Publishing organization boundaries in the DNS
draft-levine-orgboundary-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2013-06-09
Replaced by draft-levine-dbound-dns
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. Levine
Internet-Draft                                      Taughannock Networks
Intended status: Informational                             June 09, 2013
Expires: December 11, 2013

             Publishing organization boundaries in the DNS
                      draft-levine-orgboundary-00

Abstract

   Often, the organization that manages a subtree in the DNS is is
   different from the one that manages the tree above it.  Rather than
   describing a particular design, we describe an architecture to
   publish in the DNS the boundaries between organizations that can be
   adapted to various policy models.

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
   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 December 11, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.

Levine                  Expires December 11, 2013               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              Spamtrap taxonomy                  June 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Design issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Lookup process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  DNS records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   Often, the organization that manages a subtree in the DNS is is
   different from the one that manages the tree above it.  Many
   applications use information about such boundaries to implement
   security policies.  For example, web browsers use them to limit the
   names where web cookies can be set.  SSL certificate services use
   them to determine the responsible party for the domain in a signing
   request.  Some mail security applications such as DMARC use them to
   locate an organization's policy records.

   The most widely used source of boundary data is the Public Suffix
   List, maintained by the Mozilla Foundation.  It is distributed as a
   text file available at a well known URL, with some libraries to parse
   and search it.  While it has worked adequately, it has a variety of
   issues.  Downloading the file is relatively slow, and adequate
   performance requires that each application cache a copy of the file.
   The file is in a unique format that requires a specialized parser and
   lookup routines.  The file is managed by a third party rather than
   directly by the domain owners, which may or may not be considered a
   problem.

2.  Design issues

   This design can adapt to a variety of design points.

   Policies can be published by the domains themselves, or by a third
   party.  In the former case, each domain asserts its own boundary
   policies.  In the latter case, the third party makes the assertions,
   which may or may not agree with what the domains themselves would
   want.

Levine                  Expires December 11, 2013               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              Spamtrap taxonomy                  June 2013

   Multiple levels of delegation may be implemented, which is different
   from irregular boundaries.  For example, ca, on.ca, and toronto.on.ca
   are irregular boundaries, because they're all handled by CIRA.
   CentralNIC's uk.com would be a second level of delegation below
   Verisign's com.

   Different sets of boundary rules can be published for different
Show full document text