Top-level Domains for Private Internets
draft-arends-private-use-tld-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2020-05-02
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)
Independent Submission                                         R. Arends
Internet-Draft                                                  E. Lewis
Intended status: Best Current Practice                             ICANN
Expires: November 3, 2020                                   May 02, 2020

                Top-level Domains for Private Internets
                    draft-arends-private-use-tld-01

Abstract

   There are no defined private-use namespaces in the Domain Name System
   (DNS).  For a domain name to be considered private-use, it needs to
   be future-proof in that its top-level domain will never be delegated
   from the root zone.  The lack of a private-use namespace has led to
   locally configured namespaces with a top-level domain that is not
   future proof.

   The DNS needs an equivalent of the facilities provided by BCP 5 (RFC
   1918) for private internets, i.e. a range of short, semantic-free
   top-level domains that can be used in private internets without the
   risk of being globally delegated from the root zone.

   The ISO 3166 standard is used for the definition of eligible
   designations for country-code top-level Domains.  This standard is
   maintained by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency.  The ISO 3166 standard
   includes a set of user-assigned code elements that can be used by
   those who need to add further names to their local applications.

   Because of the rules set out by ISO in their standard, it is
   extremely unlikely that these user-assigned code elements would ever
   conflict with delegations in the root zone under current practices.
   This document explicitly reserves these code elements to be safely
   used as top-level domains for private DNS resolution.

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
   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

Arends & Lewis          Expires November 3, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              ISO3166-User-TLD                    May 2020

   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 November 3, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 and Two-Letter Top-Level Domains . . .   4
   3.  ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 User-assigned Code Elements  . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Examples of Current Uses of the User-assigned Code Elements.    5
   5.  Private-use top-level Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   In private networks where a hostname has no utility in the global
   namespace, it is convenient to have a private-use namespace.  Such
   deployments could theoretically use sub-domains of a domain
   registered for the specific hosting entity, though not all such
   configurations have such a domain available.  When the hostname is
   solely used in a private network, it is not necessary that it
   resolves globally.

   Another situation is where applications use identifiers that are
   similar in appearance to domain names, and may be interpreted by
   software as domain names, but are not intended to use the global DNS
   resolution service.  Using a private-use namespace helps guard
   against conflicts with the global DNS resolution system.

Arends & Lewis          Expires November 3, 2020                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              ISO3166-User-TLD                    May 2020

   Note that a private-use namespace is not a subset of a registered
Show full document text