Problem Statement for the Reservation of Top-Level Domains in the Special-Use Domain Names Registry
draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-03-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                           J. Abley
Internet-Draft                                                 Dyn, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                                   P. Koch
Expires: September 9, 2016                                         DENIC
                                                               A. Durand
                                                                   ICANN
                                                               W. Kumari
                                                                  Google
                                                          March 08, 2016

   Problem Statement for the Reservation of Top-Level Domains in the
                   Special-Use Domain Names Registry
              draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

Abstract

   The dominant protocol for name resolution on the Internet is the
   Domain Name System (DNS).  However, other protocols exist that are
   fundamentally different from the DNS, and may or may not share the
   same namespace.

   When an end-user triggers resolution of a name on a system which
   supports multiple, different protocols (or resolution mechanisms) for
   name resolution, it is desirable that the protocol used is
   unambiguous, and that requests intended for one protocol are not
   inadvertently answered using another.

   [RFC6761] introduced a framework by which, under certain
   circumstances, a particular domain name could be acknowledged as
   being special.  This framework has been used twice to reserve top-
   level domains (.local and .onion) that should not be used within the
   DNS to avoid the possibility of namespace collisions in parallel use
   of non-DNS name resolution protocols.

   Various challenges have become apparent with this application of the
   guidance provided in [RFC6761].  This document aims to document those
   challenges in the form of a problem statement, to facilitate further
   discussion of potential solutions.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute

Abley, et al.           Expires September 9, 2016               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     Top-Level/Special-Use Domain Names         March 2016

   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  RFC6761 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Architectural considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Technical considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Organizational considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Non-exhaustive list of external organizational
           considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  IETF Internal considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.2.1.  Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.2.2.  Technical criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.2.3.  Name evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.2.4.  The ICANN process to evaluate names . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix A.  Editorial Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
Show full document text