< draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-04.txt   draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-05.txt >
Network Working Group G. Huston Network Working Group G. Huston
Internet-Draft APNIC Internet-Draft APNIC
Intended status: Informational P. Koch Intended status: Informational P. Koch
Expires: December 30, 2016 DENIC eG Expires: December 31, 2016 DENIC eG
A. Durand A. Durand
ICANN ICANN
W. Kumari W. Kumari
Google Google
June 28, 2016 June 29, 2016
Problem Statement for the Reservation of Top-Level Domains in the Problem Statement for the Reservation of Top-Level Domains in the
Special-Use Domain Names Registry Special-Use Domain Names Registry
draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-04 draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-05
Abstract Abstract
The dominant protocol for name resolution on the Internet is the The dominant protocol for name resolution on the Internet is the
Domain Name System (DNS). However, other protocols exist that are Domain Name System (DNS). However, other protocols exist that are
fundamentally different from the DNS, and may or may not share the fundamentally different from the DNS, and may or may not share the
same namespace. same namespace.
When an end-user triggers resolution of a name on a system that When an end-user triggers resolution of a name on a system that
supports multiple, different protocols or resolution mechanisms, it supports multiple, different protocols or resolution mechanisms, it
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
1. Introduction: DNS, Name space or Name Spaces, Name Resolution 1. Introduction: DNS, Name space or Name Spaces, Name Resolution
Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. IETF RFC6761 Special Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IETF RFC6761 Special Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Issues with RFC 6761 Itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Issues with RFC 6761 Itself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Issues with Evaluating Candidate String and Relationship to 4. Issues with Evaluating Candidate String and Relationship to
the ICANN Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 the ICANN Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Editorial Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Editorial Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.1. Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A.1. Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.2. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A.2. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.2.1. draft-adpkja-special-names-problem-00 . . . . . . . . 8 A.2.1. draft-adpkja-special-names-problem-00 . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix B. Change history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Appendix B. Change history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction: DNS, Name space or Name Spaces, Name Resolution 1. Introduction: DNS, Name space or Name Spaces, Name Resolution
Protocols Protocols
For a very long time, "DNS" and "the name space" have been perceived For a very long time, "DNS" and "the name space" have been perceived
as the same thing. However, this has not always been the case; in as the same thing. However, this has not always been the case; in
the past, other name resolution protocols (such as NIS, NIS+, host the past, other name resolution protocols (such as NIS, NIS+, host
files, UUCP addresses, and others) were popular. Most of those have files, UUCP addresses, and others) were popular. Most of those have
been obsoleted by the DNS in the late 1990s. More information on the been obsoleted by the DNS in the late 1990s. More information on the
history of names and namespaces can be found in history of names and namespaces can be found in
skipping to change at page 5, line 19 skipping to change at page 5, line 19
6. The [RFC6761] registry lists the reserved names but does not 6. The [RFC6761] registry lists the reserved names but does not
include direct guidance, neither in free text form nor in machine include direct guidance, neither in free text form nor in machine
readable instructions, for any of the seven audiences. Instead, readable instructions, for any of the seven audiences. Instead,
the registry relies on a reference for each entry to the document the registry relies on a reference for each entry to the document
that requested its insertion. Such documents could be difficult that requested its insertion. Such documents could be difficult
to read for many readers; for example, [RFC6762] is a 70-page to read for many readers; for example, [RFC6762] is a 70-page
protocol specification which is not an effective way to set protocol specification which is not an effective way to set
expectations of non-technical end-users. expectations of non-technical end-users.
7. The intended usage or protocol for which the [RFC6761]
reservation is made may or may not be successful. In the case of
failure of adoption, the reserved string would be wasted.
8. Some organizations may want to experiment with a reserved name,
but may or may not be ready (or willing) to go through a
cumbersome process and find [RFC6761] too difficult to deal with.
They would like like a much simpler registration process, with
limited or no burden to apply.
4. Issues with Evaluating Candidate String and Relationship to the 4. Issues with Evaluating Candidate String and Relationship to the
ICANN Process ICANN Process
1. The IETF does not have process to evaluate candidate strings for 1. The IETF does not have process to evaluate candidate strings for
issues such as trademark, name collision, and so on. Instead, issues such as trademark, name collision, and so on. Instead,
the IETF relies on document reviews, working group and IETF-wide the IETF relies on document reviews, working group and IETF-wide
last call, and ultimately a decision is made by the IESG. That last call, and ultimately a decision is made by the IESG. That
decision can be appealed, first to the IAB and second to the ISOC decision can be appealed, first to the IAB and second to the ISOC
board of trusties. board of trusties.
skipping to change at page 8, line 20 skipping to change at page 8, line 29
A.2. Change History A.2. Change History
A.2.1. draft-adpkja-special-names-problem-00 A.2.1. draft-adpkja-special-names-problem-00
Initial draft circulated for comment. Initial draft circulated for comment.
Appendix B. Change history Appendix B. Change history
[ RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication] [ RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication]
-05 to -04:
o Added two issues to the issue list: market failure and
experimental use.
-04 to -03:
o Minor edits to correct grammar, clarify that the current ICANN
gTLD round is closed.
-03 to -02:
o Significant readability changes to focus the discussion.
-01 to -02: -01 to -02:
o A very large number of readability / grammar / reference fixes o A very large number of readability / grammar / reference fixes
from Paul Hoffman. from Paul Hoffman.
-00 to -01: -00 to -01:
o Significant readability changes. o Significant readability changes.
-00: -00:
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 31 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/