idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 506: '... "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval" specification [RFC5226] MUST...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (May 15, 2017) is 2538 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 506, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 882 (Obsoleted by RFC 1034, RFC 1035) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 883 (Obsoleted by RFC 1034, RFC 1035) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7719 (Obsoleted by RFC 8499) == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-lewis-domain-names-06 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group T. Lemon 3 Internet-Draft Nominum, Inc. 4 Intended status: Informational R. Droms 5 Expires: November 16, 2017 6 W. Kumari 7 Google 8 May 15, 2017 10 Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement 11 draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04 13 Abstract 15 The Special-Use Domain Names IANA registry policy defined in RFC 6761 16 has been shown through experience to present unanticipated 17 challenges. This memo presents a list, intended to be comprehensive, 18 of the problems that have been identified. In addition it reviews 19 the history of Domain Names and summarizes current IETF publications 20 and some publications from other organizations relating to Special- 21 Use Domain Names. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 16, 2017. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. Problems associated with Special-Use Domain Names . . . . . . 4 60 4. Existing Practice Regarding Special-Use Domain Names . . . . 9 61 4.1. Primary Special-Use Domain Name Documents . . . . . . . . 9 62 4.1.1. IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root . . . . 10 63 4.1.2. Special-Use Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 64 4.1.3. MoU Concerning the Technical Work of the IANA . . . . 13 65 4.1.4. Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain 66 Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 67 4.2. Secondary documents relating to the Special-Use 68 Domain Name question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 69 4.2.1. Multicast DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 70 4.2.2. The .onion Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name . . . . 14 71 4.2.3. Locally Served DNS Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 72 4.2.4. Name Collision in the DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 73 4.2.5. SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain 74 Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 75 4.2.6. Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address 76 Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 77 4.2.7. Additional Reserved Top Level Domains . . . . . . . . 16 78 5. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 79 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 80 7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 81 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 82 9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 83 Appendix A. Change Log. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 84 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 86 1. Introduction 88 One of the key services required to use the Internet is name 89 resolution. Name resolution is the process of translating a symbolic 90 name into some object or set of objects to which the name refers, 91 most typically one or more IP addresses. These names are often 92 referred to as Domain Names. When reading this document, care must 93 be taken to not assume that the term Domain Name implies the use of 94 the Domain Name System [RFC1034] for resolving these names. An 95 excellent presentation on this topic can be found in Domain Names 96 [I-D.lewis-domain-names]. 98 Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an IANA registry for 99 Special-Use Domain Names [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for adding 100 to the registry, and made some suggestions about how those policies 101 might be implemented. Since the publication of RFC 6761, the IETF 102 has been asked to designate several new Special-Use Domain Names in 103 this registry. During the evaluation process for these Special-Use 104 Domain Names, the IETF encountered several different sorts of issues. 105 Because of this, the IETF has decided to investigate the problem and 106 decide if and how the RFC 6761 process can be improved, or whether it 107 should be deprecated. The IETF DSNOP working group charter was 108 extended to include conducting a review of the process for adding 109 names to the registry that is defined in RFC 6761. This document is 110 a product of that review. 112 Based on current ICANN and IETF practice, including RFC 6761, there 113 are several different types of names in the root of the Domain 114 Namespace: 116 o Reserved by the IETF for technical purposes 118 o Assigned by ICANN to the public DNS root; some names reserved by 119 the IETF for technical purposes may appear in the Global DNS root 120 for reasons pertaining to the operation of the DNS 122 o ICANN Reserved Names; names that may not be applied for as TLDs 123 (see [SDO-ICANN-DAG], Section 2.2.1.2.1, Reserved Names, 124 Section 2.2.1.4.1, Treatment of Country or Territory Names, et 125 al.) 127 o Used by other organizations without following established 128 processes 130 o Names that are unused and are available for assignment to one of 131 the previous categories 133 This document presents a list, believed to be complete, of the 134 problems associated with the assignment of Special-Use Domain Names. 135 In support of its analysis of the particular set of issues described 136 here, the document also includes descriptions of existing practice as 137 it relates to the use of domain names, a brief history of domain 138 names, and some observations by various IETF participants who have 139 experience with various aspects of the current situation. 141 2. Terminology 143 This document uses the terminology from RFC 7719 [RFC7719]. Other 144 terms used in this document are defined here: 146 Domain Name This document uses the term "Domain Name" as defined in 147 section 2 of RFC 7719 [RFC7719]. 149 Domain Namespace The set of all possible Domain Names. 151 Special-Use Domain Name A Domain Name listed in the Special-Use 152 Domain Names registry. 154 For the sake of brevity this document uses some abbreviations, which 155 are expanded here: 157 IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 159 ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 161 TLD Top-Level Domain, as defined in in section 2 of RFC 7719 162 [RFC7719] 164 gTLD Generic Top-Level Domain, as defined in in section 2 of RFC 165 7719 [RFC7719] 167 3. Problems associated with Special-Use Domain Names 169 This section presents a list of problems that have been identified 170 with respect to the assignment of Special-Use Domain Names. 171 Solutions to these problems, including their costs or tradeoffs, are 172 out of scope for this document. They will be covered in a separate 173 document. New problems that might be created in the process of 174 solving problems described in this document are also out of scope: 175 these problems are expected to be addressed in the process of 176 evaluating potential solutions. 178 Special-Use Domain Names exist to solve a variety of problems. This 179 document has two goals: enumerate all of the problems that have been 180 identified to which Special-Use Domain Names are a solution and 181 enumerate all of the problems that have been raised in the process of 182 trying to use RFC 6761 as it was intended. As some of those problems 183 may fall into both categories, this document makes no attempt to 184 categorize the problems. 186 There is a broad diversity of opinion about this set of problems. 187 Not every participant agrees that each of the problems enumerated in 188 this document is actually a problem. This document takes no position 189 on the relative validity of the various problems that have been 190 enumerated. The sole purposes of the document are to enumerate those 191 problems, provide the reader with context for thinking about them and 192 provide a context for future discussion of solutions. 194 This is the list of problems: 196 o No formal coordination process exists between the IETF and ICANN 197 as they follow their respective name assignment processes (see 198 Section 4.1.3). The lack of coordination complicates the 199 management of the root of the Domain Namespace and could lead to 200 conflicts in name assignments [SDO-ICANN-SAC090]. 202 o There is no explicit scoping as to what can constitute a 203 "technical use" [RFC2860] and what cannot, and there is also no 204 consensus within the IETF as to what this term means. 206 o Not all developers of protocols on the internet agree that 207 authority over the entire Domain Namespace should reside solely 208 with the IETF and ICANN. 210 o Although IETF and ICANN nominally have authority over this 211 namespace, neither organization can enforce that authority over 212 any third party who wants to just start using a subset of the 213 namespace. Such parties may observe that the IETF has never 214 asserted control or authority over what protocols are "allowed" on 215 the internet, and that the principle of "permissionless 216 innovation" suggests there should be a way for people to include 217 new uses of domain names in new protocols and applications. 219 o Organizations do in fact sometimes use subsets of the Domain 220 Namespace without following established processes. Reasons a 221 third party might do this include: 223 * Unaware that a process exists for assigning such names 225 * Intended use is covered by gTLD process [SDO-ICANN-DAG], but no 226 gTLD process is ongoing 228 * Intended use is covered by gTLD process, but the third party 229 doesn't want to pay a fee 231 * Intended use is covered by some IETF process, but the third 232 party doesn't want to follow the process 234 * Intended use is covered by ICANN or IETF process, but third 235 party expects that the outcome will be refusal or non-action 237 * Unaware that a name intended to be used only locally may 238 nevertheless leak 240 * Unaware that a name used locally with informal allocation may 241 subsequently be allocated formally, creating operational 242 problems 244 o There is demand for more than one name resolution protocol for 245 Domain Names. Domain Names contain no metadata to indicate which 246 protocol to use to resolve them. Domain name resolution APIs do 247 not provide a way to specify which protocol to use. 249 o When a Special-Use Domain Name is added to the Special-Use Domain 250 Names registry, not all software that processes such names will 251 understand the special use of that name. In many cases, name 252 resolution software will use the Domain Name System for resolution 253 of names not known to have a special use. Consequently, any such 254 use will result in queries for Special-Use Domain Names being sent 255 to Domain Name System authoritative servers. These queries may 256 constitute an operational problem for operators of root zone 257 authoritative name servers. These queries may also inadvertently 258 reveal private information through the contents of the query, 259 which is a privacy consideration. 261 o The RFC 6761 process is sufficiently uncertain that some protocol 262 developers have assumed they could not get a name assigned; the 263 process of assigning the first new name ('.local') using the RFC 264 6761 process took more than ten years from beginning to end: 265 longer by a factor of ten than any other part of the protocol 266 development process (largely because this ten years included time 267 to develop the process as well as use it). Other uses of the 268 process have proceeded more smoothly, but there is a reasonably 269 justified perception that using this process is likely to be slow 270 and difficult, with an uncertain outcome. 272 o There is strong resistance within the IETF to assigning Domain 273 Names to resolution systems outside of the DNS, for a variety of 274 reasons: 276 * Requires a mechanism for identifying which of a set of 277 resolution processes is required in order to resolve a 278 particular name. 280 * Assertion of authority: there is a sense that the Domain 281 Namespace is "owned" by the IETF or by ICANN, and so, if a name 282 is claimed outside of that process, the person or entity that 283 claimed that name should suffer some consequence that would, 284 presumably, deter future circumvention of the official process. 286 * More than one name resolution protocol is bad, in the sense 287 that a single protocol is less complicated to implement and 288 deploy. 290 * The semantics of alternative resolution protocols may differ 291 from the DNS protocol; DNS has the concept of RRtypes; other 292 protocols may not support RRtypes, or may support some entirely 293 different data structuring mechanism. 295 * If there is an IETF process through which a TLD can be assigned 296 at zero cost other than time, this process will be used as an 297 alternative to the more costly process of getting the name 298 registered through ICANN. 300 * A name might be assigned for a particular purpose when a more 301 general use of the name would be more beneficial. 303 * If the IETF assigns a name that some third party or parties 304 believes belongs to them in some way, the IETF could become 305 embroiled in an expensive dispute with those parties. 307 o If there were no process for assigning names for technical use 308 through the IETF, there is a concern that protocols that require 309 such names would not be able to get them. 311 o In some cases where the IETF has made assignments through the RFC 312 6761 process, technical mistakes have been made due to 313 misunderstandings as to the actual process that RFC 6761 specifies 314 (e.g., treating the list of suggested considerations for assigning 315 a name as a set of requirements all of which must be met). In 316 other cases, the IETF has made de facto assignments of Special-Use 317 Domain Names without following the RFC 6761 process. 319 o There are several Domain Name TLDs that are in use without due 320 process for a variety of purposes [SDO-ICANN-COLL]. The status of 321 these names need to be clarified and recorded to avoid future 322 disputes about their use. 324 o In principle, the RFC 6761 process could be used to document the 325 existence of Domain Names that are not safe to assign, and provide 326 information on how those names are used in practice. However, 327 attempts to use RFC 6761 to accomplish this documentation have not 328 been successful (for example, see "Additional Reserved Top Level 329 Domains [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and Section 4.2.7). 330 One side effect of the lack of documentation is that any 331 mitigation effect on the root name servers or on privacy 332 considerations has been missed. 334 o A Domain Name can be identified as either a DNS name by placing it 335 in the DNS zone(s) or as a Special-Use Domain Name by adding it to 336 the IANA registry. Some names are in both places; for example, 337 some locally served zone names are in DNS zones and documented in 338 the Special-Use Domain Names registry. At present, the only way a 339 Domain Name can be added to the Special-Use Domain Name registry 340 is for the IETF to take responsibility for the name and designate 341 it for "technical use". There are other potential uses for Domain 342 Names that should be recorded in the registry, but for which the 343 IETF should not take responsibility. 345 o The IETF may in some cases see the need to document that a name is 346 in use without claiming that the use of the name is the IETF's use 347 of the name. No mechanism exists in the current registry to mark 348 names in this way. 350 o There is no formal process during any of the review stages for a 351 document in which a check is made to ensure that the document does 352 not unintentionally violate IETF process for adding special-use 353 domain names to the registry, as was the case, for example, in RFC 354 7788 [RFC7788]. 356 o Use of the registry is inconsistent -- some Special-Use Domain 357 Name RFCs specify registry entries, some don't; some specify 358 delegation, some don't. 360 o There exists no safe, non-process-violating mechanism for ad-hoc 361 assignment of Special-Use Domain Names. 363 o It is generally assumed that protocols that need a Special-Use 364 Domain Name need a mnemonic, single-label, human-readable Special- 365 Use Domain Name, for use in user interfaces such as command lines 366 or URL entry fields. While this assumption is correct in some 367 cases, it is likely not correct in all cases; for example, in 368 applications where the DNS name is never visible to a user. 370 o RFC 6761 uses the term "Domain Name" to describe the thing for 371 which special uses are registered. This creates a great deal of 372 confusion because some readers take "Domain Name" to imply the use 373 of the DNS protocol. 375 o The use of DNSSEC with Special-Use Domain Names is an open issue. 376 There is no consensus or guidance about how to use DNSSEC with 377 various classes of Special-Use Domain Names. Considerations in 378 the use of DNSSEC with Special-Use Domain Names include: 380 * What class of Special-Use Domain Name is under consideration: 381 non-DNS, locally served zone, other? 383 * Does the Special-Use Domain Name require a delegation in the 384 root zone; if so, should that delegation be signed or not? If 385 there is no delegation, then this will be treated by validating 386 resolvers as a secure denial of existence for that zone. This 387 would not be appropriate for a name being resolved using the 388 DNS protocol. 390 * A process would be required through which the IETF can cause a 391 delegation in the root zone to be instantiated. 393 * What are the recommended practices for using DNS with the 394 specific Special-Use Domain Name? 396 The problems we have stated here represent the current understanding 397 of the authors of the document as to the complete set of problems 398 that have been identified during discussion by the working group on 399 this topic. The remainder of this document provides additional 400 context that will be needed for reasoning about these problems. 402 4. Existing Practice Regarding Special-Use Domain Names 404 There are three primary (see Section 4.1) and numerous secondary 405 (Section 4.2) documents to consider when thinking about the Special- 406 Use Domain Names process. 408 How names are resolved is ambiguous, in the sense that some names are 409 Special-Use Domain names that require special handling, and some 410 names can be resolved using the DNS protocol with no special 411 handling. 413 The assignment of Internet Names is not under the sole control of any 414 one organization. IETF has authority in some cases, but only with 415 respect to "technical uses." ICANN at present is the designated 416 administrator of the root zone, but generally not of zones other than 417 the root zone. Neither of these authorities can in any practical 418 sense exclude the practice of ad-hoc use of names. Unauthorized use 419 of domain names can be accomplished by any entity that has control 420 over one or more name servers or resolvers, in the context of any 421 hosts and services that that entity operates. It can also be 422 accomplished by authors of software who decide that a Special-Use 423 Domain Name is the right way to indicate the use of an alternate 424 resolution mechanism. 426 4.1. Primary Special-Use Domain Name Documents 428 The primary documents are considered primary because they directly 429 address the IETF's past thoughts on this topic in a general way, and 430 also because they describe what the IETF does in practice. Only one 431 of these documents is an IETF consensus document. 433 4.1.1. IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root 435 This document [RFC2826] is not an IETF consensus document, and 436 appears to have been written to address a different problem than the 437 Special-Use Domain Name problem. However, it speaks directly to 438 several of the key issues that must be considered, and, coming as it 439 does from the IAB, it is rightly treated as having significant 440 authority despite not being an IETF consensus document. 442 This document should be considered required reading for IETF 443 participants who wish to express an informed opinion on the topic of 444 Special-Use Domain Names. The main points that appear relevant to 445 the Special-Use Domain Names problem are: 447 o The Internet requires a globally unique namespace 449 o Private networks may operate private namespaces, but still require 450 that names in the public namespace be globally unique. 452 o The Domain Name System [RFC1035] is not the only protocol that may 453 be used for resolving domain names. 455 o Users cannot be assumed to know how to distinguish between 456 symbolic references that have local meaning and references that 457 have global meaning. Users may therefore share references that 458 incorporate Domain Names with no global meaning (for example, a 459 URL of 'http://mysite.example.corp', where 'example.corp' is a 460 domain used privately and informally as described in 461 [SDO-ICANN-COLL]). 463 o Such references might refer to the object the user intends to 464 share within that user's context, but either refer to some other 465 object any recipient's context, or might not refer to any object 466 at all in a recipient's context. The effect of this reference 467 escaping the context in which it is valid is that the user's 468 intended communication will not be able to be understood by the 469 recipients of the communication. 471 o This same problem can also occur when a single user copies a name 472 from one context in which it has one meaning, into a different 473 context in which it has a different meaning -- for example copying 474 a '.onion' Domain Name out of a Tor Browser [TOR], where it has 475 meaning, and pasting this name into an ssh client that doesn't 476 support connecting over the Tor network. 478 We can summarize the advice in this document as follows: 480 o Domain Names with unambiguous global meaning are preferable to 481 Domain Names with local meaning which will be ambiguous. 482 Nevertheless both globally-meaningful and locally-special names 483 are in use and must be supported. 485 o At the time of the writing of this document the IAB was of the 486 opinion that there might well be more than one name resolution 487 protocol used to resolve Domain Names. 489 4.1.2. Special-Use Domain Names 491 The second important document is "Special-Use Domain Names" 492 [RFC6761]. RFC 6761 represents the current IETF consensus on 493 designating and recording Special-Use Domain Names. The IETF has 494 experienced problems with the designation process described in RFC 495 6761; these concerns motivate this document. Familiarity with RFC 496 6761 is a prerequisite for having an informed opinion on the topic of 497 Special-Use Domain Names. 499 RFC 6761 defines two aspects of Special-Use Domain Names: designating 500 a Domain Name to have a special purpose and registering that special 501 use in the Special-Use Domain Names registry. The designation 502 process is defined in a single sentence (RFC 6761, section 4): 504 If it is determined that special handling of a name is required in 505 order to implement some desired new functionality, then an IETF 506 "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval" specification [RFC5226] MUST 507 be published describing the new functionality. 509 This sentence requires that any designation of a Special-Use Domain 510 Name is subject to the same open review and consensus process as used 511 to produce and publish all other IETF specifications. 513 The registration process is a purely mechanical process, in which the 514 existence of the newly designated Special-Use Domain Name is 515 recorded, with a pointer to a section in the relevant specification 516 document that defines the ways in which special handling is to be 517 applied to the name. 519 RFC 6761 provided the process whereby Multicast DNS [RFC6762] 520 designated ".local" as a Special-Use Domain Name and included it in 521 the Special-Use Domain Names registry. It itself also enumerated a 522 set of names that had been previously used or defined to have special 523 uses prior to the publication of RFC 6761. Since there had been no 524 registry for these names prior to the publication of RFC 6761, the 525 documents defining these names could not have added them to the 526 registry. 528 There are at least several important points to think of with respect 529 to the RFC 6761: 531 o A Special-Use Domain Name may be a name that should be resolved 532 using the DNS protocol with no special handling. An example of 533 this is 'IN-ADDR.ARPA.' (which is an example of a Special-Use 534 Domain Name that is not a TLD). 536 o A Special-Use Domain Name may be a name that is resolved using the 537 DNS protocol, requires no special handling in the stub resolver, 538 but requires special handling in the recursive resolver. An 539 example of this would be "10.in-addr.arpa." 541 o A Special-Use Domain Name may be a name that requires special 542 handling in the stub resolver. An example would be a Special-Use 543 Top-Level Domain Name like '.local' which acts as a signal to 544 indicate that the local stub resolver should use a non-DNS 545 protocol for name resolution. 547 o The current IETF consensus (from a process perspective, not 548 necessarily from the perspective of what would be consensus if the 549 IETF were to attempt to produce a new consensus document) is that 550 all of these purposes for Special-Use Domain Names are valid. 552 The term "stub resolver" in this case does not mean "DNS protocol 553 stub resolver." The stub resolver is the entity within a particular 554 software stack that takes a question about a Domain Name and answers 555 it. One way a stub resolver can answer such a question is using the 556 DNS protocol, but it is in the stub resolver, as we are using the 557 term here, that the decision as to whether to use a protocol, and if 558 so which protocol, or whether to use a local database of some sort, 559 is made. 561 RFC 6761 does not limit Special-Use Domain Names to TLDs. However, 562 at present, all Special-Use Domain Names registered in the IANA 563 Special-Use Domain Names registry [SDO-IANA-SUDR] are either intended 564 to be resolved using the DNS protocol, or are TLDs, or both. That 565 is, at present there exist no Special-Use Domain Names which require 566 special handling by stub resolvers and which are not at the top level 567 of the naming hierarchy. 569 One point to take from this is that there is already a requirement in 570 RFC 6762 that when stub resolvers encounter the special label, 571 '.LOCAL' at the top level of a domain name, they can only use the 572 mDNS protocol be used for resolving that Domain Name. 574 4.1.3. MoU Concerning the Technical Work of the IANA 576 There exists a Memorandum of Understanding [RFC2860] between the IETF 577 and ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) which 578 discusses how names and numbers will be managed through the IANA 579 (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority). This document is important to 580 the discussion of Special-Use Domain Names because, while it 581 delegates authority for managing the Domain Name System Namespace 582 generally to ICANN, it reserves to the IETF the authority that RFC 583 6761 formalizes: 585 Note that (a) assignments of Domain Names for technical uses (such 586 as Domain Names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of 587 specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), 588 and (c) experimental assignments are not considered to be policy 589 issues, and shall remain subject to the provisions of this 590 Section 4. 592 The above text is an addendum to the following: 594 Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in addition 595 to the technical considerations specified by the IETF: the 596 assignment of Domain Names, and the assignment of IP address 597 blocks. These policy issues are outside the scope of this MOU. 599 In general, then, the assignment of names in the DNS root zone, and 600 the management of the DNS namespace, is a function that is performed 601 by ICANN. However, the MoU specifically exempts domain names 602 assigned for technical use, and uses the example of domains used for 603 inverse DNS lookup. Both 'IN-ADDR.ARPA' and 'IP6.ARPA' are in the 604 Special-Use Domain Names registry. 606 Implicit in the MoU is the fact that the IETF and ICANN retain, 607 between them, sole authority for assigning any names from the Domain 608 Namespace. Both the IETF and ICANN have internal processes for 609 making such assignments. 611 The point here is not to say what the implications of this statement 612 in the MoU are, but rather to call the reader's attention to the 613 existence of this statement. 615 4.1.4. Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain Names 617 As a result of processing requests to add names to the Special-Use 618 Domain Name registry, as documented in 619 [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and 620 [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names], a review was chartered of 621 the process defined in RFC 6761 for adding names to the registry (as 622 explained earlier). The Liaison Statement [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] 623 notified ICANN of the review, affirmed that the discussion would be 624 "open and transparent to participation by interested parties" and 625 explicitly invited members of the ICANN community to participate. 627 4.2. Secondary documents relating to the Special-Use Domain Name 628 question 630 In addition to these documents, there are several others with which 631 participants in this discussion should be familiar. 633 4.2.1. Multicast DNS 635 Multicast DNS [RFC6762] defines the Multicast DNS protocol, which 636 uses the '.LOCAL' Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name. Section 3 637 describes the semantics of "multicast DNS names." It is of 638 considerable historical importance to note that the -00 version of 639 this document, an individual submission, was published in July of 640 2001. This version contains substantially the same text in section 641 3, and was discussed in the DNSEXT working group at IETF 51 in August 642 of 2001[IETF-PRO-51]. The first version of this document designated 643 '.LOCAL.ARPA' as the Special-Use Domain Name. This idea was strongly 644 opposed by DNSEXT working group participants, and as a result the 645 author eventually switched to using '.LOCAL'. 647 The history of RFC 6762 is documented in substantial detail in 648 Appendix H; some notable milestones include the initial proposal to 649 replace Appletalk's NBP in July 1997, the chartering of the Zeroconf 650 working group in September 1999, assignment of a multicast address 651 for link-local name discovery in April of 2000. A companion 652 requirements document, eventually published as [RFC6760] was first 653 published in September of 2001. 655 The point of mentioning these dates is so that discussions involving 656 the time when the '.LOCAL' domain was first deployed, and the context 657 in which it was deployed, may be properly informed. 659 4.2.2. The .onion Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name 661 The .onion Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name [RFC7686] is important 662 because it is the most recent IETF action on the topic of Special-Use 663 Domain Names; although it does not set new policy, the mere fact of 664 its publication is worth thinking about. 666 Two important points to consider about this document are that: 668 o The IETF gained consensus to publish it 669 o The situation was somewhat forced, both by the fact of its 670 unilateral use by The Tor Project without following the RFC 6761 671 process, and because a deadline had been set by the CA/Browser 672 Forum [SDO-CABF-INT] after which all .onion PKI certificates would 673 expire and no new certificates would be issued, unless the .onion 674 Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name were to be recognized by the 675 IETF. 677 4.2.3. Locally Served DNS Zones 679 Locally Served DNS Zones [RFC6303] describes a particular use case 680 for zones that exist by definition, and that are resolved using the 681 DNS protocol, but that cannot have a global meaning, because the host 682 IP addresses they reference are not unique. This applies to a 683 variety of addresses, including Private IPv4 addresses [RFC1918], 684 Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses [RFC4193] (in which this practice 685 was first described) and IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address 686 Space [RFC6598]. 688 This use case is distinct from the use-case for Special-Use Domain 689 Names like '.local' and '.onion' in that the names are resolved using 690 the DNS protocol (but do require extensions or exceptions to the 691 usual DNS resolution to enforce resolution in a local context rather 692 than the global DNS context). But it shares the problem that such 693 names cannot be assumed either to be unique or to be functional in 694 all contexts for all Internet-connected hosts. 696 4.2.4. Name Collision in the DNS 698 Name Collision in the DNS [SDO-ICANN-COLL] is a study commissioned by 699 ICANN that attempts to characterize the potential risk to the 700 Internet of adding global DNS delegations for names that were not 701 previously delegated in the DNS, not reserved under any RFC, but also 702 known to be (.home) or surmised to be (.corp) in significant use for 703 Special-Use-type reasons (local scope DNS, or other resolution 704 protocols altogether). 706 4.2.5. SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace 708 SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace 709 [SDO-ICANN-SAC090] reports on some issues surrounding the conflicting 710 uses, interested parties and processes related to the Domain 711 Namespace. The document recommends the development of collaborative 712 processes among the various interested parties to coordinate their 713 activities related to the Domain Namespace. 715 4.2.6. Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis 717 Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis 718 [RFC7050] is an example of a document that successfully used the RFC 719 6761 process to designate '.ipv4only.arpa' as a Special-Use Domain 720 Name; in this case the process worked smoothly and without 721 controversy. 723 Unfortunately, while the IETF process worked smoothly, in the sense 724 that there was little controversy or delay in approving the new use, 725 it did not work correctly: the name "ipv4only.arpa" was never added 726 to the Special-Use Domain Names registry. This appears to have 727 happened because the document did not explicitly request the addition 728 of an entry for "ipv4only.arpa" in the SUDN registry. This is an 729 illustration of one of the problems that we have with the 6761 730 process: it is apparently fairly easy to miss the step of adding the 731 name to the registry. 733 4.2.7. Additional Reserved Top Level Domains 735 Additional Reserved Top Level Domains 736 [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] is an example of a document 737 that attempted to reserve several TLDs identified by ICANN as 738 particularly at risk for collision as Special-Use Domain Names with 739 no documented use. This attempt did not advance in the IETF process. 741 Although this document failed to gain consensus to publish, the need 742 it was intended to fill still exists. Unfortunately, although a fair 743 amount is known about the use of these names, no RFC documents how 744 they are used, and why it would be a problem to delegate them. 745 Additionally, to the extent that the uses being made of these names 746 are valid, no document exists indicating when it might make sense to 747 use them, and when it would not make sense to use them. 749 RFC 7788 [RFC7788] defines the Domain Name TLD ".home" for use as the 750 default name for name resolution relative to a home network context. 751 Although, as defined in RFC 7788, ".home" is a Special-Use Domain 752 Name, RFC 7788 did not follow the process in RFC 6761 and request the 753 addition of ".home" to the IANA Special-Use Domain Name registry. 754 Additionally, ".home" is an example of an attempt to reuse a Domain 755 Name that has already been put into use for other purposes without 756 following established processes[SDO-ICANN-COLL], which further 757 complicates the situation. At the time this document was written, 758 the IETF was developing a solution to this problem. 760 5. History 762 Newcomers to the problem of resolving Domain Names may be under the 763 mistaken impression that the DNS sprang, as in the Greek legend of 764 Athena, directly from Paul Mockapetris' forehead. This is not the 765 case. At the time of the writing of the IAB technical document, 766 memories would have been fresh of the evolutionary process that led 767 to the DNS' dominance as a protocol for Domain Name resolution. 769 In fact, in the early days of the Internet, hostnames were resolved 770 using a text file, HOSTS.TXT, which was maintained by a central 771 authority, the Network Information Center, and distributed to all 772 hosts on the Internet using the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) 773 [RFC0959]. The inefficiency of this process is cited as a reason for 774 the development of the DNS [RFC0882] [RFC0883] in 1983. 776 However, the transition from HOSTS.TXT to the DNS was not smooth. 777 For example, Sun Microsystems's Network Information System 778 [CORP-SUN-NIS], at the time known as Yellow Pages, was an active 779 competitor to the DNS, although it failed to provide a complete 780 solution to the global naming problem. 782 Another example was NetBIOS Name Service, also known as WINS 783 [RFC1002]. This protocol was used mostly by Microsoft Windows 784 machines, but also by open source BSD and Linux operating systems to 785 do name resolution using Microsoft's own name resolution protocol. 787 Most modern operating systems can still use the '/etc/hosts' file for 788 name resolution. Many still have a name service switch that can be 789 configured on the host to resolve some domains using NIS or WINS. 790 Most have the capability to resolve names using mDNS by recognizing 791 the special meaning of the '.local' Special-Use Top Level Domain 792 Name. 794 The Sun Microsystems model of having private domains within a 795 corporate site, while supporting the global Domain Name system for 796 off-site, persisted even after the NIS protocol fell into disuse. 797 Microsoft used to recommend that site administrators use a "private" 798 TLD for internal use, and this practice was very much a part of the 799 zeitgeist at the time (see section 5.1 of [SDO-ICANN-COLL] and 800 Appendix G of [RFC6762]). This attitude is at the root of the 801 widespread practice of simply picking an unused TLD and using it for 802 experimental purposes, which persists even at the time of writing of 803 this memo. 805 This history is being presented because discussions about Special-Use 806 Domain Names in the IETF often come down to the question of why users 807 of new name resolution protocols choose to use Domain Names, rather 808 than using some other naming concept that doesn't overlap with the 809 namespace that, in modern times is, by default, resolved using the 810 DNS. 812 The answer is that as a consequence of this long history of resolving 813 Domain Names using a wide variety of name resolution systems, Domain 814 Names are required in a large variety of contexts in user interfaces 815 and applications programming interfaces. Any name that appears in 816 such a context is a Domain Name. So developers of new name 817 resolution systems that must work in existing contexts actually have 818 no choice: they must use a Special-Use Domain Name to segregate a 819 portion of the namespace for use with their system. 821 6. Security Considerations 823 This document mentions various security and privacy considerations in 824 the text. However, this document creates no new security or privacy 825 concerns. 827 7. IANA considerations 829 This document has no actions for IANA. 831 8. Contributors 833 This document came about as a result of conversations that occurred 834 in the conference hotel lobby, the weekend before IETF 95, when the 835 original author, Ted Lemon, was trying to come up with a better 836 problem statement. Stuart Cheshire, Mark Andrews, David Conrad, Paul 837 Ebersman and Aaron Falk all made helpful and insightful observations 838 or patiently answered questions. This should not be taken as an 839 indication that any of these folks actually agree with what the 840 document says, but their generosity with time and thought are 841 appreciated in any case. 843 Ralph started out as an innocent bystander, but discussion with him 844 was the key motivating factor in the writing of this document, and he 845 agreed to co-author it without too much arm-twisting. Warren spent a 846 lot of time working with us on this document after it was first 847 published, and joined as an author in order to make sure that the 848 work got finished; without him the -01 and -02 versions might not 849 have happened. 851 This document also owes a great deal to Ed Lewis' excellent work on 852 what a "Domain Name" is [I-D.lewis-domain-names]. 854 9. Informative References 856 [RFC0882] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names: Concepts and facilities", 857 RFC 882, DOI 10.17487/RFC0882, November 1983, 858 . 860 [RFC0883] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names: Implementation 861 specification", RFC 883, DOI 10.17487/RFC0883, November 862 1983, . 864 [RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", 865 STD 9, RFC 959, DOI 10.17487/RFC0959, October 1985, 866 . 868 [RFC1002] NetBIOS Working Group in the Defense Advanced Research 869 Projects Agency, Internet Activities Board, and End-to-End 870 Services Task Force, "Protocol standard for a NetBIOS 871 service on a TCP/UDP transport: Detailed specifications", 872 STD 19, RFC 1002, DOI 10.17487/RFC1002, March 1987, 873 . 875 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 876 STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, 877 . 879 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 880 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, 881 November 1987, . 883 [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., 884 and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", 885 BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, 886 . 888 [RFC2826] Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical Comment on the 889 Unique DNS Root", RFC 2826, DOI 10.17487/RFC2826, May 890 2000, . 892 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 893 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 894 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, 895 DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000, 896 . 898 [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 899 Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005, 900 . 902 [RFC6303] Andrews, M., "Locally Served DNS Zones", BCP 163, 903 RFC 6303, DOI 10.17487/RFC6303, July 2011, 904 . 906 [RFC6598] Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and 907 M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address 908 Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, DOI 10.17487/RFC6598, April 909 2012, . 911 [RFC6760] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Requirements for a Protocol 912 to Replace the AppleTalk Name Binding Protocol (NBP)", 913 RFC 6760, DOI 10.17487/RFC6760, February 2013, 914 . 916 [RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names", 917 RFC 6761, DOI 10.17487/RFC6761, February 2013, 918 . 920 [RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762, 921 DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013, 922 . 924 [RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of 925 the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", 926 RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013, 927 . 929 [RFC7686] Appelbaum, J. and A. Muffett, "The ".onion" Special-Use 930 Domain Name", RFC 7686, DOI 10.17487/RFC7686, October 931 2015, . 933 [RFC7719] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS 934 Terminology", RFC 7719, DOI 10.17487/RFC7719, December 935 2015, . 937 [RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking 938 Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April 939 2016, . 941 [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] 942 Chapin, L. and M. McFadden, "Additional Reserved Top Level 943 Domains", draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02 (work 944 in progress), March 2015. 946 [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names] 947 Grothoff, C., Wachs, M., hellekin, h., Appelbaum, J., and 948 L. Ryge, "Special-Use Domain Names of Peer-to-Peer 949 Systems", draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-04 950 (work in progress), January 2015. 952 [I-D.lewis-domain-names] 953 Lewis, E., "Domain Names, A Case for Clarifying", draft- 954 lewis-domain-names-06 (work in progress), March 2017. 956 [SDO-CABF-INT] 957 CA/Browser Forum, "Guidance on the Deprecation of Internal 958 Server Names and Reserved IP Addresses", June 2012, 959 . 961 [SDO-ICANN-COLL] 962 Interisle Consulting Group, LLC, "Name Collisions in the 963 DNS", August 2013, 964 . 967 [SDO-ICANN-SAC090] 968 ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, "SSAC 969 Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace", 970 December 2016, 971 . 974 [SDO-IANA-SUDR] 975 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Special-Use Domain 976 Names registry", October 2015, 977 . 980 [SDO-ICANN-DAG] 981 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Special-Use Domain 982 Names registry", October 2015, 983 . 986 [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] 987 Internet Architecture Board, "Liaison Statement from the 988 IAB to the ICANN Board on Technical Use of Domain Names", 989 September 2015, . 992 [CORP-SUN-NIS] 993 Sun Microsystems, "Large System and Network 994 Administration", March 1990. 996 [IETF-PRO-51] 997 Internet Engineering Task Force, "Proceedings of the 51st 998 IETF", August 2001, 999 . 1001 [TOR] The Tor Project, "Tor", 2017, 1002 . 1004 Appendix A. Change Log. 1006 -03 to -04: 1008 o Issue #72: Corrected original text to reflect that RFC 7050 1009 neglected to request an SUDN registry entry for "ipv4only.arpa", 1010 but any inference about the cause for the oversight would be 1011 speculation. 1013 o Issue #69: Edited Joel's suggested text. 1015 o Issue #67: Minor change to Joel's suggested text. 1017 o Issue #66: Edited second text update suggested by Joel and 1018 reverted third change back to the original text. 1020 o Issue #64: Minor changes to text suggested by Joel. 1022 o Issue #61: Minor edit based on authors' consensus in response to 1023 Joel's comment. 1025 o Addressed Joel / Benoit's AD comments. See GH issues 1027 -02 to -03 (in Github): 1029 Passes idnits except for errors resulting from a reference to an 1030 RFC 2119 keyword and a citation of RFC 5226 with no matching 1031 reference in quoted text at line 493. 1033 Issue #60: Add new section "6. Summary" -- Petr Spacek 1034 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/60 1036 Issue #57: Document needs an "Security Considerations" section 1037 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/57 1038 Numerous editorial changes for consistency; e.g. use "Special-Use 1039 Domain Names" throughout. 1041 Issue #58: Document needs an "IANA Considerations" section 1042 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/58 1044 Issue #39: Overlapping bullets in Section 3, with proposed 1045 restructuring -- Russ Housley https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1046 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/39 1048 Issue #55: Editorial improvement to Section 3 (4) -- John 1049 Dickinson https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ 1050 issues/55 1052 Issue #34: Separate two problems in paragraph that begins "No 1053 mechanism exists for adding a name to the registry...." (2 issues) 1054 -- Suzanne Woolf https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld- 1055 ps/issues/34 1057 Issue #52: Editorial improvement to Section 3 (1) -- John 1058 Dickinson https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ 1059 issues/52 1061 Issue #51: Clarification in Introduction -- John Dickinson 1062 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/51 1064 Issue #49: Should cite https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1351 1065 -- George Michaelson https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr- 1066 sutld-ps/issues/49 1068 Issue #50: IETF precedence in Special-Use names registry -- Ted 1069 Lemon https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/50 1071 Issue #48: 4.1.2 cites sub-domains of .ARPA arguing for special 1072 use TLD -- George Michaelson https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1073 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/48 1075 Issue #47: 4.3 should be made more prominent -- George Michaelson 1076 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/47 1078 Issue #43: Spell out SUDN and SUTLDN rather than use acronyms -- 1079 Russ Housley https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ 1080 issues/43 1082 Issue #41: Reword bullet in Section 3 regarding Domain Name TLDs 1083 that have been commandeered, as reported in SDO-ICANN-COLL -- Russ 1084 Housley https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ 1085 issues/41 1086 Issue #40: Note that time to publish spec for .local included 1087 inventing SUDN registry -- Russ Housley 1088 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/41 1090 Issue #37: Title should be "Special-Use Domain Names Problem 1091 Statement" -- Russ Housley https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1092 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/37 1094 Issue #36: Expand on desire for Special-Use names to be human- 1095 readable -- Suzanne Woolf https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1096 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/36 1098 Issue #35: Clarify "No process exists [...]" to include both IETF 1099 process and other process -- Suzanne Woolf 1100 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/35 1102 Issue #31: Add justification for concern about IETF's ability to 1103 assign names for technical use -- Suzanne Woolf 1104 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/31 1106 Issue #12: Add DNSSEC to text -- John Levine 1107 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/12 1109 Issue #6: Without a process, we just have chaos -- Stuart Cheshire 1110 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/6 1112 Issue #32: Have assignments through RFC 6761 really had "technical 1113 mistakes"? -- Suzanne Wolff https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1114 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/32 1116 Issue #29: Add a reason to bypass external process: expectation 1117 for use of new name to be restricted to local scope -- Suzanne 1118 Wolff https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/29 1120 Issue #27: Is "technical use" really ambiguous; too inclusive for 1121 some people and too limited for others -- Suzanne Wolff 1122 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/27 1124 Issue #24: Replacement for "commandeer" (2 issues)-- Suzanne Wolff 1125 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/24 1127 Issue #22: Clarify importance of the "root of the Domain 1128 Namespace" -- Suzanne Wolff https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1129 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/22 1131 Issue #21: Section 3 - clarify paragraphs 2 and 3 -- Suzanne Wolff 1132 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/21 1133 Issue #20: Section 3: Clarify sentences beginning "Solutions to 1134 these problems..." -- Suzanne Wolff https://github.com/Abhayakara/ 1135 draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/20 1137 Issue #19: Define "default" or "assumed" use of domain names to be 1138 within DNS -- Suzanne Wolff https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1139 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/19 1141 Issue #18: Cite definition of RFC 7719 and domain names draft in 1142 definition of "domain name" -- Suzanne Wolff 1143 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/18 1145 Issue #45: Correct usages of Tor Browser and Tor -- Russ Housley 1146 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/45) 1148 Issue #46: Reformat citation of RFC 2860 -- Russ Housley 1149 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/46) 1151 Issue #44: Clean up reference to SDO-ICANN-DAG in first bullet in 1152 section 3 -- Russ Housley (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1153 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/44) 1155 Issue #42: Add reference to SDO-ICANN-SAC090 in section 4.2.5 -- 1156 Russ Housley (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ 1157 issues/42) 1159 Issue #30: Leaked queries aren't an operational problem in 1160 practice -- Suzanne Wolf (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1161 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/30) 1163 Address some of the simpler issues, including: 1165 Issue #13: Spelling of Tor -- Jeremy Rand 1166 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/13) 1168 Issue #14: Change SDO to "organizations" -- Suzanne Woolf 1169 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/14) 1171 Issue #16: Match number of "policies" and "that policy" -- Suzanne 1172 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/16) 1174 Issue #17: Clarify sentence beginning with "In support of the 1175 particular set of problems described here...." -- Suzanne. 1176 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/14) 1178 Issue #23: Match number of "names" and "a TLD" -- Suzanne. 1179 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/23) 1181 -01 to -02: 1183 Language cleanup from Ted. 1185 -00 to -01: 1187 Improved the terminology. 1189 Included reference to SAC090. 1191 Added ICANN Reserved Names (e.g .icann, .iesg, .arin) to types of 1192 names. 1194 Improved background. 1196 Noted that semantics may differ between resolution contexts. 1198 Pointer to .home / .corp / .mail, other "toxic" names 1200 Readability fixes. 1202 -04 to ietf-00 1204 Document adopted by WG. 1206 Significant changes from CfA integrated, please refer to diff. 1208 -03 to -04: 1210 o Replaced 'Internet Names' with 'Domain Names' - suggestion by John 1211 Levine. 1213 -02 to -03: 1215 o Readability fixes, small grammar updates. 1217 -01 to -02: 1219 o Cleaned up the abstract. 1221 o Fixed the case of Internet 1223 o Reference to Ed Lewis' "Domain Names" 1225 o Fleshed out the problems, primarily the coordination, collisions 1226 ones. 1228 -00 to -01: 1230 o Large refactoring, basically a rewrite. Incorporated comments, 1231 removed a bunch of unneeded text, etc. 1233 Authors' Addresses 1235 Ted Lemon 1236 Nominum, Inc. 1237 800 Bridge Parkway 1238 Redwood City, California 94065 1239 United States of America 1241 Phone: +1 650 381 6000 1242 Email: ted.lemon@nominum.com 1244 Ralph Droms 1246 Email: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com 1248 Warren Kumari 1249 Google 1250 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 1251 Mountain View, CA 94043 1252 US 1254 Email: warren@kumari.net