idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-26) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. ** Bad filename characters: the document name given in the document, 'draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-05.txt,', contains other characters than digits, lowercase letters and dash. ** Missing revision: the document name given in the document, 'draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-05.txt,', does not give the document revision number ~~ Missing draftname component: the document name given in the document, 'draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-05.txt,', does not seem to contain all the document name components required ('draft' prefix, document source, document name, and revision) -- see https://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines#naming for more information. == Mismatching filename: the document gives the document name as 'draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-05.txt,', but the file name used is 'draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-05' == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Couldn't figure out when the document was first submitted -- there may comments or warnings related to the use of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work that could not be issued because of this. Please check the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info to determine if you need the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. -- The document date (May 1998) is 9478 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 10 errors (**), 1 flaw (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT Test and Example TLDs 2 November 1997 3 Expires May 1998 5 Test and Example Top Level Domain Names 6 ---- --- ------- --- ----- ------ ----- 8 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd 9 Aliza R. Panitz 11 Status of This Document 13 This draft, file name draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-05.txt, is 14 intended to be become a Best Current Practice RFC. Distribution of 15 this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent to the DNS 16 mailing list or to the authors. 18 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 19 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 20 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 21 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 24 months. Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by 25 other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet- 26 Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a 27 ``working draft'' or ``work in progress.'' 29 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 30 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 31 Directories on ds.internic.net (East USA), ftp.isi.edu (West USA), 32 nic.nordu.net (North Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (South Europe), 33 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), or ftp.is.co.za (Africa). 35 Abstract 37 To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a number of top 38 level domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as 39 examples in documentation, and the like. 41 Table of Contents 43 Status of This Document....................................1 44 Abstract...................................................1 46 Table of Contents..........................................2 48 1. Introduction............................................3 49 2. TLDs for Testing and Documentation Examples.............3 50 3. Security Considerations.................................4 52 References.................................................6 53 Author's Addresses.........................................6 54 Expiration and File Name...................................6 56 1. Introduction 58 The global Internet Domain Name System is documented in RFC 1034, 59 1035, 1591 and numerous additional Requests for Comment. It defines 60 a tree of names starting with root, ".", immediately below which are 61 top level domain names such as ".com" and ".us". Below top level 62 domain names there are normally additional levels of names. 64 2. TLDs for Testing and Documentation Examples 66 There is a need for top level domain names that can safely be used in 67 private testing, as examples in documentation, and for 68 experimentation, without fear of conflicts with actual top level 69 domain names in the global DNS, or which should be reserved to avoid 70 confusion. It is best to allocate a reasonably large number of names 71 of different lengths now to reduce the probability of a need for 72 further top level domain name creation and assignment for this 73 purpose in the foreseeable future. 75 To satisfy these needs, forty two domain names are reserved as 76 described below. 78 The following twelve top level domain names are permanently reserved. 80 .xy 81 .xz 82 .nil 83 .tld 84 .link 85 .site 86 .test 87 .bogus 88 .example 89 .invalid 90 .localhost 91 .asixtythreecharacterstopleveldomainnamewhichisthelongestallowed 93 Note: two letter top level domain names are reserved for ISO 94 3166 / Universal Postal Union two letter country codes. 95 However, ISO 3166 reserves all two letter codes beginning with 96 "x" for local use and states that they will never be assigned to 97 a country. 99 These names are available for use in testing or as examples in 100 documentation except for ".invalid", ".link", and ".localhost". 101 ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain names 102 that are sure to be invalid. ".link" is reserved to avoid confusion 103 with the "link.local" domain provided in draft-ietf-dnsind-local- 104 names-*.txt and should not be used. The ".localhost" TLD has 105 traditionally been staticly defined in host DNS implementations as 106 having an A record pointing to the loop back IP address and is 107 reserved for such use. 109 The TLDs ".xy", ".nil", and ".test" are particularly recommended for 110 use in testing. If a larger number of test names is needed, the 111 numeric suffix names listed below should be used. 113 The TLDs ".xz", ".tld", ".site", ".bogus", and ".example" are 114 particularly recommended for use in documentation or as examples. If 115 a larger number of names is needed in documentation or as examples, 116 the numeric suffix names listed below should be used. 118 The above twelve names will be added to the root with a single type 119 TXT RR under each. The RDATA for these TXT RRs will contain the 120 single string 122 Reserved, see RFC NNNN. 124 [where NNNN is the number of the RFC this draft gets issued as.] 126 In addition, the thirty domain names formed by appending the digits 0 127 through 9 to "tld", "test", and "example", as listed below, are also 128 permanently reserved for test and documentation use; however, since 129 there are currently no TLDs with digits in them and the presence of 130 these names without the digit suffix should provide notice, it is not 131 intended that these thirty additional TLDs be entered into the root 132 zone. 134 .tld0 .test0 .example0 135 .tld1 .test1 .exmaple1 136 .tld2 .test2 .example2 137 .tld3 .test2 .example2 138 .tld4 .test4 .example4 139 .tld5 .test5 .exmaple5 140 .tld6 .test6 .example6 141 .tld7 .test7 .example7 142 .tld8 .test8 .example8 143 .tld9 .test9 .example9 145 3. Security Considerations 147 Confusion and conflict can be caused by the use of a current or 148 potential future top level domain name in testing, experimentation, 149 as an example in documentation, or the like. Test and experimental 150 software can escape and end up being run against the global 151 operational DNS. Even examples used "only" in documentation can end 152 up being coded and released or cause conflicts due to later real use 153 and the possible acquisition of intellectual property rights in such 154 "example" names. 156 The reservation of several top level domain names for these purposes 157 will minimize such confusion and conflict. 159 References 161 RFC 1034 - P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 162 11/01/1987. 164 RFC 1035 - P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - implementation and 165 specification", 11/01/1987. 167 RFC 1591 - J. Postel, "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation", 168 03/03/1994. 170 draft-ietf-dnsind-local-names-*.txt 172 Author's Addresses 174 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd 175 CyberCash, Inc. 176 318 Acton Street 177 Carlisle, MA 01741 USA 179 Telephone: +1 978 287 4877 180 +1 703 620-4200 (main office, Reston, VA) 181 FAX: +1 978 371 7148 182 EMail: dee@cybercash.com 184 Aliza R. Panitz 185 AccessAbility Internet Services, Inc. 186 12515 Greenbriar Road 187 Potomac, MD 20854 USA 189 Telephone: +1 301 983-3547 190 FAX: +1 301 983-4899 191 EMail: buglady@ability.net 193 Expiration and File Name 195 This draft expires May 1998. 197 Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-05.txt.