< draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-01.txt		draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-02.txt >
	dnsop W. Kumari		dnsop W. Kumari
	Internet-Draft Google		Internet-Draft Google
	Intended status: Informational A. Sullivan		Intended status: Informational A. Sullivan
	Expires: January 4, 2016 Dyn		Expires: March 16, 2016 Dyn
	July 3, 2015		September 13, 2015
	The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain		The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
	draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-01		draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document reserves a string (ALT) to be used as a TLD label in		This document reserves a string (ALT) to be used as a TLD label in
	non-DNS contexts or for names that have no meaning in a global		non-DNS contexts or for names that have no meaning in a global
	context. It also provides advice and guidance to developers		context. It also provides advice and guidance to developers
	developing alternate namespaces.		developing alternate namespaces.
	[ Ed note: This document lives in GitHub at:		[ Ed note: This document lives in GitHub at:
	https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld . Issues and		https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld . Issues and
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶
	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 January 4, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on March 16, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2015 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 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 16 ¶
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. The ALT namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. The ALT namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
			3.1. Choice of the ALT Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.1. Domain Name Reservation Considerations . . . . . . . . . 6		4.1. Domain Name Reservation Considerations . . . . . . . . . 6
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Many protocols and systems need to name entities. Names that look		Many protocols and systems need to name entities. Names that look
	like DNS names (a series of labels separated with dots) have become		like DNS names (a series of labels separated with dots) have become
	common, even in systems that are not part of the global DNS.		common, even in systems that are not part of the global DNS
			administered by IANA.
	This document provides a solution that may be more appropriate than		This document provides a solution that may be more appropriate than
	[RFC6761] in many cases.		[RFC6761] in many cases.
	This document reserves the label "ALT" (short for "Alternate") as a		This document reserves the label "ALT" (short for "Alternate") as a
	Special Use Domain ([RFC6761]). This label is intended to be used as		Special Use Domain ([RFC6761]). This label is intended to be used as
	the final label (apart from the zero-length terminating label) to		the final label to signify that the name is not rooted in the DNS,
	signify that the name is not rooted in the DNS, and that normal		and that normal registration and lookup rules do not apply.
	registration and lookup rules do not apply.
	1.1. Requirements notation		1.1. Requirements notation
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	1.2. Terminology		1.2. Terminology
	This document assumes familiarity with DNS terms and concepts.		This document assumes familiarity with DNS terms and concepts.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 41 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 44 ¶
	can use the term "fully-qualified domain name" to refer to either of		can use the term "fully-qualified domain name" to refer to either of
	these uses.) It is worth noting that the root label is present in		these uses.) It is worth noting that the root label is present in
	the on-wire format of fully-qualified domain names, even if not		the on-wire format of fully-qualified domain names, even if not
	displayed in the presentation form.		displayed in the presentation form.
	The success of the DNS makes it a natural starting point for systems		The success of the DNS makes it a natural starting point for systems
	that need to name entities in a non-DNS context, or that have no		that need to name entities in a non-DNS context, or that have no
	unique meaning in a global context. These name resolutions,		unique meaning in a global context. These name resolutions,
	therefore, occur in a namespace distinct from the DNS.		therefore, occur in a namespace distinct from the DNS.
	In many cases, these systems build a DNS-style tree parallel to the		In many cases, these systems build a DNS-style tree parallel to, but
	global DNS administered by IANA. They often use a pseudo-TLD to		separate from, the global DNS. They often use a pseudo-TLD to cause
	cause resolution in the alternate namespace, using browser plugins,		resolution in the alternate namespace, using browser plugins, shims
	shims in the name resolution process, or simply applications that		in the name resolution process, or simply applications that perform
	perform special handling of this alternate namespace.		special handling of this particular alternate namespace.
	In many cases, the creators of these alternate namespaces have chosen		In many cases, the creators of these alternate namespaces have chosen
	a convenient or descriptive string and started using it. These new		a convenient or descriptive string and started using it. These new
	strings are "alternate" strings and are not registered anywhere or		strings are "alternate" strings and are not registered anywhere or
	part of the DNS. However they appear to be TLDs. Issues may arise		part of the DNS. However they appear to users and to some
	if they are looked up in the DNS. These include:		applications to be TLDs. Issues may arise if they are looked up in
			the DNS. These include:
	o User confusion: If someone emails a link of the form		o User confusion: If someone emails a link of the form
	foo.bar.pseudo-TLD to someone who does not have the necessary		foo.bar.pseudo-TLD to someone who does not have the necessary
	software to resolve names in the pseudo-TLD namespace, the name		software to resolve names in the pseudo-TLD namespace, the name
	will not resolve and the user may become confused.		will not resolve and the user may become confused.
	o Excess traffic hitting the DNS root: Lookups leak out of the		o Excess traffic hitting the DNS root: Lookups leak out of the
	pseudo-TLD namespace and end up hitting the DNS root nameservers.		pseudo-TLD namespace and end up hitting the DNS root nameservers.
	o Collisions: If the pseudo-TLD is eventually delegated from the		o Collisions: If the pseudo-TLD is eventually delegated from the
	root zone the behavior may be non-deterministic.		root zone, the lookup behavior will change in a non-deterministic
			fashion.
	o Lack of success for the user's original goal.		o Lack of success for the user's original goal.
	An alternate name resolution system might be specifically designed to		An alternate name resolution system might be specifically designed to
	provide confidentiality of the looked up name, and to provide a		provide confidentiality of the looked up name, and to provide a
	distributed and censorship resistant namespace. This goal would		distributed and censorship-resistant namespace. This goal would
	necessarily be defeated if the queries leak into the DNS, because the		necessarily be defeated if the queries leak into the DNS, because the
	attempt to look up the name would be visible at least to the		attempt to look up the name would be visible at least to the
	operators of root name servers.		operators of root name servers and to any entity viewing the DNS
			lookups going to the root nameservers.
	3. The ALT namespace		3. The ALT namespace
	In order to avoid the above issues, we reserve the ALT label. Unless		In order to avoid the above issues, we reserve the ALT label. Unless
	the name desired is globally unique, has meaning on the global		the name desired is globally unique, has meaning on the global
	context and is delegated in the DNS, it should be considered an		context and is delegated in the DNS, it should be considered an
	alternate namespace, and follow the ALT label scheme outlined below.		alternate namespace, and follow the ALT label scheme outlined below.
	The ALT label MAY be used in any domain name as a pseudo-TLD to		The ALT label MAY be used in any domain name as a pseudo-TLD to
	signify that this is an alternate (non-DNS) namespace.		signify that this is an alternate (non-DNS) namespace.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 6 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 13 ¶
	namespace resolution), and so the ALT TLD has been added to the		namespace resolution), and so the ALT TLD has been added to the
	"Locally Served DNS Zones" ( [RFC6303]) registry to limit how far		"Locally Served DNS Zones" ( [RFC6303]) registry to limit how far
	these flow.		these flow.
	Groups wishing to create new alternate namespaces SHOULD create their		Groups wishing to create new alternate namespaces SHOULD create their
	alternate namespace under a label that names their namespace, and		alternate namespace under a label that names their namespace, and
	under the ALT label. They SHOULD choose a label that they expect to		under the ALT label. They SHOULD choose a label that they expect to
	be unique and, ideally, descriptive. There is no IANA controlled		be unique and, ideally, descriptive. There is no IANA controlled
	registry for names under the ALT TLD - it is an unmanaged namespace,		registry for names under the ALT TLD - it is an unmanaged namespace,
	and developers are responsible for dealing with any collisions that		and developers are responsible for dealing with any collisions that
	may occur under .alt.		may occur under .alt. Informal lists of namespaces under .alt may
			appear to assist the developer community.
	[Editor note (to be removed before publication): There was		[Editor note (to be removed before publication): There was
	significant discussion on an IANA registry for .ALT - please consult		significant discussion on an IANA registry for the ALT namespace -
	the lists for full thread, but the consensus seems to be that it		please consult the lists for full thread, but the consensus seems to
	would be better for the IETF / IANA to not administer a registry for		be that it would be better for the IETF / IANA to not administer a
	this. It is expected one or more unofficial lists will be created		registry for this. It is expected one or more unofficial lists will
	where people can list the strings that they are using. ]		be created where people can list the strings that they are using. ]
	Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs		Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs
	may decide to move under the ALT TLD, but this is not a requirement.		may decide to move under the ALT TLD, but this is not a requirement.
	Rather, the ALT TLD is being reserved so that future projects of a		Rather, the ALT TLD is being reserved so that current and future
	similar nature have a designated place to create alternate resolution		projects of a similar nature have a designated place to create
	namespaces that will not conflict with the regular DNS context.		alternate resolution namespaces that will not conflict with the
			regular DNS context.
	A number of names other than .ALT were considered and discarded. In		3.1. Choice of the ALT Name
			A number of names other than "ALT" were considered and discarded. In
	order for this technique to be effective the names need to continue		order for this technique to be effective the names need to continue
	to follow both the DNS format and conventions (a prime consideration		to follow both the DNS format and conventions (a prime consideration
	for alternate name formats is that they can be entered in places that		for alternate name formats is that they can be entered in places that
	normally take DNS context names); this rules out using suffixes that		normally take DNS context names); this rules out using suffixes that
	do not follow the usual letter, digit, and hyphen label convention.		do not follow the usual letter, digit, and hyphen label convention.
	Another proposal was that the ALT TLD instead be a reservation under		Another proposal was that the ALT TLD instead be a reservation under
	.arpa. This was considered, but rejected for several reasons,		.arpa. This was considered, but rejected for several reasons,
	including:		including:
	1. We wished this to make it clear that this is not in the DNS		1. We wished this to make it clear that this is not in the DNS
	context, and .arpa clearly is.		context, and .arpa clearly is.
	2. The use of the string .ALT is intended to evoke the alt.*		2. The use of the string .alt is intended to evoke the alt.*
	hierarchy in Usenet.		hierarchy in Usenet.
	3. We wanted the string to be short and easily used.		3. We wanted the string to be short and easily used.
	4. A name underneath .arpa would consume at least five additional		4. A name underneath .arpa would consume at least five additional
	octets of the total 255 octets available in domain names, which		octets of the total 255 octets available in domain names, which
	could put pressure on applications that need long machine-		could put pressure on applications that need long machine-
	generated names.		generated names.
	5. We are suggesting that the string .ALT get special treatment in		5. We are suggesting that the string "ALT" get special treatment in
	resolvers, and shim software. We are concerned that using		resolvers, and shim software. We are concerned that using
	subdomains of an existing TLD (like .arpa) might end up with bad		subdomains of an existing TLD (like .arpa) might end up with bad
	implementations misconfiguring / overriding the TLD itself and		implementations misconfiguring / overriding the TLD itself and
	breaking .arpa.		breaking .arpa.
	There is a concern that if there were placed under .arpa,		There is a concern that if there were placed under .arpa,
	inexperienced nameserver operators may inadvertently cover .arpa. A		inexperienced nameserver operators may inadvertently cover .arpa. A
	more significant concern is that the scope of the issue if the query		more significant concern is that the scope of the issue if the query
	does leak, and the fact that this would then make the root of the		does leak, and the fact that this would then make the root of the
	alternate naming namespace a third level domain, and not a second		alternate naming namespace a third level domain, and not a second
	skipping to change at page 7, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 42 ¶
	allocation by registries/registrars.		allocation by registries/registrars.
	5. Security Considerations		5. Security Considerations
	One of the motivations for the creation of the alt pseudo-TLD is that		One of the motivations for the creation of the alt pseudo-TLD is that
	unmanaged labels in the managed root name space are subject to		unmanaged labels in the managed root name space are subject to
	unexpected takeover if the manager of the root name space decides to		unexpected takeover if the manager of the root name space decides to
	delegate the unmanaged label.		delegate the unmanaged label.
	The unmanaged and "registration not required" nature of labels		The unmanaged and "registration not required" nature of labels
	beneath .ALT provides the opportunity for an attacker to re-use the		beneath .alt provides the opportunity for an attacker to re-use the
	chosen label and thereby possibly compromise applications dependent		chosen label and thereby possibly compromise applications dependent
	on the special host name.		on the special host name.
	6. Acknowledgements		6. Acknowledgements
	The authors understand that there is much politics surrounding the		The authors understand that there is much politics surrounding the
	delegation of a new TLD and thank the ICANN liaison in advance.		delegation of a new TLD and thank the ICANN liaison in advance.
	We would also like to thank Joe Abley, Mark Andrews, Marc Blanchet,		We would also like to thank Joe Abley, Mark Andrews, Marc Blanchet,
	John Bond, Stephane Bortzmeyer, David Cake, David Conrad, Patrik		John Bond, Stephane Bortzmeyer, David Cake, David Conrad, Patrik
	Faltstrom, Olafur Gudmundsson, Paul Hoffman, Joel Jaeggli, Ted Lemon,		Faltstrom, Olafur Gudmundsson, Paul Hoffman, Joel Jaeggli, Ted Lemon,
	Edward Lewis, George Michaelson, Ed Pascoe, Arturo Servin, and Paul		Edward Lewis, George Michaelson, Ed Pascoe, Arturo Servin, and Paul
	Vixie for feedback.		Vixie for feedback.
	7. Normative References		7. Normative References
	[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",		[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
	STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.		STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
			RFC2119, March 1997,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC6303] Andrews, M., "Locally Served DNS Zones", BCP 163, RFC		[RFC6303] Andrews, M., "Locally Served DNS Zones", BCP 163, RFC
	6303, July 2011.		6303, DOI 10.17487/RFC6303, July 2011,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6303>.
	[RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names",		[RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names",
	RFC 6761, February 2013.		RFC 6761, DOI 10.17487/RFC6761, February 2013,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6761>.
	Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes.		Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes.
	[RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ]		[RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ]
			From -01 to -02:
			o Merged a bunch of changes from Paul Hoffman. Thanks for sending a
			git pull.
	From -00 to 01:		From -00 to 01:
	o Removed the "delegated to new style AS112 servers" text -this was		o Removed the "delegated to new style AS112 servers" text -this was
	legacy from the omnicient AS112 days. (Joe Abley)		legacy from the omnicient AS112 days. (Joe Abley)
	o Removed the "Advice to implemntors" section. This used to		o Removed the "Advice to implemntors" section. This used to
	recommend that people used a subdomain of a domain in the DNS. It		recommend that people used a subdomain of a domain in the DNS. It
	was pointed out that this breaks things badly if the domain		was pointed out that this breaks things badly if the domain
	expires.		expires.
End of changes. 26 change blocks.
	37 lines changed or deleted		56 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/