<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<reference anchor="I-D.wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains-03">
   <front>
      <title>Safe(r) Limited Domains</title>
      <author initials="W." surname="Kumari" fullname="Warren Kumari">
         <organization>Google, LLC</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="A." surname="Alston" fullname="Andrew Alston">
         <organization>Liquid Intelligent Technologies</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="E." surname="Vyncke" fullname="Éric Vyncke">
         <organization>Cisco</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="S." surname="Krishnan" fullname="Suresh Krishnan">
         <organization>Cisco</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="D. E." surname="Eastlake" fullname="Donald E. Eastlake 3rd">
         <organization>Independent</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="January" day="20" year="2025" />
      <abstract>
	 <t>   There is a trend towards documents describing protocols that are only
   intended to be used within &quot;limited domains&quot;.  These documents often
   do not clearly define how the boundary of the limited domain is
   implemented and enforced, or require that operators of these limited
   domains //perfectly// add filters at all of the boundary nodes of the
   domain to protect the rest of the global Internet from these
   protocols and vice-versa.

   This document discusses the concepts of &quot;fail-open&quot; versus &quot;fail-
   closed&quot; protocols for limited domains.  It further specifies how to
   use layer-2 protocol identification mechanisms for designing limited
   domain protocols that are safer to deploy.

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-wkumari-intarea-safe-limited-domains-03" />
   
</reference>
