idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-07.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 (2024-04-25) 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-07.txt,', contains other characters than digits, lowercase letters and dash. ** Missing revision: the document name given in the document, 'draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-07.txt,', does not give the document revision number ~~ Missing draftname component: the document name given in the document, 'draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-07.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-07.txt,', but the file name used is 'draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-07' == 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 (July 1998) is 9416 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) -- Missing reference section? 'GUIDE' on line 97 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC 1886' on line 151 looks like a reference Summary: 10 errors (**), 1 flaw (~~), 3 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT Test and Example TLDs 2 January 1998 3 Expires July 1998 5 Test and Example Top Level DNS 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-07.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. In addition, a few second 40 level domain names reserved for use as examples are documented. 42 Table of Contents 44 Status of This Document....................................1 45 Abstract...................................................1 47 Table of Contents..........................................2 49 1. Introduction............................................3 50 2. TLDs for Testing and Documentation Examples.............3 52 3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names..............6 53 4. Security Considerations.................................6 55 References.................................................7 56 Author's Addresses.........................................7 57 Expiration and File Name...................................7 59 1. Introduction 61 The global Internet Domain Name System is documented in [RFC 1034, 62 1035, 1591] and numerous additional Requests for Comment. It defines 63 a tree of names starting with root, ".", immediately below which are 64 top level domain names such as ".com" and ".us". Below top level 65 domain names there are normally additional levels of names. 67 2. TLDs for Testing and Documentation Examples 69 There is a need for top level domain (TLD) names that can safely be 70 used in private testing, as examples in documentation, and for 71 experimentation, without fear of conflicts with actual top level 72 domain names in the global DNS, or which should be reserved to avoid 73 confusion. 75 For example, without guidance, a site might set up some local 76 additional unused top level domains for testing of its local DNS code 77 and configuration. Later, these TLDs might come into actual use on 78 the global Internet. As a result, local attempts to reference the 79 real data in these zones could be thwarted by the local test 80 versions. 82 Or test or example code might be written that accesses a TLD that is 83 in use with the thought that the test code would only be run in 84 restricted testbed net or the example never actually run. Later, the 85 test code could esacpe from the testbed or the example be actually 86 coded and run on the Internet. Depending on the nature of the test 87 or example, it might be best for it, after its esacpe, to be 88 referencing a mostly empty TLD reserved for such purposes. 90 To satisfy these needs, domain names are reserved as described below. 91 It is thought best to allocate a reasonably large number of names of 92 different lengths now to reduce the probability of a need for further 93 top level domain name creation and assignment for this purpose in the 94 foreseeable future. On the other hand, there is no reason to horde 95 an excessive number of names. There was a working group consensus 96 that the answer to balancing these requirmenets is fourty two names 97 [GUIDE]. 99 The following twelve top level domain names are reserved. 101 .xy 102 .xz 103 .nil 104 .tld 105 .link 106 .site 107 .test 108 .bogus 109 .example 110 .invalid 111 .localhost 112 .asixtythreecharacterstopleveldomainnamewhichisthelongestallowed 114 Note: two letter top level domain names are reserved for ISO 115 3166 / Universal Postal Union two letter country codes. 116 However, ISO 3166 reserves all two letter codes beginning with 117 "x" for local use and states that they will never be assigned to 118 a country. 120 These names are available for use in testing or as examples in 121 documentation except for ".invalid", ".link", and ".localhost". 123 ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain names 124 that are sure to be invalid. By appending ".invalid" to a domain 125 name, you are sure of constructing a name that is not valid. ".link" 126 is reserved to avoid confusion with the "link.local" domain provided 127 in [draft-ietf-dnsind-local-names-*] and should not be used. The 128 ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been staticly defined in host DNS 129 implementations as having an A record pointing to the loop back IP 130 address and is reserved for such use. 132 The TLDs ".xy", ".nil", and ".test" are particularly recommended for 133 use in testing. If a larger number of test names is needed, the 134 numeric suffix names listed below should be used. 136 The TLDs ".xz", ".tld", ".site", ".bogus", and ".example" are 137 particularly recommended for use in documentation or as examples. If 138 a larger number of names is needed in documentation or as examples, 139 the numeric suffix names listed below should be used. 141 The above twelve names will be added to the root with a single type 142 TXT RR under each. The RDATA for these TXT RRs will contain the 143 single string 145 Reserved, see RFC nnnn. 147 [Note to RFC-Editor: replace nnnn above with the number of the RFC 148 this draft gets issued as and delete this note] 150 Other data will not be stored under these names in the root zone 151 except that the loopback A and AAAA [RFC 1886] resource records may 152 be stored under .localhost. However, to assure proper operation of 153 hosts even when unable to access a root server, .localhost must still 154 be locally staticly configured. 156 In addition, the thirty domain names formed by appending the digits 0 157 through 9 to "tld", "test", and "example", as listed below, are also 158 reserved for test and documentation use; however, since there are 159 currently no TLDs with digits in them and the presence of these names 160 without the digit suffix should provide notice, it is not intended 161 that these thirty additional TLDs be entered into the root zone at 162 this time. 164 .tld0 .test0 .example0 165 .tld1 .test1 .exmaple1 166 .tld2 .test2 .example2 167 .tld3 .test2 .example2 168 .tld4 .test4 .example4 169 .tld5 .test5 .exmaple5 170 .tld6 .test6 .example6 171 .tld7 .test7 .example7 172 .tld8 .test8 .example8 173 .tld9 .test9 .example9 175 3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names 177 The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has also reserved the 178 following second level domain names which can be used as examples. 180 example.com 181 example.net 182 example.org 184 4. Security Considerations 186 Confusion and conflict can be caused by the use of a current or 187 potential future top level domain name in testing, experimentation, 188 as an example in documentation, or the like. Test and experimental 189 software can escape and end up being run against the global 190 operational DNS. Even examples used "only" in documentation can end 191 up being coded and released or cause conflicts due to later real use 192 and the possible acquisition of intellectual property rights in such 193 "example" names. 195 The reservation of several top level domain names for these purposes 196 will minimize such confusion and conflict. 198 References 200 GUIDE - D. Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", 1989. 202 RFC 1034 - P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 203 11/01/1987. 205 RFC 1035 - P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - implementation and 206 specification", 11/01/1987. 208 RFC 1591 - J. Postel, "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation", 209 03/03/1994. 211 RFC 1886 - S. Thomson, C. Huitema, "DNS Extensions to support IP 212 version 6", December 1995. 214 draft-ietf-dnsind-local-names-* - D. Eastlake, "Local DNS Names". 216 Author's Addresses 218 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd 219 CyberCash, Inc. 220 318 Acton Street 221 Carlisle, MA 01741 USA 223 Telephone: +1 978 287 4877 224 +1 703 620-4200 (main office, Reston, VA) 225 FAX: +1 978 371 7148 226 email: dee@cybercash.com 228 Aliza R. Panitz 229 AccessAbility Internet Services, Inc. 230 12515 Greenbriar Road 231 Potomac, MD 20854 USA 233 Telephone: +1 301 983-3547 234 FAX: +1 301 983-4899 235 EMail: buglady@ability.net 237 Expiration and File Name 239 This draft expires July 1998. 241 Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsind-test-tlds-07.txt.