idnits 2.17.1 draft-coffeystrain-privatednstld-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (May 2000) is 8744 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC 1034' is defined on line 127, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 1035' is defined on line 130, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 1591' is defined on line 134, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 2606' is defined on line 137, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1591 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT S. Coffey 2 Category: Best Current Practice S. Strain 3 Expires: November 2000 Theale Volunteer Networking Group 4 May 2000 6 Filename: draft-coffeystrain-privatednstld-00.txt 8 DNS Top Level Domain For Private Networks 10 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 11 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 13 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 14 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 15 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 16 Drafts. 18 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 19 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 20 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 21 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 22 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 23 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 24 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 25 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 27 Status of this Memo 29 This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the 30 Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for 31 improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) Theale Volunteer Networking Group (2000). 36 All Rights Reserved. 38 Abstract 40 The document outlines the use of a top level DNS domain ".pri", for 41 use within private networks. 43 A reserved top level domain would allow private domain names to be 44 chosen that would not conflict with current or future registered 45 public domain names. 47 1. Introduction 49 Increasingly, private networks require a domain name service for 50 both private and public (internet) domain names. However, it is not 51 required or desirable for the private namespace to be accessible 52 from outside the private network. A reserved top level domain 53 would allow a private namespace to be defined that would not 54 conflict with current or future registered public domain names. 56 2. Current Common Practice in private network domain names selection 58 Currently, common practice when selecting a private network domain 59 name follows one of two unsatisfactory paths: 61 (i) Use of registered public domain name 63 A private DNS server is configured as authoritative for the 64 registered domain name, in addition to the existing public facing 65 authoritative name server(s). 67 The private server holds the "private version" of the registered 68 domain, and delegates to subdomains as necessary. 70 This requires two different versions of a single zone, in 71 contravention of RFC1034. This can also lead to practical problems 72 if a DNS query from a server on the private network to a public name 73 server returns additional information regarding names in the "public 74 version" of the registered zone. 76 (ii) Use of an unregistered domain name 78 An unregistered domain name is chosen for the private network, for 79 example a company with a registered domain "acme.com" might choose 80 "acme.net" for the private network. 82 This avoids the problems of using a registered domain name, yet may 83 conflict with a future reservation of the domain chosen. 85 3. Using a Reserved Top Level Domain for private network domain names 87 A reserved top level domain name, ".pri", would allow a private 88 domain name to be chosen safely with no risk of conflict with 89 current or future registered domain names. 91 A private DNS server is configured as authoritative for the ".pri" 92 domain, and delegates the private subdomains as appropriate. 94 Use of a private domain naming scheme based on a consistent top 95 level domain also allows multiple trusted private networks to 96 integrate their domain naming schemes simply by merging and 97 synchronising the ".pri" zone. 99 Use of a clearly private domain name also can provide a clear 100 distinction to users and applications between trusted private hosts 101 and untrusted public hosts. 103 For example, Acme Corp may choose "acme.pri" for their private 104 domain name. They configure their DNS server to be authority for 105 ".pri" and "acme.pri", whilst all domains outside of the ".pri" 106 domain will be resolved via public DNS servers. Should Acme Corp 107 wish to make its private domain names accessible to Cowboy Corp, who 108 use the private domain "cowboy.pri", then the two organisations 109 simply merge and synchronize their ".pri" zones. 111 4. Existing Reserved Top Level Domains 113 Existing reserved top level domains are described in RFC2606. 115 5. IANA Considerations 117 To enable the use of the domain ".pri" as described, IANA would need 118 to reserve the domain for this purpose. 120 6. Request for Comments 122 Please send comments by e-mail to: 123 sicoffey@yahoo.com, cc: sandy.strain@integralis.com 125 References 127 [RFC 1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities" 128 STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 130 [RFC 1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 131 specification" 132 STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 134 [RFC 1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation" 135 RFC 1591, March 1994. 137 [RFC 2606] Eastlake & Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names" 138 BCP32, RFC 2606, June 1999. 140 Authors' Addresses 142 Please note that Simon Coffey will not be contactable from 143 24-Jun-200 to 26-Jul-2001 but will be reading e-mail at 144 approximately monthly intervals. Please contact Sandy Strain with 145 any urgent queries during this period. 147 Simon Coffey 148 c/o Integralis Ltd 149 Brunel Rd 150 Theale 151 READING 152 UK 153 EMail: sicoffey@yahoo.com 155 Sandy Strain 156 c/o Integralis Ltd 157 Brunel Rd 158 Theale 159 READING 160 UK 161 EMail: sandy.strain@integralis.com 162 Phone: +44 118 930 6060