< draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-05.txt		draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-06.txt >
	dnsop W. Kumari		dnsop W. Kumari
	Internet-Draft Google		Internet-Draft Google
	Intended status: Informational A. Sullivan		Intended status: Informational A. Sullivan
	Expires: September 4, 2015 Dyn		Expires: November 19, 2015 Dyn
	March 03, 2015		May 18, 2015
	The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain		The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
	draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-05		draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld-06
	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.
	[ This document (and issues) lives in GitHub at: https://github.com/		[ Ed note: This document lives in GitHub at:
	wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld . RFC Editor: Please remove this		https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld . Issues and
	note before publication.]		pull requests happily accpeted. ]
	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 September 4, 2015.		This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2015.
	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 17 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 17 ¶
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. The ALT namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. The ALT namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Advice to developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. Advice to developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5.1. Domain Name Reservation Considerations . . . . . . . . . 7		5.1. Domain Name Reservation Considerations . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		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.
	This document provides a solution that may be more appropriate than		This document provides a solution that may be more appropriate than
	skipping to change at page 3, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 25 ¶
	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.		global DNS.
	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 so has a single		The DNS data model is based on a tree structure, and has a single
	root. Conventionally, a name immediately beneath the root is called		root. Conventionally, a name immediately beneath the root is called
	a "Top Level Domain" or "TLD". TLDs usually delegate portions of		a "Top Level Domain" or "TLD". TLDs usually delegate portions of
	their namespace to others, who may then delegate further. The		their namespace to others, who may then delegate further. The
	hierarchical, distributed and caching nature of the DNS has made it		hierarchical, distributed and caching nature of the DNS has made it
	the primary resolution system on the Internet.		the primary resolution system on the Internet.
	Domain names are terminated by a zero-length label, so the root label		Domain names are terminated by a zero-length label, so the root label
	is normally invisible. Truly fully-qualified names indicate the root		is normally invisible. Truly fully-qualified names indicate the root
	label explicitly, thus: "an.example.tld.". Most of the time, names		label explicitly, thus: "an.example.tld.". Most of the time, names
	are written implicitly relative to the root, thus: "an.example.tld".		are written implicitly relative to the root, thus: "an.example.tld".
	skipping to change at page 4, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 5 ¶
	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 the
	global DNS administered by IANA. They often use a pseudo-TLD to		global DNS administered by IANA. They often use a pseudo-TLD to
	cause resolution in the alternate namespace, using browser plugins,		cause resolution in the alternate namespace, using browser plugins,
	shims in the name resolution process, or simply applications that		shims in the name resolution process, or simply applications that
	only use this alternate namespace.		perform special handling of this alternate namespace.
	In many cases, the creators of these alternate namespaces have simply		In many cases, the creators of these alternate namespaces have chosen
	chosen a convenient or descriptive string and started using it.		a convenient or descriptive string and started using it. These new
	These new strings are "alternate" strings and are not registered		strings are "alternate" strings and are not registered anywhere or
	anywhere or part of the DNS. However they appear to be TLDs. Issues		part of the DNS. However they appear to be TLDs. Issues may arise
	may arise if they are looked up in the DNS. These include:		if they are looked up in the DNS. These include:
	o User confusion: If someone emails a link of the form foo.bar		o User confusion: If someone emails a link of the form
	.pseudo-TLD to someone who does not have the necessary software to		foo.bar.pseudo-TLD to someone who does not have the necessary
	resolve names in the pseudo-TLD namespace, the name will not		software to resolve names in the pseudo-TLD namespace, the name
	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 behavior may be non-deterministic.
	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
	skipping to change at page 4, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 46 ¶
	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.
	Alternate namespaces should differentiate themselves from other		Alternate 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. It is		string "foo" and use any set of labels under foo.alt.
	RECOMMENDED that users register their usage of this string with the
	IANA in Registry TBD, but users are not required to do so. This is
	intended to help prevent collisions, but uniqueness is NOT
	guaranteed.
	As they are in an alternate namespace, they have no significance in		As they are in an alternate 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. Unfortunately simply saying that "something should not		context. Unfortunately simply saying that "something should not
	happen" doesn't actually stop it from happening, so we need some		happen" doesn't actually stop it from happening, so we need some
	rules to deal. The ALT TLD is delegated to "new style" AS112		rules to guide implementors and operators. The ALT TLD is delegated
	servers, and so recursive and stub resolvers will get NXDOMAIN for		to "new style" AS112 servers, and so recursive and stub resolvers
	all queries.		will get NXDOMAIN for all queries.
	1. Iterative resolvers SHOULD follow the advice in [RFC6303],		1. Iterative resolvers SHOULD follow the advice in [RFC6303],
	Section 3.		Section 3.
	2. The ALT TLD is delegated to "new style" AS112 nameservers		2. The ALT TLD is delegated to "new style" AS112 nameservers
	([I-D.ietf-dnsop-as112-dname] ), which will return NXDOMAIN for		([I-D.ietf-dnsop-as112-dname] ), which will return NXDOMAIN for
	all queries.		all queries.
	These rules are intended to limit how far unintentional queries (i.e.		These rules are intended to limit how far unintentional queries (i.e.
	those not intended for the global DNS) flow.		those not intended for the global DNS) flow.
	Groups wishing to create 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. They SHOULD consult the TBD		be unique and, ideally, descriptive.
	registry to see if anyone has published that they are already using
	this string, and if so, would be wise to choose another string or
	risk the possibility of collisions with some other application. As
	there is no requirement to register the use of a label in the ALT
	namespace, uniqueness is not guaranteed.
	Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs		Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs
	are encouraged but not required to move under the ALT TLD. Rather,		may decide to move under the ALT TLD, but this is not a requirement.
	the ALT TLD is being reserved so that future projects of a similar		Rather, the ALT TLD is being reserved so that future projects of a
	nature have a designated place to create alternate resolution		similar nature have a designated place to create alternate resolution
	namespaces that will not conflict with the regular DNS context.		namespaces that will not conflict with the regular DNS context.
	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 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:
	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
	skipping to change at page 7, line 12 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 5 ¶
	provide confidentiality, we recommend anchoring the alternate		provide confidentiality, we recommend anchoring the alternate
	namespace under the .ALT TLD.		namespace under the .ALT TLD.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. 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.
	The IANA is requested to create and administer a new, first come,
	first served registry named "ALT pseudo-TLD labels".
	The fields in the registry should be:
	Label: An ASCII string containing a maximum of 63 characters, using
	only letters (a-z), digits (0-9), and hyphen (-).
	Description: A short, textual description explaining what the label
	is used for.
	Reference: A link to a stable reference, such as an RFC, or contact
	information for a person responsible for the reservation.
	5.1. Domain Name Reservation Considerations		5.1. Domain Name Reservation Considerations
	This section is to satisfy the requirement in Section 5 of RFC6761.		This section is to satisfy the requirement in Section 5 of RFC6761.
	The domain "alt.", and any names falling within ".alt.", are special		The domain "alt.", and any names falling within ".alt.", are special
	in the following ways:		in the following ways:
	1. Human users are expected to know that strings that end in .alt		1. Human users are expected to know that strings that end in .alt
	behave differently to normal DNS names. Users are expected to		behave differently to normal DNS names. Users are expected to
	have applications running on their machines that intercept stings		have applications running on their machines that intercept stings
	skipping to change at page 9, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 9 ¶
	[I-D.ietf-dnsop-as112-dname]		[I-D.ietf-dnsop-as112-dname]
	Abley, J., Dickson, B., Kumari, W., and G. Michaelson,		Abley, J., Dickson, B., Kumari, W., and G. Michaelson,
	"AS112 Redirection using DNAME", draft-ietf-dnsop-		"AS112 Redirection using DNAME", draft-ietf-dnsop-
	as112-dname-06 (work in progress), November 2014.		as112-dname-06 (work in progress), November 2014.
	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 -05 to -06
			o Incorporated comments from a number of people, including a number
			of suggestion heard at the IETF meeting in Dallas, and the DNSOP
			Interim meeting in May, 2015.
			o Removed the "Let's have an (optional) IANA registry for people to
			(opportinistically) register their string, if they want that
			option" stuff. It was, um, optional....
	From -04 to -05		From -04 to -05
	o Went through and made sure that I'd captured the feedback		o Went through and made sure that I'd captured the feedback
	received.		received.
	o Comments from Ed Lewis.		o Comments from Ed Lewis.
	o Filled in the "Domain Name Reservation Considerations" section of		o Filled in the "Domain Name Reservation Considerations" section of
	RFC6761.		RFC6761.
End of changes. 18 change blocks.
	55 lines changed or deleted		43 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/