IT. Expert System.

RFC (draft standard status)

WHOIS Protocol Specification. L. Daigle. September 2004. RFC3912. (Format: TXT=7770 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC954, RFC812) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD) (DOI: 10.17487 / RFC3912)


 Network Working Group                                          L. Daigle
Request for Comments: 3912                                VeriSign, Inc.
Obsoletes: 954, 812                                       September 2004
Category: Standards Track
                      WHOIS Protocol Specification
Status of this Memo
   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.
Copyright Notice
   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
   This document updates the specification of the WHOIS protocol,
   thereby obsoleting RFC 954.  The update is intended to remove the
   material from RFC 954 that does not have to do with the on-the-wire
   protocol, and is no longer applicable in today's Internet.  This
   document does not attempt to change or update the protocol per se, or
   document other uses of the protocol that have come into existence
   since the publication of RFC 954.
1.  Introduction
   WHOIS is a TCP-based transaction-oriented query/response protocol
   that is widely used to provide information services to Internet
   users.  While originally used to provide "white pages" services and
   information about registered domain names, current deployments cover
   a much broader range of information services.  The protocol delivers
   its content in a human-readable format.  This document updates the
   specification of the WHOIS protocol, thereby obsoleting RFC 954 [1].
   For historic reasons, WHOIS lacks many of the protocol design
   attributes, for example internationalisation and strong security,
   that would be expected from any recently-designed IETF protocol.
   This document does not attempt to rectify any of those shortcomings.
   Instead, this memo documents the WHOIS protocol as it is.  In some
   areas, this document does document particular well known shortcomings
   of the WHOIS protocol.  The discussion of possible protocols to carry
   out these functions, with updated capabilities to address the
Daigle                      Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3912              WHOIS Protocol Specification        September 2004
   shortcomings, is being addressed in a separate IETF activity (CRISP
   Working Group).
2.  Protocol Specification
   A WHOIS server listens on TCP port 43 for requests from WHOIS
   clients.  The WHOIS client makes a text request to the WHOIS server,
   then the WHOIS server replies with text content.  All requests are
   terminated with ASCII CR and then ASCII LF.  The response might
   contain more than one line of text, so the presence of ASCII CR or
   ASCII LF characters does not indicate the end of the response.  The
   WHOIS server closes its connection as soon as the output is finished.
   The closed TCP connection is the indication to the client that the
   response has been received.
3.  Protocol Example
   If one places a request of the WHOIS server located at whois.nic.mil
   for information about "Smith", the packets on the wire will look
   like:
   client                           server at whois.nic.mil
   open TCP   ---- (SYN) ------------------------------>
              <---- (SYN+ACK) -------------------------
   send query ---- "Smith<CR><LF>" -------------------->
   get answer <---- "Info about Smith<CR><LF>" ---------
              <---- "More info about Smith<CR><LF>" ----
   close      <---- (FIN) ------------------------------
              ----- (FIN) ----------------------------->
4.  Internationalisation
   The WHOIS protocol has not been internationalised.  The WHOIS
   protocol has no mechanism for indicating the character set in use.
   Originally, the predominant text encoding in use was US-ASCII.  In
   practice, some WHOIS servers, particularly those outside the USA,
   might be using some other character set either for requests, replies,
   or both.  This inability to predict or express text encoding has
   adversely impacted the interoperability (and, therefore, usefulness)
   of the WHOIS protocol.
5.  Security Considerations
   The WHOIS protocol has no provisions for strong security.  WHOIS
   lacks mechanisms for access control, integrity, and confidentiality.
   Accordingly, WHOIS-based services should only be used for information
   which is non-sensitive and intended to be accessible to everyone.
Daigle                      Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3912              WHOIS Protocol Specification        September 2004
   The absence of such security mechanisms means this protocol would not
   normally be acceptable to the IETF at the time of this writing.
6.  Acknowledgements
   Ran Atkinson created an earlier version of this document.  Ken
   Harrenstien, Mary Stahl, and Elizabeth Feinler were the authors of
   the original Draft Standard for WHOIS.
7.  References
7.1.  Normative References
   [1]  Harrenstien, K., Stahl, M., and E. Feinler, "NICNAME/WHOIS", RFC
        954, October 1985.
Author's Address
   Leslie Daigle
   VeriSign, Inc.
   21355 Ridgetop Circle
   Dulles, VA  20166
   US
   EMail: leslie@verisignlabs.com; leslie@thinkingcat.com
Daigle                      Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3912              WHOIS Protocol Specification        September 2004
Full Copyright Statement
   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and at www.rfc-editor.org, and except as set
   forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/S HE
   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.
Intellectual Property
   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 ISOC's procedures with respect to rights in ISOC Documents can
   be found in BCP 78 and 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.
   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.
Acknowledgement
   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.
Daigle                      Standards Track                     [Page 4] 


Content

Android Reference

Java basics

Java Enterprise Edition (EE)

Java Standard Edition (SE)

SQL

HTML

PHP

CSS

Java Script

MYSQL

JQUERY

VBS

REGEX

C

C++

C#

Design patterns

RFC (standard status)

RFC (proposed standard status)

RFC (draft standard status)

RFC (informational status)

RFC (experimental status)

RFC (best current practice status)

RFC (historic status)

RFC (unknown status)

IT dictionary

License.
All information of this service is derived from the free sources and is provided solely in the form of quotations. This service provides information and interfaces solely for the familiarization (not ownership) and under the "as is" condition.
Copyright 2016 © ELTASK.COM. All rights reserved.
Site is optimized for mobile devices.
Downloads: 2196 / . Delta: 0.10972 с