，“语法规范的扩充BNF:ABNF”，RFC 42342005年10月。
[5] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.
[5] Berners Lee，T.，Fielding，R.，和L.Masinter，“统一资源标识符（URI）：通用语法”，STD 66，RFC 3986，2005年1月。
[6] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985.
[6] Postel，J.和J.Reynolds，“文件传输协议”，标准9，RFC 959，1985年10月。
[7] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.
[7] Freed，N.，Klensin，J.，和J.Postel，“多用途互联网邮件扩展（MIME）第四部分：注册程序”，BCP 13，RFC 2048，1996年11月。
[8] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., and R. Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 2440, November 1998.
[8] Callas，J.，Donnerhacke，L.，Finney，H.，和R.Thayer，“OpenPGP消息格式”，RFC2440，1998年11月。
[9] Eastlake 3rd, D. and O. Gudmundsson, "Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2538, March 1999.
[9] Eastlake 3rd，D.和O.Gudmundsson，“在域名系统（DNS）中存储证书”，RFC 2538，1999年3月。
[10] Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", RFC 2673, August 1999.
[10] Crawford，M.，“域名系统中的二进制标签”，RFC 2673，1999年8月。
[11] Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names", BCP 35, RFC 2717, November 1999.
[11] Petke，R.和I.King，“URL方案名称的注册程序”，BCP 35，RFC 2717，1999年11月。
[12] Connolly, D. and L. Masinter, "The 'text/html' Media Type", RFC 2854, June 2000.
[12] Connolly，D.和L.Masinter，“文本/html”媒体类型”，RFC 28542000年6月。
[13] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 3852, July 2004.
[13] Housley，R.，“加密消息语法（CMS）”，RFC3852，2004年7月。
[14] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.
[14] Faltstrom，P.，Hoffman，P.，和A.Costello，“应用程序中的域名国际化（IDNA）”，RFC 34902003年3月。
[15] Josefsson, S., "Domain Name System Media Types", RFC 4027, April 2005.
[15] Josefsson，S.，“域名系统媒体类型”，RFC4027，2005年4月。
[16] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March 2005.
[16] Arends，R.，Austein，R.，Larson，M.，Massey，D.，和S.Rose，“DNS安全介绍和要求”，RFC 4033，2005年3月。
Author's Address
作者地址
Simon Josefsson SJD
西蒙·约瑟夫森SJD
EMail: simon@josefsson.org
EMail: simon@josefsson.org
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2006年）。
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，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。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和BCP 79。
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
RFC编辑器功能的资金由IETF行政支持活动（IASA）提供。