Problem Statement for Fully Mapping One Name to Another Name
draft-yao-bundled-name-problem-statement-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-06-30
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf 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. Yao
Internet-Draft                                                    X. Lee
Intended status: Informational                                     CNNIC
Expires: January 2, 2017                                    July 1, 2016

      Problem Statement for Fully Mapping One Name to Another Name
            draft-yao-bundled-name-problem-statement-00.txt

Abstract

   This document specifies the problems related to fully mapping one
   name to another name.  With the emergence of internationalized domain
   names and new TLDs, two names may require to redirect one name space
   fully to another name space.  Current DNS protocols have not provided
   such ability to satisfy these requirements.

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 January 2, 2017.

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.

Yao & Lee                Expires January 2, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    bname                        July 2016

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Mapping itself  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Mapping its descendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Mapping itself and its descendants  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  Zone Clone  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Change History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.1.  draft-yao-bundled-name-problem-statement: Version 00  . .   5
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   With the emergence of internationalized domain names and new TLDs,
   two names used for the same purpose may require to redirect one name
   space fully to another name space.  There are many use cases for it.
   Some examples are shown below.

   Use Case 1: Bundled domain names
   Bundled domain names are those who share the same TLD but whose
   second level labels are variants, or those who has identical second
   level labels for which certain parameters are shared in the different
   TLDs.  For example, public Interest Registry, request to implement
   technical bundling of second level domains for .NGO and .ONG.  So we
   have two kinds of bundled domain names.  First one is in the form of
Show full document text