idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 5, 2017) is 2607 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) == Missing Reference: 'Comment' is mentioned on line 100, but not defined -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 550 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 974 (Obsoleted by RFC 2821) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2821 (Obsoleted by RFC 5321) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3588 (Obsoleted by RFC 6733) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4408 (Obsoleted by RFC 7208) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4871 (Obsoleted by RFC 6376) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5389 (Obsoleted by RFC 8489) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5766 (Obsoleted by RFC 8656) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group D. Crocker 3 Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice March 5, 2017 5 Expires: September 6, 2017 7 DNS Scoped Data Through '_Underscore' Attribute Leaves 8 draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-01 10 Abstract 12 Historically, any DNS RR may occur for any domain name. Recent 13 additions have defined DNS leaf nodes that contain a reserved node 14 name, beginning with an underscore. The underscore construct is used 15 to define a semantic scope for DNS records that are associated with 16 the parent domain. This specification explores the nature of this 17 DNS usage and defines the "underscore names" registry with IANA. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2017. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. Scaling Benefits and TXT and SRV Resource Records . . . . . . 3 55 3. Underscore DNS Registry Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 4. DNS Underscore Registry Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 6. Related and Updated Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 59 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 60 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 61 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 62 8.2. References -- Informative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63 8.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 64 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 65 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 67 1. Introduction 69 ** This is merely a re-submission of the -00 version, to re-initiate 70 discussion. /Dave 72 The core DNS technical specifications assign no semantics to domain 73 names or their parts, and no constraints upon which resource records 74 (RRs) are permitted to be associated with particular names. Over 75 time, some leaf node names, such as "www" and "ftp" have come to 76 imply support for particular services, but this is a matter of 77 operational convention, rather than defined protocol semantics . 78 This freedom in the basic technology has permitted a wide range of 79 administrative and semantic policies to be used -- in parallel. Data 80 semantics have been limited to the specification of particular 81 resource records, on the expectation that new ones would be added as 82 needed. 84 As an alternative to defining new RRs, some DNS service enhancements 85 have specified a restricted scope for the occurrence of particular 86 resource records. That scope is a leaf node, within which the uses 87 of specific resource records can be formally defined and constrained. 88 The leaf has a distinguished naming convention: It uses a reserved 89 DNS node name that begins with an underscore ("_"). Because a "host" 90 domain name is not allowed to use the underscore character, this 91 distinguishes the name from all legal host names.[RFC1035] 92 Effectively, this convention creates a space for attributes that are 93 associated with the parent domain, one level up. 95 An established example is the SRV record [RFC2782] which generalizes 96 concepts long-used for email routing by the MX record 97 [RFC0974][RFC2821]. The use of special DNS names has significant 98 benefits and detriments. Some of these are explored in [RFC5507]. 100 [Comment]: The terms "resolution context" and "scoping rules" have 101 been suggested, in place of "semantic scope". In order to avoid 102 concern for matters of semantics, this specification uses the term 103 "scoping rules", to create a focus on the mechanics being defined, 104 rather than nuances of interpretation for the mechanism. 106 The scoping feature is particularly useful when generalized resource 107 records are used -- notably TXT and SRV. It provides efficient 108 separation of one use of them from another. Absent this separation, 109 an undifferentiated mass of these RRs is returned to the DNS client, 110 which then must parse through the internals of the records in the 111 hope of finding ones that are relevant; in some cases the results are 112 ambiguous, because the records do not adequately self-identify. With 113 underscore-based scoping, only the relevant RRs are returned. 115 This specification discusses the underscore "attribute" enhancement, 116 provides an explicit definition of it, and establishes an IANA 117 registry for the reserved names that begin with underscore. It 118 updates the many existing specifications that have defined underscore 119 names, in order to aggregate the references to a single IANA table. 121 Discussion Venue: Discussion about this draft is directed to the 122 apps-discuss@ietf.org [1] mailing list. 124 2. Scaling Benefits and TXT and SRV Resource Records 126 Some resource records are generic and support a variety of uses. 127 Each additional use defines its own rules and, possibly, its own 128 internal syntax and node-naming conventions to distinguish among 129 particular types. The TXT and SRV records are the notable examples. 130 Used freely, some of these approaches scale poorly, particularly when 131 the same RR can be present in the same leaf node, but with different 132 uses. An increasingly-popular approach, with excellent scaling 133 properties, uses an underscore-based name, at a defined place in the 134 DNS tree, so as to constrain to particular uses for particular RRs 135 farther down the branch using that name. This means that a direct 136 lookup produces only the desired records, at no greater cost than a 137 typical DNS lookup. 139 In the case of TXT records, different uses have developed largely 140 without coordination. One side-effect is that there is no 141 consistently distinguishable internal syntax for the record; even the 142 inefficiencies of internal inspection might not provide a reliable 143 means of distinguishing among the different uses. Underscore-based 144 names therefore define an administrative way of separating TXT 145 records that might have different uses, but otherwise would have no 146 syntactic markers for distinguishing among them. 148 In the case of the SRV RR distinguishing among different types of use 149 was part of the design. [RFC2782] The SRV specification serves as a 150 template, defining an RR that might only be used for specific 151 applications when there is an additional specification. The template 152 definition includes reference to tables of names from which 153 underscore-names should be drawn. The set of names is 154 defined in terms of other IANA tables, namely any table with symbolic 155 names. The other SRV naming field is , although its pool of 156 names is not explicitly defined. 158 3. Underscore DNS Registry Function 160 This specification creates a registry for DNS nodes names that begin 161 with an underscore and are used to define scope of use for specific 162 resource records (RR). A given name defines a specific, constrained 163 context for the use of such records. Within this scope, use of other 164 resource records that are not specified is permitted. The purpose of 165 the Underscore registry is to avoid collisions resulting from the use 166 of the same underscore-based name, for different applications. 168 Structurally, the registry is defined as a single, flat table of 169 names that begin with underscore. In some cases, such as for SRV, an 170 underscore name might be multi-part, as a sequence of underscore 171 names. Semantically, this is a hierarchical model and it is 172 theoretically reasonable to allow re-use of an underscore name in 173 different underscore contexts. That is, a subordinate name is 174 meaningful only within the scope of the first (parent) underscore 175 name. As such, they can be ignored by this global Underscore 176 registry. That is, the registry is for the definition of highest- 177 level underscore node name used. 179 +----------------------------+ 180 | NAME | 181 +----------------------------+ 182 | _service1 | 183 | ._protoB._service2 | 184 | _protoB._service3 | 185 | _protoC._service3 | 186 | _useX._protoD._service4 | 187 | _protoE._region._authority | 188 +----------------------------+ 190 Example of Underscore Names 192 Only the right-most names are registered in the IANA table. 193 Definition and registration of the subordinate names is the 194 responsibility of the specification that creates the highest-level 195 (right-most) registry entry. 197 4. DNS Underscore Registry Definition 199 A registry entry contains: 201 Name: Specifies a textual name for a scoped portion of the DNS. 202 The name will usually be taken from the specification cited in 203 the "Purpose" column and is intended for use in discussions 204 about the entry. 206 DNS Label: Specifies a single underscore name that defines a 207 name reservation; this name is the "global" entry name for the 208 scoped resource records that are associated with that name. 210 Constraints: Specifies any restrictions on use of the name. 212 RR(s): Lists the RRs that are defined for use within this 213 scope. 215 References Lists specifications that define the records and their 216 use under this Name. 218 Purpose: Specifies the particular purpose/use for specific 219 RR(s), defined for use within the scope of the registered 220 underscore name. 222 5. IANA Considerations 224 Per [RFC2434], IANA is requested to establish a DNS Underscore Name 225 Registry, for DNS node names that begin with the underscore character 226 (_) and have been specified in any published RFC, or are documented 227 by a specification published by another standards organization. The 228 contents of each entry are defined in Section 4. 230 Initial entriess in the registry are: 232 { Enhancement of this table to include all underscore name 233 reservations in effect at the time this document is published is 234 left as an exercise to the readers... /d } 236 +------------+--------------+-------+-----------+-------------------+ 237 | NAME | LABEL | RR | REFERENCE | PURPOSE | 238 +------------+--------------+-------+-----------+-------------------+ 239 | SRV | _srv | SRV | [RFC2782] | SRV template -- | 240 | | | | | pro forma entry, | 241 | | | | | not directly | 242 | | | | | usable | 243 | SRV TCP | _tcp | SRV | [RFC2782] | Use of SRV for a | 244 | | | | | TCP service | 245 | SRV UDP | _udp | SRV | [RFC2782] | Use of SRV for a | 246 | | | | | UDB service | 247 | LDAP | _ldap | SRV | [RFC2782] | LDAP server | 248 | SIP | _sip | NAPTR | [RFC3263] | Locating SIP | 249 | | | | [RFC6011] | Servers and UA | 250 | | | | | configuration | 251 | SPF | _spf | TXT | [RFC4408] | Authorized IP | 252 | | | | | addresses for | 253 | | | | | sending mail | 254 | DKIM | _domainkey | TXT | [RFC4871] | Public key for | 255 | | | | | verifying DKIM | 256 | | | | | signature. | 257 | PKI LDAP | _PKIXREP | SRV | [RFC4386] | PKI Repository | 258 | VBR | _vouch | TXT | [RFC5518] | Vouch-by- | 259 | | | | | refererence | 260 | | | | | domain assertion | 261 | DDDS | --???!-- | SRV | [RFC3404] | Mapping DDDS | 262 | | | | | query to DNS | 263 | | | | | records | 264 | SOAP BEEP | _soap-beep | SRV | [RFC4227] | SOAP over BEEP | 265 | | | | | lookup, when no | 266 | | | | | port specified | 267 | XMLRPC | _xmlrpc-beep | SRV | [RFC3529] | Resolve url for | 268 | BEEP | | | | XML-RPC using | 269 | | | | | BEEP | 270 | Diameter | _diameter | SRV | [RFC3588] | Diameter | 271 | | | | | rendezvous | 272 | Tunnel | _tunnel | SRV | [RFC3620] | Finding the | 273 | | | | | appropriate | 274 | | | | | address for | 275 | | | | | tunneling into a | 276 | | | | | particular domain | 277 | SLP | _slpda | SRV | [RFC3832] | Discovering | 278 | | | | | desired services | 279 | | | | | in given DNS | 280 | | | | | domains | 281 | IM | _im | SRV | [RFC3861] | Instant Messaging | 282 | | | | | address | 283 | | | | | resolution | 284 | Pres | _pres | SRV | [RFC3861] | Presence address | 285 | | | | | resolution | 286 | Msg Track | _mtqp | SRV | [RFC3887] | Assist in | 287 | | | | | determining the | 288 | | | | | path that a | 289 | | | | | particular | 290 | | | | | message has taken | 291 | | | | | through a | 292 | | | | | messaging system | 293 | XMPP | _xmpp-client | SRV | [RFC6120] | XMPP client | 294 | Client | | | | lookup of server | 295 | XMPP | _xmpp-server | SRV | [RFC6120] | XMPP server- | 296 | Server | | | | server lookup | 297 | DDDS SRV | _??? | SRV | [RFC3958] | Map domain name, | 298 | | | (and | | application | 299 | | | NAPTR | | service name, and | 300 | | | ?) | | application | 301 | | | | | protocol | 302 | | | | | dynamically to | 303 | | | | | target server and | 304 | | | | | port | 305 | Kerberos | _kerberos | SRV | [RFC4120] | purpose | 306 | PKI | _pkixrep | SRV | [RFC4386] | Enables | 307 | | | | | certificate-using | 308 | | | | | systems to locate | 309 | | | | | PKI repositories | 310 | Certificat | _certificate | SRV | [RFC4387] | Obtain | 311 | es | s | | | certificates and | 312 | | | | | certificate | 313 | | | | | revocation lists | 314 | | | | | (CRLs) from PKI | 315 | | | | | repositories | 316 | PGP Key | pgpkeys | SRV | [RFC4387] | Obtain | 317 | Store | | | | certificates and | 318 | | | | | certificate | 319 | | | | | revocation lists | 320 | | | | | (CRLs) from PKI | 321 | | | | | repositories | 322 | MSRP Relay | _msrp | SRV | [RFC4976] | purpose | 323 | Locator | | | | | 324 | Mobile | _mip6 | SRV | [RFC5026] | Bootstrap Mobile | 325 | IPv6 | | | [RFC5555] | IPv6 Home Agent | 326 | Bootstrap | | | | information from | 327 | | | | | non-topological | 328 | | | | | information | 329 | Digital | _dvbservdsc | SRV | [RFC5328] | Discover non- | 330 | Video Broa | | | | default DVB entry | 331 | dcasting | | | | points addresses | 332 | CAPWAP AC | _capwap- | rrs | [RFC5415] | Discover the | 333 | | control | | | CAPWAP AC | 334 | | | | | address(es) | 335 | IM | _im | SRV | [RFC5509] | For resolving | 336 | | | | | Instant Messaging | 337 | | | | | and Presence | 338 | | | | | services with SIP | 339 | Presence | _pres | SRV | [RFC5509] | For resolving | 340 | | | | | Instant Messaging | 341 | | | | | and Presence | 342 | | | | | services with SIP | 343 | IEEE | _mihis | NAPTR | [RFC5679] | Discovering | 344 | 802.21 | | , SRV | | servers that | 345 | Mobility | | | | provide IEEE | 346 | | | | | 802.21-defined | 347 | | | | | Mobility Services | 348 | STUN Clien | _stun | SRV | [RFC5389] | Find a STUN | 349 | t/Server | | | | server | 350 | TURN | _turn | SRV | [RFC5766] | Control the | 351 | | | | [RFC5928] | operation of a | 352 | | | | | relay to bypass | 353 | | | | | NAT | 354 | STUN NAT | _stun- | SRV | [RFC5780] | Discover the | 355 | Behavior | behavior | | | presence and | 356 | Discovery | | | | current behavior | 357 | | | | | of NATs and | 358 | | | | | firewalls between | 359 | | | | | the STUN client | 360 | | | | | and the STUN | 361 | | | | | server | 362 | Sieve | _sieve | SRV | [RFC5804] | Manage Sieve | 363 | Management | | | | scripts on a | 364 | | | | | remote server | 365 | AFS VLDB | _afs3-vlserv | SRV | [RFC5864] | Locate services | 366 | | er | | | for the AFS | 367 | | | | | distributed file | 368 | | | | | system | 369 | AFS PTS | _afs3-prserv | SRV | [RFC5864] | Locate services | 370 | | er | | | for the AFS | 371 | | | | | distributed file | 372 | | | | | system | 373 | Mail MSA | _submission | SRV | [RFC6186] | Locate email | 374 | Submission | | | | services | 375 | IMAP | _imap | SRV | [RFC6186] | Locate email | 376 | | | | | services | 377 | POP | _pop3 | SRV | [RFC6186] | Locate email | 378 | | | | | services | 379 | POP TLS | _pop3s | SRV | [RFC6186] | Locate email | 380 | | | | | services | 381 +------------+--------------+-------+-----------+-------------------+ 382 Table 1: DNS Underscore SCOPE Name Registry (with initial values) 384 6. Related and Updated Registries 386 This section needs to contained details specification of the 387 updates to existing underscore "registries", in order to have 388 those specifcations point to this new registry. 390 Numerous specifications have defined their own, independent 391 registries for use of underscore names. It is likely that adoption 392 of the proposed, integrated registry should render these piecemeal 393 registries obsolete 395 Registries that are candidates for replacement include: 397 Instant Messaging SRV Protocol Label Registry 399 Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) Parameters 401 Presence SRV Protocol Label Registry 403 7. Security Considerations 405 This memo raises no security issues. 407 8. References 409 8.1. Normative References 411 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 412 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 413 1998. 415 8.2. References -- Informative 417 [RFC0974] Partridge, C., "Mail routing and the domain system", 418 RFC 974, January 1986. 420 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 421 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 423 [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for 424 specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, 425 February 2000. 427 [RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, 428 April 2001. 430 [RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation 431 Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June 432 2002. 434 [RFC3404] MMealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) 435 Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) 436 Resolution Application", RFC 3404, October 2002. 438 [RFC3529] Harold, W., "Using Extensible Markup Language-Remote 439 Procedure Calling (XML-RPC) in Blocks Extensible Exchange 440 Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 3529, April 2003. 442 [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. 443 Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", September 2003. 445 [RFC3620] New, D., "The TUNNEL Profile", RFC 3620, October 2003. 447 [RFC3832] Columbia University, Columbia University, Sun 448 Microsystems, IBM, and IBM, "Remote Service Discovery in 449 the Service Location Protocol (SLP) via DNS SRV", July 450 2004. 452 [RFC3861] Peterson, J., "Address Resolution for Instant Messaging 453 and Presence", RFC 3861, August 2004. 455 [RFC3887] "Message Tracking Query Protocol", September 2007. 457 [RFC3958] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application 458 Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation 459 Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005. 461 [RFC4120] USC-ISI, MIT, MIT, and MIT, "The Kerberos Network 462 Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120, July 2005. 464 [RFC4227] O'Tuathail, E. and M. Rose, "Using the Simple Object 465 Access Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange 466 Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 4227, January 2006. 468 [RFC4386] Boeyen, S. and P. Hallam-Baker, "Internet X.509 Public Key 469 Infrastructure: Repository Locator Service", February 470 2006. 472 [RFC4387] Gutmann, P., Ed., "Internet X.509 Public Key 473 Infrastructure Operational Protocols: Certificate Store 474 Access via HTTP", RFC 4387, February 2006. 476 [RFC4408] Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) 477 for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1", 478 RFC 4408, April 2006. 480 [RFC4871] Allman, E., Callas, J., Delany, M., Libbey, M., Fenton, 481 J., and M. Thomas, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) 482 Signatures", RFC 4871, May 2007. 484 [RFC4976] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and Roach, "Relay Extensions for 485 the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4976, 486 September 2007. 488 [RFC5026] Giaretta, G., Ed., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, Ed., 489 "Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, 490 October 2007. 492 [RFC5328] Adolf, A. and P. MacAvock, "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) 493 Namespace for the Digital Video Broadcasting Project 494 (DVB)", RFC 5328, September 2008. 496 [RFC5389] Rosenberg, , Mahy, , Matthews, , and Wing, "Session 497 Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, October 498 2008. 500 [RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley, 501 Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points 502 (CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009. 504 [RFC5507] Faltstrom, P., Ed. and R. Austein, Ed., , RFC 5507, April 505 2009. 507 [RFC5509] Loreto, S., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) 508 Registration of Instant Messaging and Presence DNS SRV RRs 509 for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5509, 510 April 2009. 512 [RFC5518] Hoffman, P., Levine, J., and A. Hathcock, "Vouch By 513 Reference", RFC5 5518, April 2009. 515 [RFC5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack 516 Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. 518 [RFC5679] Bajko, G., "Locating IEEE 802.21 Mobility Services Using 519 DNS", RFC 5679, December 2009. 521 [RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using 522 Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session 523 Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010. 525 [RFC5780] MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery 526 Using Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", 527 RFC 5780, May 2010. 529 [RFC5804] Melnikov, A., Ed. and T. Martin, "A Protocol for Remotely 530 Managing Sieve Scripts", RFC 5804, July 2010. 532 [RFC5864] Allbery, R., "NS SRV Resource Records for AFS", RFC 5864, 533 April 2010. 535 [RFC5928] Petit-Huguenin, M., "Traversal Using Relays around NAT 536 (TURN) Resolution Mechanism", RFC 5928, August 2010. 538 [RFC6011] Lawrence, S., Ed. and J. Elwell, "Session Initiation 539 Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration", RFC 6011, 540 October 2010. 542 [RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence 543 Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011. 545 [RFC6186] Daboo, C., "Use of SRV Records for Locating Email 546 Submission/Access Services", RFC 6186, March 2011. 548 8.3. URIs 550 [1] mailto:we-need-a-list 552 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 554 Thanks go to Bill Fenner, Tony Hansen, Peter Koch, Olaf Kolkman, and 555 Andrew Sullivan for diligent review of the earlier drafts. Special 556 thanks to Ray Bellis for nearly 10 years of persistent encouragement 557 to pursue this document. 559 Author's Address 561 Dave Crocker 562 Brandenburg InternetWorking 563 675 Spruce Dr. 564 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 565 USA 567 Phone: +1.408.246.8253 568 Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net 569 URI: http://bbiw.net/