[Search] [txt|xml|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12         Standards Track
          13 14 rfc7553                                                 
Network Working Group                                       P. Faltstrom
Internet-Draft                                                    Netnod
Updates: 3404, 3958 (if approved)                             O. Kolkman
Intended status: Standards Track                                    ISOC
Expires: July 29, 2015                                  January 25, 2015


       The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record
                         draft-faltstrom-uri-10

Abstract

   This document defines a new DNS resource record, called the Uniform
   Resource Identifier (URI) RR, for publishing mappings from hostnames
   to URIs.

   This document updates RFC 3404 and RFC 3958.

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 July 29, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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




Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  DNS considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  The format of the URI RR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Ownername, class and type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Priority  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Weight  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.4.  Target  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.5.  URI RDATA Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Definition of the flag 'D' for NAPTR records  . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Homepage at one domain, but two domains in use  . . . . .   6
   7.  Relation to S-NAPTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Relation to U-NAPTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Relation to SRV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.1.  Registration of the URI Resource Record Type . . . . . .   7
     10.2.  Registration of services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   12. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     13.2.  Non-normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix A.  The original RRTYPE Allocation Request . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   This document explains the use of the Domain Name System (DNS) for
   the storage of URIs, and how to resolve hostnames to such URIs that
   can be used by various applications.  For resolution the application
   need to know both the hostname and the protocol that the URI is to be
   used for.  The protocol is registered by IANA.

   Currently, looking up URIs given a hostname uses the DDDS [RFC3401]
   application framework with the DNS as a database as specified in RFC
   3404 [RFC3404].  This has a number of implications such as the
   inability to select what NAPTR records that match the query are
   interesting.  The RRSet returned will always consist of all URIs
   "connected" with the domain in question.

   The URI resource record specified in this document enables the
   querying party to select which ones of the NAPTR records one is



Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


   interested in.  This because data in the service field of the NAPTR
   record is included in the owner part of the URI resource record type.

   Querying for URI resource records is not replacing querying for NAPTR
   resource records (or use of S-NAPTR [RFC3958]).  Instead, the URI
   resource record type provides a complementary mechanism to use when
   one already knows what service field is interesting.  With it, one
   can directly query for the specific subset of the otherwise possibly
   large RRSet given back when querying for NAPTR resource records.

   This document updates RFC 3958 and RFC 3404 by adding the flag "D" to
   the list of defined terminal flags in section 2.2.3 of RFC 3958 and
   4.3 of RFC 3404.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].

2.  Applicability Statement

   In general, it is expected that URI records will be used by clients
   for applications where the relevant protocol to be used is known,
   but, for example, an extra abstraction is needed in order to separate
   a domain name from a point of service (as addressed by the URI).  One
   example of such a situation is when an organisation has many domain
   names, but only one official web page.

   Applications MUST know the specific service fields to prepend the
   hostname with.  Using repetitive queries for URI records MUST NOT be
   a replacement for querying for NAPTR records according to the NAPTR
   (DDDS) or S-NAPTR algorithms.  NAPTR records serve the purpose to
   discover the various services and URIs for looking up access points
   for a given service.  Those are two very different kinds of needs.

3.  DNS considerations

   Using prefix labels, such as underscored service tags, for a specific
   owner name may cause a counter-intuitive effect when the owner name
   is a wildcard name.  For example, _s2._s1.*.example.net.  is not a
   wildcard name and cannot be used to return a synthesized answer for a
   query name of _s2._s1.a.example.net.  See Section 4.5 of RFC4592
   [RFC4592] for more details.  Besides, underscored service tags used
   for the URI RR (based on the NAPTR service descriptions) may have
   slightly different semantics than service tags used for underscored
   prefix labels that are used in combination with other (yet
   unspecified) RR types.  This may cause subtle management problems
   when delegation structure that has developed within the context of



Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


   URI RRs is also to be used for other RR types.  Since the service
   labels might be overloaded, applications should carefully check that
   the application level protocol is indeed the protocol they expect.

   Subtle management issues may also arise when the delegations from
   service to sub service label involves several parties and different
   stake holders.

4.  The format of the URI RR

   This is the presentation format of the URI RR:


       Ownername TTL Class URI Priority Weight Target


   The URI RR does not cause any kind of Additional Section processing.

4.1.  Ownername, class and type

   The URI ownername is subject to special conventions.

   Just like the SRV RR [RFC2782] the URI RR has service information
   encoded in its ownername.  In order to encode the service for a
   specific owner name one uses service parameters.  Valid service
   parameters used are those used for SRV resource records, or
   registered by IANA for Enumservice Registrations.  The Enumservice
   Registration parameters are reversed (subtype(s) before type),
   prepended with an underscore (_) and prepended to the owner name in
   separate labels.  The underscore is prepended to the service
   parameters to avoid collisions with DNS labels that occur in nature,
   and the order is reversed to make it possible to do delegations, if
   needed, to different zones (and therefore providers of DNS).

   It should be noted that the usage of a prefix must be described in
   detail in for example the Enumservice Registration documentation, or
   in a specific document that clarifies potential overload of
   parameters in the same URI.  Specifically, registered URI schemes are
   not automatically acceptable as a service.  With the HTTP scheme, one
   can for example have multiple methods (GET, PUT, etc), and this with
   the same URI.

   For example, suppose we are looking for the URI for a service with
   Service Parameter "A:B:C" for host example.com.. Then we would query
   for (QNAME,QTYPE)=("_C._B._A.example.com","URI")

   The type number for the URI record is 256.




Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


   The URI resource record is class independent.

   The URI RR has no special TTL requirements.

4.2.  Priority

   The priority of the target URI in this RR.  Its range is 0-65535.  A
   client MUST attempt to contact the URI with the lowest-numbered
   priority it can reach; URIs with the same priority SHOULD be tried in
   the order defined by the weight field.

4.3.  Weight

   A server selection mechanism.  The weight field specifies a relative
   weight for entries with the same priority.  Larger weights SHOULD be
   given a proportionately higher probability of being selected.  The
   range of this number is 0-65535.

4.4.  Target

   The URI of the target, enclosed in double-quote characters ('"').
   Resolution of the URI is according to the definitions for the Scheme
   of the URI.

   Since the URI will not be encoded as a <character-string> (see
   RFC1035 section 3.3 [RFC1035]) there is no 255 character size
   limitation.

   The Target MUST NOT be empty ("").

4.5.  URI RDATA Wire Format

   The RDATA for a URI RR consists of a 2 octet Priority field, a two
   octet Weight field, and a variable length target field.

   Priority and Weight are unsigned integers in network byte order.

   The remaining data in the RDATA contains the Target field.  The
   Target field contains the URI as a sequence of octets (without the
   enclosing double- quote characters used in the presentation format).

   The Target field can also contain an IRI, but with the additional
   requirements that it are in UTF-8 [RFC3629], and the requirement that
   it be possible to convert to a URI according to section 3.1 of RFC
   3987 [RFC3987] and back again to an IRI according to section 3.2.
   Other character sets than UTF-8 are not allowed.  The domain name
   part of the IRI can be either an U-LABEL or A-LABEL as defined in RFC
   5890 [RFC5890].



Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


   The length of the target field MUST be greater than zero.


                        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Priority             |          Weight               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   /                                                               /
   /                             Target                            /
   /                                                               /
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


5.  Definition of the flag 'D' for NAPTR records

   This document specifies the flag "D" for use as a flag in NAPTR
   records.  The flag indicate a terminal NAPTR record because it
   denotes the end of the DDDS/NAPTR processing rules.  In the case of a
   "D" flag, the Replacement field in the NAPTR record, prepended with
   the service flags, is used as the Owner of a DNS query for URI
   records, and normal URI processing as defined in this document is
   applied.

   The replacement field MUST NOT include any of the service parameters.
   Those are to be prepended (together with underscore) as described in
   other places in this document.

   The Regexp field in the NAPTR record MUST be empty when the 'D' flag
   is in use.

6.  Examples

6.1.  Homepage at one domain, but two domains in use

   An organisation has the domain names example.com and example.net, but
   the official URI http://www.example.com/. Given the service type
   "web" and subtype "http" (from the IANA registry), the following URI
   Resource Records could be made available in the respective zones
   (example.com and example.net):


   $ORIGIN example.com.
   _http._web    IN URI 10 1 "http://www.example.com/"

   $ORIGIN example.net.
   _http._web    IN URI 10 1 "http://www.example.com/"




Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


7.  Relation to S-NAPTR

   The URI resource record type is not a replacement for the S-NAPTR.
   It is instead an extension and the second step of the S-NAPTR
   resolution can resolve a URI resource record instead of using SRV
   records and yet another algorithm for how to use SRV records for the
   specific protocol.


   $ORIGIN example.com.
   ;;       order pref flags
     IN NAPTR 100   10   "s"   "EM:ProtA"               ( ; service
                               ""                         ; regexp
                               _ProtA._tcp.example.com.   ; replacement
   _ProtA._tcp IN URI "schemeA:service.example.com/example"


8.  Relation to U-NAPTR

   The URI Resource Record Type, together with S-NAPTR, can be viewed as
   a replacement for U-NAPTR [RFC4848].  The URI Resource Record Type is
   though only interesting when one know a base domain name, a protocol
   and service so that one can compose the record to look up.  NAPTR
   records of any kind are used to look up what services exists for a
   certain domain, which is one step before the URI resource record is
   used.

9.  Relation to SRV

   The URI Resource Record Type can be viewed as a replacement for the
   SRV record.  This because it like the SRV record can only be looked
   up if one know the base domain, the protocol and the service.  It has
   a similar functionality, but instead of returning a hostname and port
   number, the URI record return a full URI.  As such, it can be viewed
   as a more powerful resource record than SRV.

10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  Registration of the URI Resource Record Type

   After an expert review in February 2011 (see Appendix A) IANA has
   allocated RRTYPE 256 for the URI Resource Record Type in the registry
   named Resource Record (RR) TYPEs and QTYPEs as defined in BCP 42 (at
   the time RFC 6195 [RFC6195]), located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters.

   IANA is requested to update the reference with that registration to
   this RFC.



Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


10.2.  Registration of services

   No new registry is needed for the registration of services as the
   Enumservice Registrations registry is used also for the URI resource
   record type.

11.  Security Considerations

   The authors do not believe this resource record cause any new
   security problems.  Deployment must though be done in a proper way as
   misconfiguration of this resource record might make it impossible to
   reach the service that was originally intended to be accessed.

   Using the URI resource record together with security mechanisms that
   relies on verification of authentication of hostnames, like TLS,
   makes it important to choose the correct domain name when doing the
   comparison.

   The basic mechanism works as follows:

   1.   Announce the fact example.com is hosted at example.org (with
        some URL) in DNS

   2.   Secure the URI resource record with DNSSEC.

   3.   Verify the TLS (for example) certificate for the connection to
        example.org matches, i.e.  use the hostname in the URI and not
        the hostname used originally when looking up the URI resource
        record.

   4.   If needed, do application layer authentication etc over the then
        encrypted connection.

   What also can happen is that the URI in the resource record type has
   errors in it.  Applications using the URI resource record type for
   resolution should behave similarly as if the user typed (or copy and
   pasted) the URI.  At least it must be clear to the user that the
   error is not due to any error from his side.

   One SHOULD NOT include userinfo (see User Information, Section 3.2.1,
   in RFC 3986 [RFC3986]) in a URI that is used in a URI resource record
   as DNS data must be viewed as publicly available information.

12.  Acknowledgements

   Ideas on how to split the two different kind of queries "What
   services exists for this domain name" and "What is the URI for this
   service" came from Scott Bradner and Lawrence Conroy.  Other people



Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


   that have contributed to this document include Richard Barnes, Leslie
   Daigle, Olafur Gudmundsson, Ted Hardie, Evan Hunt, Peter Koch, Penn
   Pfautz, Jinmei Tatuya and Willem Toorop.

   Cisco is acknowledged as mr Faltstrom's employer at the time this
   document was developed.

   The NLnet Labs Foundation funded and facilitated the development of
   this specification during Kolkman's tenure at the lab.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC3958]  Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application
              Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation
              Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.

   [RFC3987]  Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
              Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, August 2010.

   [RFC6195]  Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
              Considerations", RFC 6195, March 2011.

13.2.  Non-normative references

   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
              February 2000.

   [RFC3401]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
              Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, October 2002.






Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


   [RFC3403]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
              Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC
              3403, October 2002.

   [RFC3404]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
              Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)", RFC
              3404, October 2002.

   [RFC3597]  Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
              (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
              3986, January 2005.

   [RFC4592]  Lewis, E., "The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name
              System", RFC 4592, July 2006.

   [RFC4848]  Daigle, L., "Domain-Based Application Service Location
              Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service
              (DDDS)", RFC 4848, April 2007.

   [RFC5507]  IAB, Faltstrom, P., Austein, R., and P. Koch, "Design
              Choices When Expanding the DNS", RFC 5507, April 2009.

Appendix A.  The original RRTYPE Allocation Request

   On February 22, 2011 IANA assigned RRTYPE 256 for the URI resource
   record based on a request that followed the procedure documented in
   RFC 6195 [RFC6195].  The DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION form as
   submitted to IANA at thet time is replicated below for reference.

   A.   Submission Date:

        May 23, 2009



   B.   Submission Type:

        [X] New RRTYPE
        [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE



   C.   Contact Information for submitter:

        Name: Patrik Faltstrom



Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


        Email Address: paf@cisco.com
        International telephone number: +46-8-6859131
        Other contact handles:
        (Note: This information will be publicly posted.)



   D.   Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?

        There is no easy way to get from a domain name to a URI (or
        IRI).  Some mechanisms exists via use of the NAPTR [RFC3403]
        resource record.  That implies quite complicated rules that are
        simplified via the S-NAPTR [RFC3958] specification.  But, the
        ability to directly look up a URI still exists.  This
        specification uses a prefix based naming mechanism originated in
        the definition of the SRV [RFC2782] resource record, and the
        RDATA is a URI, encoded as one text field.

        See also above (Section 1).



   E.   Description of the proposed RR type.

        The format of the URI resource record is as follows:


        Ownername TTL Class URI Priority Weight Target


        The URI RR has service information encoded in its ownername.  In
        order to encode the service for a specific owner name one uses
        service parameters.  Valid service parameters used are either
        Enumservice Registrations registered by IANA, or prefixes used
        for the SRV resource record.

        The wire format of the RDATA is as follows:














Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


                           1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Priority             |          Weight               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      /                                                               /
      /                             Target                            /
      /                                                               /
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




   F.   What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
        need and why are they unsatisfactory?

        The RRTYPE that come closest is the NAPTR resource record.  It
        is for example used in the DDDS and S-NAPTR algorithms.  The
        main problem with the NAPTR is that selection of what record (or
        records) one is interested in is based on data stored in the
        RDATA portion of the NAPTR resource record.  This, as explained
        in RFC 5507 [RFC5507], is not optimal for DNS lookups.  Further,
        most applications using NAPTR resource records uses regular
        expression based rewrite rules for creation of the URI, and that
        has shown be complicated to implement.

        The second closest RRTYPE is the SRV record that given a
        prefixed based naming just like is suggested for the URI
        resource record, one get back a port number and domain name.
        This can also be used for creation of a URI, but, only URIs
        without path components.



   G.   What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?

        URI



   H.   Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA Registry
        or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in DNS
        Parameters?

        Yes, partially.






Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             URI Resource Record              January 2015


        One of the mechanisms to select a service is to use the
        Enumservice Registry managed by IANA.  Another is to use
        services and protocols used for SRV records.



   I.   Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS servers/
        resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed as an
        unknown RRTYPE (see RFC 3597 [RFC3597])?

        No



   J.   Comments:

        None



Authors' Addresses

   Patrik Faltstrom
   Netnod

   Email: paf@netnod.se


   Olaf Kolkman
   Internet Society

   Email: kolkman@isoc.org



















Faltstrom & Kolkman       Expires July 29, 2015                [Page 13]