RFC Origins of Domain Names
draft-lewis-domain-names-11

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-04-30 (latest revision 2019-04-02)
Stream ISE
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream ISE state Finding Reviewers
Awaiting Reviews
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                           E. Lewis
Internet-Draft                                                     ICANN
Intended status: Informational                            March 15, 2019
Expires: September 16, 2019

                      RFC Origins of Domain Names
                      draft-lewis-domain-names-11

Abstract

   Is the concept of Domain Names owned by the DNS protocol or does the
   DNS protocol exist to support the Domain Names concept?  This
   question has become pertinent in light of proposals to use Domain
   Names in protocols in ways incompatible with the DNS protocol and the
   operational environment built to run the protocol.  To help answer
   this question, a look into the recorded history of Requests for
   Comments is presented.

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 https://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 16, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://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

Lewis                  Expires September 16, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         RFC Origins of Domain Names            March 2019

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Goal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Early RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Emergence of Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  The Term "Domain Name" Itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  The Term "Resolve"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Dialects, So To Speak, of Domain Names  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Domain Names as Restricted for DNS  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Host Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  URI Authority and Domain Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.4.  Internet Protocol Address Literals  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.5.  Internationalized Domain Names in Applications  . . . . .  11
     4.6.  Restricted for DNS Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.7.  Tor Network Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.8.  X.509 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.9.  Multicast DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.10. /etc/hosts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.11. Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.12. Other Others  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction

   Which came first, the concept of Domain Names or the protocol called
   DNS?  This question is at the heart of whether or how Domain Names
   are put to use in ways avoiding the DNS protocol.

   The discussion leading to "The '.onion' Special-Use Domain Name"
   [RFC7686], a document designating "onion" as a top-level domain in
   the Special Use Domain Names registry (see "Special Use Domain Names"
   [RFC6761]), opened the question of how to treat Domain Names that
   were designed to be used external to the DNS.  The history of Domain
   Names and DNS had become intertwined to the point over time to the
   point that what is essentially a case of permission-less innovation
   led to a contentious discussion on the IETF's DNS Operations working
Show full document text