< draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-06.txt   draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-07.txt >
dnsop W. Kumari dnsop W. Kumari
Internet-Draft Google Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Informational A. Sullivan Intended status: Informational A. Sullivan
Expires: May 3, 2017 Dyn Expires: August 5, 2017 Dyn
October 30, 2016 February 1, 2017
The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-06 draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-07
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: Text inside square brackets ([]) is additional background
https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld . Issues and information, answers to frequently asked questions, general musings,
pull requests happily accepted. ] etc. They will be removed before publication.This document is being
collaborated on in Github at: https://github.com/wkumari/draft-
wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld. The most recent version of the document, open
issues, etc should all be available here. The authors (gratefully)
accept pull requests. NOTE: This document is currently a parked WG
document -- as such, all changes are being handled in GitHub and a
new version will be posted once unparked.
It had been suggested (off-list) that the draft should contain <TBD>
instead of .ALT, and then make the WG choose a string before
publication. A version of the draft like this was published on
GitHub (https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld/
tree/7988fcf06100f7a17f21e6993b781690b5774472) (and generated no
feedback). This version reverts to .ALT -- the chairs stated that
the document was adopted with the string .alt, it has been discussed
as .alt. IMO, it is more readable as .alt; it would also be a
difficult consensus call, boiling down to beauty contests. If the WG
selects a different string ("not-dns" had been suggested in the
past), the editors will, of course, replace it. ]
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 May 3, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The ALT namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. The ALT namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Choice of the ALT Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Choice of the ALT Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Domain Name Reservation Considerations . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Domain Name Reservation Considerations . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
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. administered by IANA.
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 48 skipping to change at page 3, line 21
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.
Please see [RFC1034] for background and concepts, and [RFC7719] for Please see [RFC1034] for background and concepts, and [RFC7719] for
terminology. Readers are also expected to be familiar with the terminology. Readers are also expected to be familiar with the
discussions in [I-D.tldr-sutld-ps] discussions in [I-D.ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps]
o DNS name: Domain names that are intended to be used with DNS o DNS name: Domain names that are intended to be used with DNS
resolution, either in the global DNS or in some other context resolution, either in the global DNS or in some other context
o DNS context: The namespace anchored at the globally-unique DNS o DNS context: The namespace anchored at the globally-unique DNS
root. This is the namespace or context that "normal" DNS uses. root. This is the namespace or context that "normal" DNS uses.
o non-DNS context: Any other (alternate) namespace. o non-DNS context: Any other (alternate) namespace.
o pseudo-TLD: A label that appears in a fully-qualified domain name o pseudo-TLD: A label that appears in a fully-qualified domain name
in the position of a TLD, but which is not registered in the in the position of a TLD, but which is not registered in the
global DNS. This term is in no way intended to be pejorative. global DNS. This term is in no way intended to be pejorative.
o TLD: The last visible label in either a fully-qualified domain o TLD: The last visible label in either a fully-qualified domain
name or a name that is qualified relative to the root. See the name or a name that is qualified relative to the root. See the
discussion in Section 2. discussion in Section 2.
2. Background 2. Background
The DNS data model is based on a tree structure, and has a single
root. Conventionally, a name immediately beneath the root is called
a "Top Level Domain" or "TLD". TLDs usually delegate portions of
their namespace to others, who may then delegate further. The
hierarchical, distributed and caching nature of the DNS has made it
the primary resolution system on the Internet.
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.
unique meaning in a global context. These name resolutions occur in
a namespace distinct from the DNS.
In many cases, these systems build a DNS-style tree parallel to, but In many cases, these systems build a DNS-style tree parallel to, but
separate from, the global DNS. They often use a pseudo-TLD to cause separate from, the global DNS. They often use a pseudo-TLD to cause
resolution in the alternate namespace, using browser plugins, shims resolution in the alternate namespace, using browser plugins, shims
in the name resolution process, or simply applications that perform in the name resolution process, or simply applications that perform
special handling of this particular alternate namespace. special handling of this particular alternate namespace. An example
of such a system is the Tor network's [Dingledine2004] use of the
".onion" Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name (see [RFC7686]).
In many cases, the creators of these alternate namespaces have chosen In many cases, the creators of these alternative namespaces have
a convenient or descriptive string and started using it. These chosen a convenient or descriptive string and started using it.
strings are not registered anywhere nor are they part of the DNS. These strings are not registered anywhere nor are they part of the
However they appear to users and to some applications to be TLDs, and DNS. However, to users and to some applications they appear to be
issues may arise if they are looked up in the DNS. TLDs; and issues may arise if they are looked up in the DNS.
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 to the operators of root
operators of root name servers and to any entity viewing the DNS name servers at a minimum as well as to any entity viewing the DNS
lookups going to the root nameservers. lookups going to the root nameservers.
The techniques in this document are primarily intended to address the
"Experimental Squatting Problem", the "Land Rush Problem" and "Name
Collisions" issues discussed in [I-D.ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps] (whiich
contains much additional background, etc).
3. The ALT namespace 3. The ALT namespace
This document reserves the ALT label, using the [RFC6761] process, This document reserves the ALT label, using the [RFC6761] process,
for use as a pseudo-TLD. This creates an unmanaged sandbox for use as an unmanaged pseudo-TLD namespace. The ALT label MAY be
namespace. The ALT label MAY be used in any domain name as a pseudo- used in any domain name as a pseudo-TLD to signify that this is an
TLD to signify that this is an alternate (non-DNS) namespace. alternate (non-DNS) namespace, and should not be looked up in a DNS
context.
Alternate namespaces should differentiate themselves from other Alternative namespaces should differentiate themselves from other
alternate namespaces by choosing a name and using it in the label alternate namespaces by choosing a name and using it in the label
position just before the pseudo-TLD (ALT). For example, a group position just before the pseudo-TLD (ALT). For example, a group
wishing to create a namespace for Friends Of Olaf might choose the wishing to create a namespace for Friends Of Olaf might choose the
string "foo" and use any set of labels under foo.alt. string "foo" and use any set of labels under foo.alt.
As they are in an alternate namespace, they have no significance in As they are in an alternative namespace, they have no significance in
the regular DNS context and so should not be looked up in the DNS the regular DNS context and so should not be looked up in the DNS
context. Some of these requests will inevitably leak into the DNS context. Some of these requests will inevitably leak into the DNS
context (for example, because of clicks on a link in a browser that context (for example, because of clicks on a link in a browser that
does not have a extension installed that implements the alternate does not have a extension installed that implements the alternate
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 MAY create their Groups wishing to create new alternate namespaces MAY create their
alternate namespace under a label that names their namespace under alternate namespace under a label that names their namespace under
the ALT label. They SHOULD choose a label that they expect to be the ALT label. They SHOULD choose a label that they expect to be
unique and, ideally, descriptive. There is no IANA controlled 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. Informal lists of namespaces under .alt may may occur under .alt. Informal lists of namespaces under .alt may
appear to assist the developer community. 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 the ALT namespace - significant discussion on an IANA registry for the ALT namespace -
please consult the lists for full thread, but the consensus seems to please consult the lists for full thread, but the consensus was that
be that it would be better for the IETF / IANA to not administer a it would be better for the IETF / IANA to not administer a registry
registry for this. It is expected one or more unofficial lists will for this. It is expected one or more unofficial lists will be
be created where people can list the strings that they are using. ] 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 choose to move under the ALT TLD, but this is not a requirement.
Rather, the ALT TLD is being reserved so that current and future Rather, the ALT TLD is being reserved so that current and future
projects of a similar nature have a designated place to create projects of a similar nature have a designated place to create
alternate resolution namespaces that will not conflict with the alternative resolution namespaces that will not conflict with the
regular DNS context. regular DNS context.
3.1. Choice of the ALT Name 3.1. Choice of the ALT Name
A number of names other than "ALT" were considered and discarded. In 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 alternative name formats is that they can be entered in places
normally take DNS context names); this rules out using suffixes that that normally take DNS context names); this rules out using suffixes
do not follow the usual letter, digit, and hyphen label convention. that do not follow the usual letter, digit, and hyphen label
convention.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to add the ALT string to the "Special-Use The IANA is requested to add the ALT string to the "Special-Use
Domain Name" registry ([RFC6761], and reference this document. In Domain Name" registry ([RFC6761], and reference this document. In
addition, the "Locally Served DNS Zones" ([RFC6303]) registry should addition, the "Locally Served DNS Zones" ([RFC6303]) registry should
be updated to reference this document. be updated to reference this document.
4.1. Domain Name Reservation Considerations 4.1. Domain Name Reservation Considerations
skipping to change at page 5, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 11
of them. If the user tries to resolve a name of the form of them. If the user tries to resolve a name of the form
<namespace>.alt without the <namespace> plugin installed, the <namespace>.alt without the <namespace> plugin installed, the
request will leak into the DNS, and receive a negative response. request will leak into the DNS, and receive a negative response.
2. Writers of application software that implement a non-DNS 2. Writers of application software that implement a non-DNS
namespace are expected to intercept names of the form namespace are expected to intercept names of the form
<namespace>.alt and perform application specific handing with <namespace>.alt and perform application specific handing with
them. Other applications are not intended to perform any special them. Other applications are not intended to perform any special
handing. handing.
3. In general, writers of name resolution APIs and libraries do not 3. Writers of name resolution APIs and libraries which operate in
need to perform special handing of these names. If developers of the DNS context should not attempt to look these names up in the
other namespaces implement their namespace through a "shim" or DNS. If developers of other namespaces implement their namespace
library, they will need to intercept and perform their own through a "shim" or library, they will need to intercept and
handling. perform their own handling.
4. Caching DNS servers SHOULD recognize these names as special and 4. Caching DNS servers SHOULD recognize these names as special and
SHOULD NOT, by default, attempt to look up NS records for them, SHOULD NOT, by default, attempt to look up NS records for them,
or otherwise query authoritative DNS servers in an attempt to or otherwise query authoritative DNS servers in an attempt to
resolve these names. Instead, caching DNS servers SHOULD resolve these names. Instead, caching DNS servers SHOULD
generate immediate negative responses for all such queries. generate immediate negative responses for all such queries.
5. Authoritative DNS servers SHOULD recognize these names as special 5. Authoritative DNS servers SHOULD recognize these names as special
and SHOULD, by default, generate immediate negative responses for and SHOULD, by default, generate immediate negative responses for
all such queries, unless explicitly configured by the all such queries, unless explicitly configured by the
skipping to change at page 6, line 24 skipping to change at page 6, line 42
information may be useful for support or debugging purposes. information may be useful for support or debugging purposes.
7. DNS Registries/Registrars MUST NOT grant requests to register 7. DNS Registries/Registrars MUST NOT grant requests to register
"alt" names in the normal way to any person or entity. These "alt" names in the normal way to any person or entity. These
"alt" names are defined by protocol specification to be "alt" names are defined by protocol specification to be
nonexistent, and they fall outside the set of names available for nonexistent, and they fall outside the set of names available for
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
unmanaged labels in the managed root name space are subject to that 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. This could occur if the manager of the root
delegate the unmanaged label. Another motivation to to increase use name space decides to delegate the unmanaged label. Another
privacy for those users who do use alternate name resolution systems, motivation for implementing the .alt namespace to increase user
by limiting how far these queries leak if used on a system which does privacy for those who do use alternate name resolution systems; it
not implement the alternate resolution system. would limit how far these queries leak (e.g if used on a system which
does not implement the alternate resolution system).
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
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, Bob Harold, Paul Hoffman, Joel
Edward Lewis, George Michaelson, Ed Pascoe, Arturo Servin, and Paul Jaeggli, Ted Lemon, Edward Lewis, George Michaelson, Ed Pascoe,
Vixie for feedback. Arturo Servin, and Paul Vixie for feedback.
Christian Grothoff was also very helpful. Christian Grothoff was also very helpful.
7. Normative References 7. References
[I-D.tldr-sutld-ps] 7.1. Normative References
Lemon, T., Droms, R., and W. Kumari, "Special-Use Names
Problem Statement", draft-tldr-sutld-ps-04 (work in
progress), September 2016.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>. <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, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997, RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6303, July 2011, 6303, DOI 10.17487/RFC6303, July 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6303>. <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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6761, February 2013, RFC 6761, DOI 10.17487/RFC6761, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6761>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6761>.
[RFC7686] Appelbaum, J. and A. Muffett, "The ".onion" Special-Use
Domain Name", RFC 7686, DOI 10.17487/RFC7686, October
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7686>.
[RFC7719] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS [RFC7719] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", RFC 7719, DOI 10.17487/RFC7719, December Terminology", RFC 7719, DOI 10.17487/RFC7719, December
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7719>. 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7719>.
7.2. Informative References
[Dingledine2004]
Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., and P. Syverson, "Tor: The
Second-Generation Onion Router", , 8 2004,
<<https://svn.torproject.org/svn/projects/design-paper/
tor-design.html>>.
[I-D.ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps]
Lemon, T., Droms, R., and W. Kumari, "Special-Use Names
Problem Statement", draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-00 (work in
progress), October 2016.
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 -06 to -07:
o Rolled up the GItHub releases in to a full release.
From -07.2 to -07.3 (GitHub point release):
Removed 'sandbox' at Stephane's suggestion - https://www.ietf.org/
mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg18495.html
Suggested (in 4.1 bullet 3) that DNS libraries ignore these -- Bob
Harold - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/
a_ruPf8osSzi_hCzCqOxYLXhYoA
Added some pointers to the SUTLD document.
From -07.1 to -07.2 (Github point release):
o Reverted the <TBD> string (at request of chairs).
o Added an editors note explaining the above.
o Removed some more background, editorializing, etc.
From -06 to -07.1 (https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-
alt-tld/tree/7988fcf06100f7a17f21e6993b781690b5774472):
o Replaced ALT with <TBD> at the suggestions of George.
From -05 to -06: From -05 to -06:
o Removed a large amount of background - we now have the (adopted) o Removed a large amount of background - we now have the (adopted)
tldr document for that. tldr document for that.
o Made it clear that pseudo-TLD is not intended to be pejorative. o Made it clear that pseudo-TLD is not intended to be pejorative.
o Tried to make it cleat that this is something people can choose to o Tried to make it cleat that this is something people can choose to
use - or not. use - or not.
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
67 lines changed or deleted 130 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/