Some Considerations for the Use of Domain Names in non-DNS Protocols
draft-stw-whatsinaname-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-10-31
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml 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)
Network Working Group                                           S. Woolf
Internet-Draft                                          October 31, 2016
Intended status: Informational
Expires: May 4, 2017

  Some Considerations for the Use of Domain Names in non-DNS Protocols
                       draft-stw-whatsinaname-01

Abstract

   From time to time, networking protocols need to be able to name
   things used within the protocol, and resolve the names created or
   referenced.  It's common for protocol designers in this predicament
   to attempt to use domain names as the starting point for their
   systems of names, and the DNS as the starting point for name
   resolution.

   There is existing guidance on how to think about application-specific
   extensions to DNS if the protocol or software designer is re-using
   both domain name abstractions and DNS protocol assumptions (see RFC
   6950).  However, recently there's also a tendency to re-use a domain-
   name-based namespace without necessarily re-using DNS protocol for
   name resolution.  This document acknowledges that class of extensions
   to the shared domain namespace and considers a framework for the
   properties a naming and resolution convention should have in the
   internet protocol environment, including the avoidance of collision
   with other uses of the namespace.  Depending to the answers to the
   suggested questions, the answer may be that domain names will not
   meet the constraints at hand.

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 May 4, 2017.

Woolf                      Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Names Considerations              October 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.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  How We Got Here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Some Questions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Framework: what are the necessary pieces? . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Some Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Policy: The IETF and the Public DNS . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Operations: the Resolution Environment  . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   From time to time, networking protocols need to be able to name
   things used within the protocol, and resolve the names created or
   referenced.  Necessary operations tend to include creating,
   modifying, and deleting names and accessing values and relationships
   that correspond to them.

   It's common for protocol designers in this predicament to attempt to
   use domain names as the starting point for their systems of names,
   and the DNS as the starting point for name resolution.  This is
   completely understandable-- domain names, and DNS resolution, are
   well-established in both the expectations of network users and
   developers, and well-supported by fielded software.

   However, there are some risks when the protocol designer attempts to
Show full document text