Domain Names, A Case for Clarifying
draft-lewis-domain-names-06

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-03-27
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html 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                                          E. Lewis
Internet-Draft                                                     ICANN
Expires: September 27, 2017                         Date: March 27, 2017
Intended Status: unknown

                  Domain Names, A Case for Clarifying
                    draft-lewis-domain-names-06.txt

Abstract

This document researches the origin of the term Domain Name in the
Request for Comments document series, documenting that the term did
not originate in the documents defining the Domain Name System.  The
document describes how the term came to be used, how the DNS followed,
and surveys the diverse ways Domain Names have been interpreted within
various protocols over time.  The purpose of this is to give a solid
foundation for work on Domain Names across all protocols making use of
Domain Names.

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 September 27, 2017.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2017 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

0. NOTE TO RFC EDITOR AND REVIEWERS
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
2. Emergence of Domain Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
3. Dialects, so to speak, of Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
4. Interoperability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
6. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
7. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
9. Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

0.  NOTE TO RFC EDITOR AND REVIEWERS

The closest mailing list to this topic is arcing@ietf.org.  Or maybe
dnsop@ietf.org.  Private comments may also be directed at the editor.

This section should be removed prior to publication.  

Note on changes from earlier edition:

Removal of a discussion on defining "Domain Name."

1. Introduction

What is the motivation behind the document and what is the anticipated
result?

1.1 Motivation for this Document

Why bother to define Domain Names now, three decades after the
earliest mentions in RFC documents?  There are many examples of
names as identifiers in existence, a lot of running code.  There is
a large industry built on management of names as well, a lot of
financial investment made.  Would not a definition appearing now be
merely an academic exercise or worse, a disruption to what seems to
be a reliable system?

A desire to examine this topic is a reaction to the discussion
related to the Special Use Domain Name Registry as described in
"Special Use Domain Names" [RFC 6761] and the process of adding
"ONION" to that registry, as described in "The '.onion' Special-Use
Domain Name" [RFC 7686].  Concerns raised on a mailing list used to
discuss the latter RFC included specific criterial to declare a name
as special as well as the conflict with other processes, such as the
process launched from "Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the
Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority" [RFC 2860],
for registering a name in the DNS.

During reviews of this document, documented studies of other
difficulties have surfaced.  "IAB Thoughts on Encodings for
Internationalized Domain Names" [RFC 6055] documents issues related to
converting human-readable forms of Domain Names in forms useful to
automated applications when there is no clear architecture or precise
definition of how to handle Domain Names. "Issues in Identifier
Show full document text