Document: draft-cheshire-dnsext-nbp-05.txt               Stuart Cheshire
Internet-Draft                                             Marc Krochmal
Category: Informational                             Apple Computer, Inc.
Expires 10th February 2007                              10th August 2006

          Requirements for a Protocol to Replace AppleTalk NBP


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
   For the purposes of this document, the term "BCP 79" refers
   exclusively to RFC 3979, "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
   Technology", published March 2005.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   One of the implicitly understood goals amongst the participants
   working on "Multicast DNS", "Link-Local Multicast Name Resolution",
   "Zeroconf Name Service", "Bonjour" (or whatever you like to call it)
   is the ability to retire AppleTalk Name Binding Protocol, NetBIOS
   naming, and the like, and replace them with an all-IP solution.
   This document outlines the specific properties required of an IP
   replacement for AppleTalk Name Binding Protocol.

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                    [Page 1]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction...................................................3
   2.   Requirements...................................................4
   2.1  Name-to-Address Mapping........................................4
   2.2  Name Services, not Hardware....................................4
   2.3  Address Services, not Hardware.................................5
   2.4  Typed Name Space...............................................7
   2.5  User-Friendly Names............................................8
   2.6  Zeroconf Operation.............................................8
   2.7  Name Space Management..........................................9
   2.8  Late Binding..................................................10
   2.9  Simplicity....................................................10
   2.10 Network Browsing..............................................10
   2.11 Browsing and Registration Guidance............................11
   2.12 Power Management Support......................................11
   2.13 Protocol Agnostic.............................................12
   2.14 Distributed Cache Coherency Protocol..........................12
   2.15 Immediate and Ongoing Information Presentation................12
   3.   Existing Protocols............................................13
   4.   IPv6 Considerations...........................................13
   5.   Security Considerations.......................................13
   6.   IANA Considerations...........................................14
   7.   Copyright Notice..............................................14
   8.   Informative References........................................15
   9.   Author's Address..............................................15

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                    [Page 2]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

1. Introduction

   A common goal of many of the parties working on Multicast DNS [mDNS]
   is to provide a viable IP-based replacement for AppleTalk Name
   Binding Protocol (NBP). The precise requirements of such an IP-based
   replacement have been assumed but not written down. Furthermore, it
   is likely that each person has a different idea of what the unstated
   assumptions are, leading to miscommunication and misunderstandings
   when discussing what Multicast DNS should do and how it should work.
   Finally, there are many who are experts in the area of DNS who know
   nothing about NBP, and without any knowledge of the hitherto unstated
   goal, it is difficult to understand the reasoning and motivations
   that led to some of the design decisions.

   This document seeks to remedy this problem by clearly stating the
   requirements for an IP-based replacement for NBP. Replacing NBP is
   not the sole goal of Multicast DNS, and therefore these requirements
   are not the sole design considerations. However, replacing NBP is a
   major motivation behind the work in Multicast DNS. A Multicast DNS
   solution that is, amongst other things, a viable replacement for NBP,
   is much more compelling than one which is not.

   In most cases, the requirements presented in this document are simply
   a restatement of what AppleTalk NBP currently does. However, this
   document is not restricted to describing only what NBP currently
   does. In some cases, the requirements for a viable IP-based
   replacement go beyond NBP. For example, AppleTalk NBP uses Apple
   Extended ASCII for its character set. It is clear that an IP-based
   replacement being designed today should use Unicode, probably in the
   form of UTF-8. AppleTalk NBP has no built-in security provisions; an
   IP-based replacement cannot have that same error. AppleTalk NBP has a
   reputation, partially deserved, partially not, for being too 'chatty'
   on the network. An IP-based replacement should not have this same
   failing. The intent is to learn from NBP and build a superset of its
   functionality, not to replicate it precisely with all the same flaws.

   The proposals described in "Multicast DNS" [mDNS] and "DNS-Based
   Service Discovery" [DNS-SD], taken together, describe a solution
   that meets these requirements. This document is written, in part,
   in response to a request for more background information to support
   why those proposals are necessary.

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                    [Page 3]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

2. Requirements

   This Section lists the 14 requirements for an IP-based replacement
   for AppleTalk NBP.

2.1 Name-to-Address Mapping

   NBP's primary function is translating names to addresses.

   NBP stands for Name Binding Protocol, not Network Browsing Protocol.
   Many people know NBP only as "that thing that lets you browse the
   network in the Macintosh Chooser". While browsing is an important
   facility of NBP, it is secondary to NBP's primary function of
   translating names to addresses.

   Every time a user prints using AppleTalk, the printing software takes
   the name of the currently selected printer, looks up the current
   AppleTalk address associated with that named service, and establishes
   a connection to that service on the network. The user may invoke
   NBP's browsing capability once when first selecting the desired
   printer in the Chooser, but then after that, every single time they
   print anything, it is a simple efficient name-to-address lookup
   that is being performed, not a full-fledged browsing operation.

   Any NBP replacement needs to support, as it's primary function,
   an efficient name-to-address lookup operation.

2.2 Name Services, not Hardware

   The primary named entities in NBP are services, not "hosts",
   "machines", "devices", or pieces of hardware of any kind. This
   concept is more subtle than it may seem at first, so it bears some

   The AppleTalk NBP philosophy is that naming a piece of hardware on
   the network is of little use if you can't communicate with that piece
   of hardware. To communicate with a piece of hardware, there needs
   to be a piece of software running on that hardware which sends and
   receives network packets conforming to some specific protocol. This
   means that whenever you communicate with a machine, you are really
   communicating with some piece of software on that machine. Even if
   you just 'ping' a machine to see if it is responding, it is not
   really the machine that you are 'pinging', it is the software on
   that machine that generates ICMP Echo Responses.

   Consequently, this means that the only thing worth naming is the
   software entities with which you can communicate. A user who wants to
   use a print server or a file server needn't care about what hardware
   implements those services. There may be a single machine hosting both

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                    [Page 4]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

   services, or there may be two separate machines. The end user doesn't
   need to care.

   The one exception to this is network managers, who may want to name
   physical hardware for the purpose of tracking physical inventory.
   However, even this can be recast into a service-oriented view of the
   world by saying that what you're naming is not the hardware, but the
   ICMP Echo Responder that runs (or is assumed to be running) on every
   piece of IP hardware.

2.3 Address Services, not Hardware
    Escape the Tyranny of Well Known Ports

   The reader may argue that DNS already supports the philosophy
   of naming services instead of hosts. When we see names like
   "", "", "",
   "" and "", we do not assume that
   each of those names refer to a different host. They are clearly
   intended to be logical service names, and could in fact all refer
   to the same IP address.

   The shortcoming here is that although the names are clearly logical
   service names, the result today of doing a conventional ("A" Record)
   DNS lookup for those names gives you only the IP address of the
   hardware where the service is located. To communicate with the
   desired service, you also need to know the TCP or UDP port number
   at which the service can be reached, not just the IP address.

   This means that the port number has to be communicated out-of-band,
   in some other way. One way is for the port number to be a specific
   well-known constant for any given protocol. This makes it hard
   to run more than one instance of a service on a single piece of
   hardware. Another way is for the user to explicitly type in the
   port number, for example, "" instead of
   "", but needing to know and type in a port number
   is as ugly and fragile as needing to know and type in an IP address.

   Another aspect of the difficulty of running more than one instance of
   a service on a single piece of hardware is that it forces application
   programmers to write their own demultiplexing capability. AppleTalk
   did not suffer this limitation. If an AppleTalk print server offered
   three print queues, each print queue ran as its own independent
   service, listening on its own port number (called a socket number
   in AppleTalk terminology), each advertised as a separate independent
   named NBP entity. When a client looks up the address of that named
   NBP entity, the reply encodes not only on which net and subnet the
   service resides, and on which host on that subnet (like an IP address
   does), but also on which socket number (port number) within that
   host. In contrast, if an lpr print server offers three print queues,

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                    [Page 5]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

   all three print queues are typically reached through the same
   well-known port number, and then the lpr protocol has to use its
   own demultiplexing capability (the print queue name) in order to
   determine which print queue is sought. This makes it especially
   difficult to run two different pieces of print queue software from
   different vendors on the same machine, because they cannot both use
   the same well-known port.

   A similar trick is used in HTTP 1.1, where the "Host" header is
   used to allow multiple logical http services to run at the same
   IP address. Again, this works for a single-vendor solution, but if
   you have an image server, a database program, an http email access
   gateway, and a regular http server, they can't all run on the same
   TCP port on the same machine.

   Yet another problem of well-known ports is that port numbers are a
   finite resource. Originally, port numbers 0-1023 were reserved for
   well-known services, and the remaining 98% of the port space was free
   for dynamic allocation. Since then, the range of "Registered Ports"
   has crept upwards until today, ports 0-49151 are reserved, and only
   25% of the space remains available for dynamic allocation. Even
   though 65535 may seem like a lot of available port numbers, with the
   pace of software development today, if every new protocol gets its
   own private port number, we will eventually run out. To avoid having
   to do application-level demultiplexing, protocols like the X Window
   System wisely use a range of port numbers, and let TCP do the
   demultiplexing for them. The X Window System uses 64 ports, in
   the range 6000-6063. If every new protocol were to get its own
   chunk of 64 ports, we would run out even faster.

   Any NBP replacement needs to provide, not just the network number,
   subnet number, and host number within that subnet (i.e. the IP
   address) but also the port number within that host where the service
   is located. Furthermore, since many existing IP services such as
   lpr *do* already use additional application-layer demultiplexing
   information such as a print queue name, an NBP replacement needs
   to support this too by including this information as part of the
   complete package of addressing information provided to the client
   to enable it to use the service. The NBP replacement needs to name
   individual print queues as first-class entities in their own right.
   It is not sufficient merely to name a print server, within which
   separate print queues can then be found by some other mechanism.

   One possible answer here is that an IP-based NBP replacement could
   use a solution derived from DNS SRV records instead of "A" records,
   since SRV records *do* provide a port number. However, this alone is
   not a complete solution, because SRV records cannot tell you an lpr
   print queue name.

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                    [Page 6]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

2.4 Typed Name Space

   AppleTalk NBP names are structured names, generally written as:

      Name : Type @ Zone

   Name: The Name is the user-visible name of the service.

   Type: The Type is an opaque identifier which identifies the service
   protocol and semantics. The user may think of the Type as identifying
   the end-user function that the device performs (e.g. "printing"), and
   for the typical end-user this may be an adequate mental model, but
   strictly speaking, from a protocol-design perspective, the Type
   identifies the semantic application protocol the service speaks,
   no more, no less. For convenience, the opaque Type identifier is
   generally constructed using descriptive ASCII text, but this text has
   no meaning to the protocol, and care should be taken in inferring too
   much meaning from it. For example, the NBP Service Type "LaserWriter"
   means "any service that speaks PostScript over PAP/ATP/DDP (AppleTalk
   Printer Access Protocol over AppleTalk Transaction Protocol over
   AppleTalk Datagram Delivery Protocol)". It does not necessarily mean
   an Apple-branded "LaserWriter" printer; nor does the service even
   have to be a printer. A device that archives documents to recordable
   CDs could advertise itself as a "LaserWriter", meaning that it speaks
   PostScript over PAP, not necessarily that it prints that document on
   paper when it gets it. The end-user never directly sees the Service
   Type. It is implicit in the user's action; e.g. when printing, the
   printing software knows what protocol(s) it speaks and consequently
   what Service Type(s) it should be looking for -- the user doesn't
   have to tell it.

   Zone: The Zone is an organizational or geographical grouping of named
   services. Typical AppleTalk Zone Names are things like "Engineering",
   "Sales", and "Building 1, 3rd floor, North". The equivalent concept
   in DNS could be a subdomain such as "",
   "" or "Building 1, 3rd floor,"

   Each {Type,Zone} pair defines a name space in which service names
   can be registered. It is not a name conflict to have a printer
   called "Sales" and a file server called "Sales", because one is
   "Sales:LaserWriter@Zone" and the other is "Sales:AFPServer@Zone".

   Any NBP replacement needs to provide a mechanism that allows names
   to be grouped into organizational or geographical "zones", and within
   each "zone", to provide an independent name space for each service

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                    [Page 7]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

2.5 User-Friendly Names

   When repeatedly typing in names on command-line systems, it is
   helpful to have names that are short, all lower-case, with no spaces
   or other unusual characters.

   Since Service Names are intended to be selected from a list, not
   repeatedly typed in on a keyboard, there is no reason for them to
   be restricted so. Users should be able to give their printers names
   like "Sales", "Marketing", and "3rd Floor Copy Room", not just
   "" Of course a user is free to restrict their
   Service Names to lower-case letters without spaces if they wish,
   but they should not be forced to do that.

   Any NBP replacement needs to support a full range of rich text
   characters, including upper case, lower case, spaces, accented
   characters, and so on. The correct solution is likely to be Unicode,
   probably in the form of UTF-8.

   Note that this requirement for user-friendly rich-text names applies
   equally to the Zones/domains in which services are registered and

   Note that although the characters ':' and '@' are used when writing
   AppleTalk NBP names, they are simply a notational convenience in
   written text. In the on-the wire protocol and in the software data
   structures, NBP Name, Type and Zone strings are all allowed to
   contain almost any character, including ':' and '@'. The naming
   scheme provided by an NBP replacement must allow use of any desired
   characters in service names, including dots ('.'), spaces, percent
   signs, etc.

2.6 Zeroconf Operation

   AppleTalk NBP is self-configuring. On a network of just two hosts,
   they communicate peer-to-peer using multicast. On a large managed
   network, AppleTalk routers automatically perform an aggregation
   function, allowing name lookups to be performed via unicast to a
   service running on the router, instead of by flooding the entire
   network with multicast packets to every host.

   Any NBP replacement needs to operate in the absence of external
   network infrastructure. It should also be able to take advantage
   of appropriate external network infrastructure, where present, to
   perform queries via unicast instead of multicast.

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                    [Page 8]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

2.7 Name Space Management
    Name Conflict Detection

   Because an NBP replacement needs to operate in a Zeroconf
   environment, it cannot be assumed that a central network
   administrator is managing the network. In a managed network normal
   administrative controls may apply, but in the Zeroconf case an NBP
   replacement must make it easy for users to name their devices as
   they wish, without the inconvenience or expense of having to seek
   permission or pay some organization like a domain name registry for
   the privilege. However, this ease of naming and freedom to choose any
   desired name means that two users may independently decide to run a
   personal file server on their laptop computers, and (unimaginatively)
   name it "My Computer". When these two users later attend the next
   IETF meeting and find themselves part of the same wireless network,
   there may be problems.

   Similarly, every Brother Ethernet printer may ship from the factory
   with its Service Name set to "Brother Printer". On a typical small
   home network where there is only one printer this is not a problem,
   but it could be a problem if two or more such printers are connected
   to the same network.

   Any NBP replacement needs to detect such conflicts, and handle
   them appropriately. In the case of the laptop computers, which have
   keyboards, screens, and human users, the software should display a
   message telling one or both users that they need to select a new

   In the case of the printers which have no keyboard or screen, the
   software should automatically select a new unique name, perhaps by
   appending an integer to the end of the existing name, e.g. "Brother
   Printer 2". Note that this programmatically-derived name would
   normally not be used as the long-term persistent name for the
   service/device. In a network with more than one printer, the typical
   user will assign human-meaningful names to those printers, such as
   "Upstairs Printer" and "Downstairs Printer", but the ability to
   rename the printer using some configuration tool (e.g. a Web Browser)
   depends on the ability to find the printer and connect to it in the
   first place. Hence the programmatically-derived unique name serves
   a vital bootstrapping role, even if its use in that role is

   Because of the potentially transient nature of connectivity on small
   portable devices that are becoming more and more common (especially
   when used with wireless networks), this name conflict detection
   needs to be an ongoing process. It is not sufficient to simply verify
   uniqueness of names for a few seconds during the boot process and
   then assume that the names will remain unique indefinitely.

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                    [Page 9]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

   If the Zeroconf naming mechanism is integrated with the existing
   global DNS naming mechanism, then it would be beneficial for a sub-
   tree of that global namespace to be designated as having only local
   significance, for use without charge by cooperating peers, much
   as portions of the IPv4 address space are already designated as
   local-significance-only, available for organizations to use locally
   without charge as they wish [RFC 1918].

2.8 Late Binding

   When the user selects their default printer, the software should not
   store the IP address and port number, but just the name. Then, every
   time the user prints, the software should look up the name to find
   the current IP address and port number for that service. This allows
   a named logical service to be moved from one piece of hardware to
   another without disrupting the user's ability to print to that named
   print service.

   On a network using DHCP or self-assigned link-local addresses, a
   device's IP address may change from day to day. By deferring binding
   of name to address until actual use, this allows the client to get
   the correct IP address at the time the service is used.

   Similarly, with a service using a dynamic port number instead of a
   fixed well-known port, the service may not get the same port number
   every time it is started or restarted. By deferring binding of name
   to port number until actual use, this allows the client to get the
   correct port number at the time the service is used.

2.9 Simplicity

   Any NBP replacement needs to be simple enough that vendors of even
   the lowest cost ink-jet printer can afford to implement it in the
   device's limited firmware.

2.10 Network Browsing

   AppleTalk NBP offers certain limited wild-card functionality. For
   example, the service name "=" means "any name". This allows a client
   to perform an NBP lookup such as "=:LaserWriter@My Zone" and receive
   back in response a list of all the PAP (AppleTalk Printer Access
   Protocol) printers in the Zone called "My Zone".

   Any NBP replacement needs to allow a piece of software, such as a
   printing client, or a file server client, to enumerate all the named
   instances of services in a specified zone (domain) which speak its

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                   [Page 10]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

2.11 Browsing and Registration Guidance

   AppleTalk NBP provides certain meta-information to the client.

   On a network with multiple AppleTalk Zones, the AppleTalk network
   infrastructure informs the client of the list of Zones that are
   available for browsing. It also informs the client of the default
   Zone, which defines the client's logical "home" location. This is
   the Zone that is selected by default when the Macintosh Chooser is
   opened, and is usually the Zone where the user is most likely to find
   services like printers that are physically nearby, but the user is
   still free to browse any Zone in the offered list that they wish.

   A Brother printer may be pre-configured at the factory with the
   Service Name "Brother Printer", but they do not know on which network
   the printer will eventually be installed, so the printer will have to
   learn this from the network on arrival. On a network with multiple
   AppleTalk Zones, the AppleTalk network infrastructure informs the
   client of a single default Zone within which it may register Service
   Names. In the case of a device with a human user, the AppleTalk
   network infrastructure may also inform the client of a list of Zones
   within which the client may register Service Names, and the user may
   choose to register Service Names in any one of those Zones instead of
   in the suggested default Zone.

   Any NBP replacement needs to provide the following information to
   the client:

   * The suggested zone (domain) in which to register Service Names.
   * A list of recommended available zones (domains) in which Service
     Names may be optionally registered.
   * The suggested default zone (domain) for network browsing.
   * A list of available zones (domains) which may be browsed.

   Note that because the domains are used for SRV names, not host
   names, they are permitted to be full user-friendly rich text,
   just like the rest of a service name.

2.12 Power Management Support

   Many modern network devices have the ability to go into a low-power
   mode where only a small part of the Ethernet hardware remains
   powered, and the device can be woken up by sending a specially
   formatted Ethernet frame which the device's power-management hardware
   recognizes. A modern service discovery protocol should provide
   facilities to enable this low-power mode to be used effectively
   without sacrificing network functionality, such as the ability to
   wake a device up when it is needed.

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                   [Page 11]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

2.13 Protocol Agnostic

   Fashions come and go in the computer industry, but a service
   discovery protocol, being one of the foundation components on which
   everything else rests, has to be able to outlive these swings of
   fashion. A useful service discovery protocol should be agnostic to
   the protocols being used by the higher-layer protocols it serves. If
   a service discovery protocol requires all the higher layer software
   to be written in a new computer language, or requires all the higher
   layer protocols to embrace some trendy new data representation format
   that is currently in vogue, then that service discovery protocol is
   likely to have limited utility after the fashion changes and computer
   industry moves on to its next infatuation.

2.14 Distributed Cache Coherency Protocol

   Any modern service discovery protocol must use some kind of caching
   for efficiency. Any time a distributed cache is maintained, a cache
   coherency protocol is required to control the effects of stale data.
   Thus a useful service discovery protocol needs to include cache
   coherency mechanisms.

2.15 Immediate and Ongoing Information Presentation

   Many current discovery mechanisms display an hourglass or a "Please
   Wait" message for five or ten seconds, and then present a list of
   results to the user. At this point, the list of results is static,
   and does not update in response to changes in the environment.
   To see current information the user is forced to click a "Refresh"
   button repeatedly, waiting another five to ten seconds each time.

   Neither limitation is acceptable in a protocol that is to replace
   NBP. When a user initiates a browsing operation, the user interface
   should take at most one second to present the list of results.
   In addition, the list should update in response to changes in the
   environment as they happen. If the user is waiting for a particular
   service to become available, they should be able simply to watch
   until it appears, with no "Refresh" button that they need to keep

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                   [Page 12]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

3. Existing Protocols

   The question has been asked, "Isn't SLP the IETF replacement for

   SLP [RFC 2608] provides extremely rich and flexible facilities in
   the area of Requirement 10, "Network Browsing". However, SLP provides
   none of the service naming, automatic name conflict detection, or
   efficient name-to-address lookup which form the majority of what
   AppleTalk NBP does.

   SLP returns results in the form of URLs. In the absence of DNS, URLs
   cannot usefully contain DNS names. Discovering a list of service URLs
   of the form "ipp://" is not particularly informative
   to the user. Discovering a list of service URLs of the form
   "ipp://epson-stylus-900n.local./" is slightly less opaque (though
   still not very user-friendly), but to do even this SLP would have
   to depend on Multicast DNS or some other not-yet-standardized
   local multicast naming protocol to resolve names to addresses
   absence of a conventional DNS server.

   SLP provides fine-grained query capabilities, such as the ability to
   prune a long list of printers to show only those that have blue paper
   in the top tray, which could be useful on extremely large networks
   with very many printers, but are certainly unnecessary for a typical
   home or small office with only one or two printers.

   In summary, SLP alone fails to meet most of the requirements,
   and provides vastly more mechanism than necessary in the area of
   Requirement 10.

4. IPv6 Considerations

   An IP replacement for AppleTalk Name Binding Protocol needs to
   support IPv6 as well as IPv4.

5. Security Considerations

   AppleTalk Name Binding Protocol has no inherent security mechanism.
   This would not be acceptable in an IP replacement. It should be
   possible for a client to verify the authenticity of the information
   it is receiving. It may also be useful for a server to be able to
   verify that a client has authority to request that information, and
   it may be useful to have a way to encrypt the data in transit to
   protect it against eavesdropping.

   A solution based on or derived from DNS could use DNSSEC [RFC 2535]
   to meet these requirements. A solution using some entirely new
   protocol would have to invent all of its own mechanisms and policies

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                   [Page 13]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

   for security. (The reader is reminded that this is a requirements
   document. Its purpose is to specify requirements, not solutions.
   Hence, discussion of specific solutions is not appropriate here.)

6. IANA Considerations

   AppleTalk Name Binding Protocol defines a name space for Zones, a
   name space for service Types, and name spaces for named instances
   of those services. Each name space uses 32-character ASCII text
   strings, so the name space for Type names is sufficiently large and
   sufficiently sparsely used that Apple never bothered with maintaining
   an official registry of assigned NBP service Type names.

   In an IP replacement, the name space of zones (domains) would be
   managed the same way as domains are currently managed, which is to
   say through delegation from the DNS root. In addition, if Multicast
   DNS is successful [mDNS] there will also be a specially reserved
   domain available for local use without the overhead of formal

   IANA should probably manage the name space of service type names,
   to prevent unintended name collisions. However, the name space of
   textual names is large enough that type names would not be a precious
   resource, so they could be handed out freely to anyone who needs one,
   effectively without limit.

   The name space of instance names is managed locally at each site.

7. Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights. For the purposes of this document,
   the term "BCP 78" refers exclusively to RFC 3978, "IETF Rights
   in Contributions", published March 2005.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                   [Page 14]

Internet Draft     Replacement of AppleTalk NBP         10th August 2006

8. Informative References

   [DNS-SD]   Cheshire, S., and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
              Discovery", Internet-Draft (work in progress),
              draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-04.txt, August 2006.

   [mDNS]     Cheshire, S., and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS",
              Internet-Draft (work in progress),
              draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-06.txt, August 2006.

   [RFC 1918] Rekhter, Y., et al., "Address Allocation for Private
              Internets", RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC 2535] Eastlake, D. "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
              RFC 2535, March 1999.

   [RFC 2608] Guttman, Perkins, Veizades & Day, "Service Location
              Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, June 1999.

9. Author's Address

   Stuart Cheshire
   Apple Computer, Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   California 95014

   Phone: +1 408 974 3207
   EMail: rfc [at] stuartcheshire [dot] org

   Marc Krochmal
   Apple Computer, Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   California 95014

   Phone: +1 408 974 4368
   EMail: marc [at] apple [dot] com

Expires 10th February 2007          Cheshire                   [Page 15]