idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-06.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 515: '... "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 (June 27, 2017) is 2494 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 515, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-lewis-domain-names-07 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 882 (Obsoleted by RFC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) -- Duplicate reference: RFC7788, mentioned in 'RFC7788', was also mentioned in 'ERRATA-4677'. Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 5 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: December 29, 2017 6 W. Kumari 7 Google 8 June 27, 2017 10 Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement 11 draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-06 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 December 29, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 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 . . . . . . . . 10 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 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 . . . . 15 71 4.2.3. Locally Served DNS Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 72 4.2.4. Name Collision in the DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 73 4.2.5. SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain 74 Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 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 . . . . . . . . 17 78 5. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 79 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 80 7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 81 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 82 9. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 83 10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 84 Appendix A. Change Log. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 87 1. Introduction 89 One of the key services required to use the Internet is name 90 resolution. Name resolution is the process of translating a symbolic 91 name into some object or set of objects to which the name refers, 92 most typically one or more IP addresses. These names are often 93 referred to as Domain Names. When reading this document, care must 94 be taken to not assume that the term Domain Name implies the use of 95 the Domain Name System [RFC1034] for resolving these names. An 96 excellent presentation on this topic can be found in Domain Names 97 [I-D.lewis-domain-names]. 99 Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an IANA registry for 100 Special-Use Domain Names [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for adding 101 to the registry, and made some suggestions about how those policies 102 might be implemented. Since the publication of RFC 6761, the IETF 103 has been asked to designate several new Special-Use Domain Names in 104 this registry. During the evaluation process for these Special-Use 105 Domain Names, the IETF encountered several different sorts of issues. 106 Because of this, the IETF has decided to investigate the problem and 107 decide if and how the RFC 6761 process can be improved, or whether it 108 should be deprecated. The IETF DSNOP working group charter was 109 extended to include conducting a review of the process for adding 110 names to the registry that is defined in RFC 6761. This document is 111 a product of that review. 113 Based on current ICANN and IETF practice, including RFC 6761, there 114 are several different types of names in the root of the Domain 115 Namespace: 117 o Reserved by the IETF for technical purposes 119 o Assigned by ICANN to the public DNS root; some names reserved by 120 the IETF for technical purposes may appear in the Global DNS root 121 for reasons pertaining to the operation of the DNS 123 o ICANN Reserved Names; names that may not be applied for as TLDs 124 (see [SDO-ICANN-DAG], Section 2.2.1.2.1, Reserved Names, 125 Section 2.2.1.4.1, Treatment of Country or Territory Names, et 126 al.) 128 o Used by other organizations without following established 129 processes 131 o Names that are unused and are available for assignment to one of 132 the previous categories 134 This document presents a list, believed to be complete, of the 135 problems associated with the assignment of Special-Use Domain Names. 136 In support of its analysis of the particular set of issues described 137 here, the document also includes descriptions of existing practice as 138 it relates to the use of domain names, a brief history of domain 139 names, and some observations by various IETF participants who have 140 experience with various aspects of the current situation. 142 2. Terminology 144 This document uses the terminology from RFC 7719 [RFC7719]. Other 145 terms used in this document are defined here: 147 Domain Name This document uses the term "Domain Name" as defined in 148 section 2 of RFC 7719 [RFC7719]. 150 Domain Namespace The set of all possible Domain Names. 152 Special-Use Domain Name A Domain Name listed in the Special-Use 153 Domain Names registry [SDO-IANA-SUDR]. 155 For the sake of brevity this document uses some abbreviations, which 156 are expanded here: 158 IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 160 ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 162 TLD Top-Level Domain, as defined in section 2 of RFC 7719 [RFC7719] 164 gTLD Generic Top-Level Domain (see section 2 of RFC 2352 [RFC2352]) 166 3. Problems associated with Special-Use Domain Names 168 This section presents a list of problems that have been identified 169 with respect to the assignment of Special-Use Domain Names. 170 Solutions to these problems, including their costs or tradeoffs, are 171 out of scope for this document. They will be covered in a separate 172 document. New problems that might be created in the process of 173 solving problems described in this document are also out of scope: 174 these problems are expected to be addressed in the process of 175 evaluating potential solutions. 177 Special-Use Domain Names exist to solve a variety of problems. This 178 document has two goals: enumerate all of the problems that have been 179 identified to which Special-Use Domain Names are a solution and 180 enumerate all of the problems that have been raised in the process of 181 trying to use RFC 6761 as it was intended. As some of those problems 182 may fall into both categories, this document makes no attempt to 183 categorize the problems. 185 There is a broad diversity of opinion about this set of problems. 186 Not every participant agrees that each of the problems enumerated in 187 this document is actually a problem. This document takes no position 188 on the relative validity of the various problems that have been 189 enumerated, nor on the organization responsible for addressing each 190 individual problem, if it is to be addressed. The sole purposes of 191 the document are to enumerate those problems, provide the reader with 192 context for thinking about them and provide a context for future 193 discussion of solutions, regardless of whether such solutions may be 194 work for IETF, ICANN, IANA or some other group. 196 This is the list of problems: 198 o Although the IETF and ICANN have a liaison relationship through 199 which special-use allocations can be discussed, there exists no 200 formal process for coordinating these allocations (see 201 Section 4.1.3). The lack of coordination complicates the 202 management of the root of the Domain Namespace and could lead to 203 conflicts in name assignments [SDO-ICANN-SAC090]. 205 o There is no explicit scoping as to what can constitute a 206 "technical use" [RFC2860] and what cannot, and there is also no 207 consensus within the IETF as to what this term means. 209 o Not all developers of protocols on the internet agree that 210 authority over the entire Domain Namespace should reside solely 211 with the IETF and ICANN. 213 o Although IETF and ICANN nominally have authority over this 214 namespace, neither organization can enforce that authority over 215 any third party who wants to just start using a subset of the 216 namespace. Such parties may observe that the IETF has never 217 asserted control or authority over what protocols are "allowed" on 218 the internet, and that the principle of "permissionless 219 innovation" suggests there should be a way for people to include 220 new uses of domain names in new protocols and applications. 222 o Organizations do in fact sometimes use subsets of the Domain 223 Namespace without following established processes. Reasons a 224 third party might do this include: 226 * Unaware that a process exists for assigning such names 228 * Intended use is covered by gTLD process [SDO-ICANN-DAG], but no 229 gTLD process is ongoing 231 * Intended use is covered by gTLD process, but the third party 232 doesn't want to pay a fee 234 * Intended use is covered by some IETF process, but the third 235 party doesn't want to follow the process 237 * Intended use is covered by ICANN or IETF process, but third 238 party expects that the outcome will be refusal or non-action 240 * Unaware that a name intended to be used only locally may 241 nevertheless leak 243 * Unaware that a name used locally with informal allocation may 244 subsequently be allocated formally, creating operational 245 problems 247 o There is demand for more than one name resolution protocol for 248 Domain Names. Domain Names contain no metadata to indicate which 249 protocol to use to resolve them. Domain name resolution APIs do 250 not provide a way to specify which protocol to use. 252 o When a Special-Use Domain Name is added to the Special-Use Domain 253 Names registry, not all software that processes such names will 254 understand the special use of that name. In many cases, name 255 resolution software will use the Domain Name System for resolution 256 of names not known to have a special use. Consequently, any such 257 use will result in queries for Special-Use Domain Names being sent 258 to Domain Name System authoritative servers. These queries may 259 constitute an operational problem for operators of root zone 260 authoritative name servers. These queries may also inadvertently 261 reveal private information through the contents of the query, 262 which is a privacy consideration. 264 o The RFC 6761 process is sufficiently uncertain that some protocol 265 developers have assumed they could not get a name assigned; the 266 process of assigning the first new name ('.local') using the RFC 267 6761 process took more than ten years from beginning to end: 268 longer by a factor of ten than any other part of the protocol 269 development process (largely because this ten years included time 270 to develop the process as well as use it). Other uses of the 271 process have proceeded more smoothly, but there is a reasonably 272 justified perception that using this process is likely to be slow 273 and difficult, with an uncertain outcome. 275 o There is strong resistance within the IETF to assigning Domain 276 Names to resolution systems outside of the DNS, for a variety of 277 reasons: 279 * Requires a mechanism for identifying which of a set of 280 resolution processes is required in order to resolve a 281 particular name. 283 * Assertion of authority: there is a sense that the Domain 284 Namespace is "owned" by the IETF or by ICANN, and so, if a name 285 is claimed outside of that process, the person or entity that 286 claimed that name should suffer some consequence that would, 287 presumably, deter future circumvention of the official process. 289 * More than one name resolution protocol is bad, in the sense 290 that a single protocol is less complicated to implement and 291 deploy. 293 * The semantics of alternative resolution protocols may differ 294 from the DNS protocol; DNS has the concept of RRtypes; other 295 protocols may not support RRtypes, or may support some entirely 296 different data structuring mechanism. 298 * If there is an IETF process through which a TLD can be assigned 299 at zero cost other than time, this process will be used as an 300 alternative to the more costly process of getting the name 301 registered through ICANN. 303 * A name might be assigned for a particular purpose when a more 304 general use of the name would be more beneficial. 306 * If the IETF assigns a name that some third party or parties 307 believes belongs to them in some way, the IETF could become 308 embroiled in an expensive dispute with those parties. 310 o If there were no process for assigning names for technical use 311 through the IETF, there is a concern that protocols that require 312 such names would not be able to get them. 314 o In some cases where the IETF has made assignments through the RFC 315 6761 process, technical mistakes have been made due to 316 misunderstandings as to the actual process that RFC 6761 specifies 317 (e.g., treating the list of suggested considerations for assigning 318 a name as a set of requirements all of which must be met). In 319 other cases, the IETF has made de facto assignments of Special-Use 320 Domain Names without following the RFC 6761 process. 322 o There are several Domain Name TLDs that are in use without due 323 process for a variety of purposes. The status of these names need 324 to be clarified and recorded to avoid future disputes about their 325 use [SDO-ICANN-COLL]. 327 o In principle, the RFC 6761 process could be used to document the 328 existence of Domain Names that are not safe to assign, and provide 329 information on how those names are used in practice. However, 330 attempts to use RFC 6761 to accomplish this documentation have not 331 been successful (for example, see "Additional Reserved Top Level 332 Domains [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and Section 4.2.7). 334 One side effect of the lack of documentation is that any 335 mitigation effect on the root name servers or on privacy 336 considerations has been missed. 338 o A Domain Name can be identified as either a DNS name by placing it 339 in the DNS zone(s) or as a Special-Use Domain Name by adding it to 340 the IANA registry. Some names are in both places; for example, 341 some locally served zone names are in DNS zones and documented in 342 the Special-Use Domain Names registry. At present, the only way a 343 Domain Name can be added to the Special-Use Domain Name registry 344 is for the IETF to take responsibility for the name and designate 345 it for "technical use". There are other potential uses for Domain 346 Names that should be recorded in the registry, but for which the 347 IETF should not take responsibility. 349 o The IETF may in some cases see the need to document that a name is 350 in use without claiming that the use of the name is the IETF's use 351 of the name. No mechanism exists in the current registry to mark 352 names in this way. 354 o There is no formal process during any of the review stages for a 355 document in which a check is made to ensure that the document does 356 not unintentionally violate IETF process for adding special-use 357 domain names to the registry, as was the case, for example, in RFC 358 7788 [RFC7788]. 360 o Use of the registry is inconsistent -- some Special-Use Domain 361 Name RFCs specifically add registry entries, some don't; some 362 specify how and whether special-use name delegations should be 363 done, some don't. 365 o There exists no safe, non-process-violating mechanism for ad-hoc 366 assignment of Special-Use Domain Names. 368 o It is generally assumed that protocols that need a Special-Use 369 Domain Name need a mnemonic, single-label, human-readable Special- 370 Use Domain Name, for use in user interfaces such as command lines 371 or URL entry fields. While this assumption is correct in some 372 cases, it is likely not correct in all cases; for example, in 373 applications where the DNS name is never visible to a user. 375 o RFC 6761 uses the term "Domain Name" to describe the thing for 376 which special uses are registered. This creates a great deal of 377 confusion because some readers take "Domain Name" to imply the use 378 of the DNS protocol. 380 o The use of DNSSEC with Special-Use Domain Names is an open issue. 381 There is no consensus or guidance about how to use DNSSEC with 382 various classes of Special-Use Domain Names. Considerations in 383 the use of DNSSEC with Special-Use Domain Names include: 385 * What class of Special-Use Domain Name is under consideration: 386 non-DNS, locally served zone, other? 388 * Does the Special-Use Domain Name require a delegation in the 389 root zone; if so, should that delegation be signed or not? If 390 there is no delegation, then this will be treated by validating 391 resolvers as a secure denial of existence for that zone. This 392 would not be appropriate for a name being resolved using the 393 DNS protocol. 395 * A process would be required through which the IETF can cause a 396 delegation in the root zone to be instantiated. 398 * What are the recommended practices for using DNS with the 399 specific Special-Use Domain Name? 401 The problems we have stated here represent the current understanding 402 of the authors of the document as to the complete set of problems 403 that have been identified during discussion by the working group on 404 this topic. The remainder of this document provides additional 405 context that will be needed for reasoning about these problems. 407 4. Existing Practice Regarding Special-Use Domain Names 409 There are three primary (see Section 4.1) and numerous secondary 410 (Section 4.2) documents to consider when thinking about the Special- 411 Use Domain Names process. 413 How names are resolved is ambiguous, in the sense that some names are 414 Special-Use Domain names that require special handling, and some 415 names can be resolved using the DNS protocol with no special 416 handling. 418 The assignment of Internet Names is not under the sole control of any 419 one organization. IETF has authority in some cases, but only with 420 respect to "technical uses." ICANN at present is the designated 421 administrator of the root zone, but generally not of zones other than 422 the root zone. Neither of these authorities can in any practical 423 sense exclude the practice of ad-hoc use of names. Unauthorized use 424 of domain names can be accomplished by any entity that has control 425 over one or more name servers or resolvers, in the context of any 426 hosts and services that that entity operates. It can also be 427 accomplished by authors of software who decide that a Special-Use 428 Domain Name is the right way to indicate the use of an alternate 429 resolution mechanism. 431 4.1. Primary Special-Use Domain Name Documents 433 The primary documents are considered primary because they directly 434 address the IETF's past thoughts on this topic in a general way, and 435 also because they describe what the IETF does in practice. Only one 436 of these documents is an IETF consensus document. 438 4.1.1. IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root 440 This document [RFC2826] is not an IETF consensus document, and 441 appears to have been written to address a different problem than the 442 Special-Use Domain Name problem. However, it speaks directly to 443 several of the key issues that must be considered, and, coming as it 444 does from the IAB, it is rightly treated as having significant 445 authority despite not being an IETF consensus document. 447 This document should be considered required reading for IETF 448 participants who wish to express an informed opinion on the topic of 449 Special-Use Domain Names. The main points that appear relevant to 450 the Special-Use Domain Names problem are: 452 o The Internet requires a globally unique namespace: a namespace in 453 which any given name refers to the same information (has the same 454 meaning) no matter who requests that information and no matter 455 from which specific name server they request it. 457 o Private networks may operate private namespaces, with names that 458 have meanings only locally (within the private network) but still 459 require that names in the public namespace be globally unique. 461 o The Domain Name System [RFC1035] is not the only protocol that may 462 be used for resolving domain names. 464 o Users cannot be assumed to know how to distinguish between 465 symbolic references that have local meaning and references that 466 have global meaning. Users may therefore share references that 467 incorporate Domain Names with no global meaning (for example, a 468 URL of 'http://mysite.example.corp', where 'example.corp' is a 469 domain used privately and informally as described in 470 [SDO-ICANN-COLL]). 472 o Such references might refer to the object the user intends to 473 share within that user's context, but either refer to some other 474 object any recipient's context, or might not refer to any object 475 at all in a recipient's context. The effect of this reference 476 escaping the context in which it is valid is that the user's 477 intended communication will not be able to be understood by the 478 recipients of the communication. 480 o This same problem can also occur when a single user copies a name 481 from one context in which it has one meaning, into a different 482 context in which it has a different meaning -- for example copying 483 a '.onion' Domain Name out of a Tor Browser [TOR], where it has 484 meaning, and pasting this name into an ssh client that doesn't 485 support connecting over the Tor network. 487 We can summarize the advice in this document as follows: 489 o Domain Names with unambiguous global meaning are preferable to 490 Domain Names with local meaning which will be ambiguous. 491 Nevertheless both globally-meaningful and locally-special names 492 are in use and must be supported. 494 o At the time of the writing of this document the IAB was of the 495 opinion that there might well be more than one name resolution 496 protocol used to resolve Domain Names. 498 4.1.2. Special-Use Domain Names 500 The second important document is "Special-Use Domain Names" 501 [RFC6761]. RFC 6761 represents the current IETF consensus on 502 designating and recording Special-Use Domain Names. The IETF has 503 experienced problems with the designation process described in RFC 504 6761; these concerns motivate this document. Familiarity with RFC 505 6761 is a prerequisite for having an informed opinion on the topic of 506 Special-Use Domain Names. 508 RFC 6761 defines two aspects of Special-Use Domain Names: designating 509 a Domain Name to have a special purpose and registering that special 510 use in the Special-Use Domain Names registry. The designation 511 process is defined in a single sentence (RFC 6761, section 4): 513 If it is determined that special handling of a name is required in 514 order to implement some desired new functionality, then an IETF 515 "Standards Action" or "IESG Approval" specification [RFC5226] MUST 516 be published describing the new functionality. 518 This sentence requires that any designation of a Special-Use Domain 519 Name is subject to the same open review and consensus process as used 520 to produce and publish all other IETF specifications. 522 The registration process is a purely mechanical process, in which the 523 existence of the newly designated Special-Use Domain Name is 524 recorded, with a pointer to a section in the relevant specification 525 document that defines the ways in which special handling is to be 526 applied to the name. 528 RFC 6761 provided the process whereby Multicast DNS [RFC6762] 529 designated ".local" as a Special-Use Domain Name and included it in 530 the Special-Use Domain Names registry. It itself also enumerated a 531 set of names that had been previously used or defined to have special 532 uses prior to the publication of RFC 6761. Since there had been no 533 registry for these names prior to the publication of RFC 6761, the 534 documents defining these names could not have added them to the 535 registry. 537 There are at least several important points to think of with respect 538 to the RFC 6761: 540 o A Special-Use Domain Name may be a name that should be resolved 541 using the DNS protocol with no special handling. An example of 542 this is 'IN-ADDR.ARPA.' (which is an example of a Special-Use 543 Domain Name that is not a TLD). 545 o A Special-Use Domain Name may be a name that is resolved using the 546 DNS protocol, requires no special handling in the stub resolver, 547 but requires special handling in the recursive resolver. An 548 example of this would be "10.in-addr.arpa." 550 o A Special-Use Domain Name may be a name that requires special 551 handling in the stub resolver. An example would be a Special-Use 552 Top-Level Domain Name like '.local' which acts as a signal to 553 indicate that the local stub resolver should use a non-DNS 554 protocol for name resolution. 556 o The current IETF consensus (from a process perspective, not 557 necessarily from the perspective of what would be consensus if the 558 IETF were to attempt to produce a new consensus document) is that 559 all of these purposes for Special-Use Domain Names are valid. 561 The term "stub resolver" in this case does not mean "DNS protocol 562 stub resolver." The stub resolver is the entity within a particular 563 software stack that takes a question about a Domain Name and answers 564 it. One way a stub resolver can answer such a question is using the 565 DNS protocol, but it is in the stub resolver, as we are using the 566 term here, that the decision as to whether to use a protocol, and if 567 so which protocol, or whether to use a local database of some sort, 568 is made. 570 RFC 6761 does not limit Special-Use Domain Names to TLDs. However, 571 at present, all Special-Use Domain Names registered in the IANA 572 Special-Use Domain Names registry [SDO-IANA-SUDR] are either intended 573 to be resolved using the DNS protocol, or are TLDs, or both. That 574 is, at present there exist no Special-Use Domain Names which require 575 special handling by stub resolvers and which are not at the top level 576 of the naming hierarchy. 578 One point to take from this is that there is already a requirement in 579 RFC 6762 that when a stub resolver encounters the special label, 580 '.LOCAL' at the top level of a domain name, it can only use the mDNS 581 protocol to resolve that Domain Name. 583 4.1.3. MoU Concerning the Technical Work of the IANA 585 There exists a Memorandum of Understanding [RFC2860] between the IETF 586 and ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) which 587 discusses how names and numbers will be managed through the IANA 588 (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority). This document is important to 589 the discussion of Special-Use Domain Names because, while it 590 delegates authority for managing the Domain Name System Namespace 591 generally to ICANN, it reserves to the IETF the authority that RFC 592 6761 formalizes: 594 Note that (a) assignments of Domain Names for technical uses (such 595 as Domain Names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of 596 specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks), 597 and (c) experimental assignments are not considered to be policy 598 issues, and shall remain subject to the provisions of this 599 Section 4. 601 The above text is an addendum to the following: 603 Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in addition 604 to the technical considerations specified by the IETF: the 605 assignment of Domain Names, and the assignment of IP address 606 blocks. These policy issues are outside the scope of this MOU. 608 In general, then, the assignment of names in the DNS root zone, and 609 the management of the DNS namespace, is a function that is performed 610 by ICANN. However, the MoU specifically exempts domain names 611 assigned for technical use, and uses the example of domains used for 612 inverse DNS lookup. Both 'IN-ADDR.ARPA' and 'IP6.ARPA' are in the 613 Special-Use Domain Names registry. 615 Implicit in the MoU is the fact that the IETF and ICANN retain, 616 between them, sole authority for assigning any names from the Domain 617 Namespace. Both the IETF and ICANN have internal processes for 618 making such assignments. 620 The point here is not to say what the implications of this statement 621 in the MoU are, but rather to call the reader's attention to the 622 existence of this statement. 624 4.1.4. Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain Names 626 As a result of processing requests to add names to the Special-Use 627 Domain Name registry, as documented in 628 [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and 629 [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names], a review was chartered of 630 the process defined in RFC 6761 for adding names to the registry (as 631 explained earlier). The Liaison Statement [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] 632 notified ICANN of the review, affirmed that the discussion would be 633 "open and transparent to participation by interested parties" and 634 explicitly invited members of the ICANN community to participate. 636 4.2. Secondary documents relating to the Special-Use Domain Name 637 question 639 In addition to these documents, there are several others with which 640 participants in this discussion should be familiar. 642 4.2.1. Multicast DNS 644 Multicast DNS [RFC6762] defines the Multicast DNS protocol, which 645 uses the '.LOCAL' Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name. Section 3 646 describes the semantics of "multicast DNS names." It is of 647 considerable historical importance to note that the -00 version of 648 this document, an individual submission, was published in July of 649 2001. This version contains substantially the same text in section 650 3, and was discussed in the DNSEXT working group at IETF 51 in August 651 of 2001[IETF-PRO-51]. The first version of this document designated 652 '.LOCAL.ARPA' as the Special-Use Domain Name. This idea was strongly 653 opposed by DNSEXT working group participants, and as a result the 654 author eventually switched to using '.LOCAL'. 656 The history of RFC 6762 is documented in substantial detail in 657 Appendix H of RFC 6762; some notable milestones include the initial 658 proposal to replace Appletalk's NBP in July 1997, the chartering of 659 the Zeroconf working group in September 1999, assignment of a 660 multicast address for link-local name discovery in April of 2000. A 661 companion requirements document, eventually published as [RFC6760] 662 was first published in September of 2001. 664 The point of mentioning these dates is so that discussions involving 665 the time when the '.LOCAL' domain was first deployed, and the context 666 in which it was deployed, may be properly informed. 668 4.2.2. The .onion Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name 670 The .onion Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name [RFC7686] is important 671 because it is the most recent IETF action on the topic of Special-Use 672 Domain Names; although it does not set new policy, the mere fact of 673 its publication is worth thinking about. 675 Two important points to consider about this document are that: 677 o The IETF gained consensus to publish it 679 o Devising a resolution to the situation was constrained by at least 680 two factors. First, there was no process for allocating special- 681 use domain names at the time that the .onion project started using 682 the name, and since at the time the scope of use of the name was 683 expected to be very constrained, the developers chose to allocate 684 it unilaterally rather than asking the IETF or some other SDO to 685 create a new process. 687 Second, for some time, the CA/Browser Forum [SDO-CABF] had been 688 issuing certificates for what they referred to as "internal 689 names." Internal names are names allocated unilaterally for use 690 in site-specific contexts. Issuing certificates for such names 691 came to be considered problematic, since no formal process for 692 testing the validity of such names existed. Consequently, CA/ 693 Browser Forum decided to phase out the use of such names in 694 certificates [SDO-CABF-INT], and set a deadline after which no new 695 certs for such names would be issued [SDO-CABF-DEADLINE]. Because 696 the .onion name had been allocated unilaterally, it was affected 697 by this policy. 699 The IETF's designation of .onion as a Special-Use Top-Level Domain 700 Name was needed to facilitate the development of a certificate 701 issuance process specific to .onion domain names 702 [SDO-CABF-BALLOT144]. 704 4.2.3. Locally Served DNS Zones 706 Locally Served DNS Zones [RFC6303] describes a particular use case 707 for zones that exist by definition, and that are resolved using the 708 DNS protocol, but that cannot have a global meaning, because the host 709 IP addresses they reference are not unique. This applies to a 710 variety of addresses, including Private IPv4 addresses [RFC1918], 711 Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses [RFC4193] (in which this practice 712 was first described) and IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address 713 Space [RFC6598]. 715 This use case is distinct from the use-case for Special-Use Domain 716 Names like '.local' and '.onion' in that the names are resolved using 717 the DNS protocol (but do require extensions or exceptions to the 718 usual DNS resolution to enforce resolution in a local context rather 719 than the global DNS context). But it shares the problem that such 720 names cannot be assumed either to be unique or to be functional in 721 all contexts for all Internet-connected hosts. 723 4.2.4. Name Collision in the DNS 725 Name Collision in the DNS [SDO-ICANN-COLL] is a study commissioned by 726 ICANN that attempts to characterize the potential risk to the 727 Internet of adding global DNS delegations for names that were not 728 previously delegated in the DNS, not reserved under any RFC, but also 729 known to be (.home) or surmised to be (.corp) in significant use for 730 Special-Use-type reasons (local scope DNS, or other resolution 731 protocols altogether). 733 4.2.5. SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace 735 ICANN SSAC ([SDO-ICANN-SSAC]) Advisory on the Stability of the Domain 736 Namespace [SDO-ICANN-SAC090] reports on some issues surrounding the 737 conflicting uses, interested parties and processes related to the 738 Domain Namespace. The document recommends the development of 739 collaborative processes among the various interested parties to 740 coordinate their activities related to the Domain Namespace. 742 4.2.6. Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis 744 Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis 745 [RFC7050] is an example of a document that successfully used the RFC 746 6761 process to designate '.ipv4only.arpa' as a Special-Use Domain 747 Name; in this case the process worked smoothly and without 748 controversy. 750 Unfortunately, while the IETF process worked smoothly, in the sense 751 that there was little controversy or delay in approving the new use, 752 it did not work correctly: the name "ipv4only.arpa" was never added 753 to the Special-Use Domain Names registry. This appears to have 754 happened because the document did not explicitly request the addition 755 of an entry for "ipv4only.arpa" in the SUDN registry. This is an 756 illustration of one of the problems that we have with the 6761 757 process: it is apparently fairly easy to miss the step of adding the 758 name to the registry. 760 4.2.7. Additional Reserved Top Level Domains 762 Additional Reserved Top Level Domains 763 [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] is an example of a document 764 that attempted to reserve several TLDs identified by ICANN as 765 particularly at risk for collision as Special-Use Domain Names with 766 no documented use. This attempt failed. 768 Although this document failed to gain consensus to publish, the need 769 it was intended to fill still exists. Unfortunately, although a fair 770 amount is known about the use of these names, no RFC documents how 771 they are used, and why it would be a problem to delegate them. 772 Additionally, to the extent that the uses being made of these names 773 are valid, no document exists indicating when it might make sense to 774 use them, and when it would not make sense to use them. 776 RFC 7788 [RFC7788] defines the Domain Name TLD ".home" for use as the 777 default name for name resolution relative to a home network context. 778 Although, as defined in RFC 7788, ".home" is a Special-Use Domain 779 Name, RFC 7788 did not follow the process specified in RFC 6761: it 780 did not request that ".home" be added to the IANA Special-Use Domain 781 Name registry. This was recognized as a mistake, and resulted in the 782 publication of an errata, [ERRATA-4677]. Additionally, ".home" is an 783 example of an attempt to reuse a Domain Name that has already been 784 put into use for other purposes without following established 785 processes[SDO-ICANN-COLL], which further complicates the situation. 786 At the time this document was written, the IETF was developing a 787 solution to this problem. 789 5. History 791 Newcomers to the problem of resolving Domain Names may be under the 792 mistaken impression that the DNS sprang, as in the Greek legend of 793 Athena, directly from Paul Mockapetris' forehead. This is not the 794 case. At the time of the writing of the IAB technical document, 795 memories would have been fresh of the evolutionary process that led 796 to the DNS' dominance as a protocol for Domain Name resolution. 798 In fact, in the early days of the Internet, hostnames were resolved 799 using a text file, HOSTS.TXT, which was maintained by a central 800 authority, the Network Information Center, and distributed to all 801 hosts on the Internet using the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) 802 [RFC0959]. The inefficiency of this process is cited as a reason for 803 the development of the DNS [RFC0882] [RFC0883] in 1983. 805 However, the transition from HOSTS.TXT to the DNS was not smooth. 806 For example, Sun Microsystems's Network Information System 807 [CORP-SUN-NIS], at the time known as Yellow Pages, was an active 808 competitor to the DNS, although it failed to provide a complete 809 solution to the global naming problem. 811 Another example was NetBIOS Name Service, also known as WINS 812 [RFC1002]. This protocol was used mostly by Microsoft Windows 813 machines, but also by open source BSD and Linux operating systems to 814 do name resolution using Microsoft's own name resolution protocol. 816 Most modern operating systems can still use the '/etc/hosts' file for 817 name resolution. Many still have a name service switch that can be 818 configured on the host to resolve some domains using NIS or WINS. 819 Most have the capability to resolve names using mDNS by recognizing 820 the special meaning of the '.local' Special-Use Top Level Domain 821 Name. 823 The Sun Microsystems model of having private domains within a 824 corporate site, while supporting the global Domain Name system for 825 off-site, persisted even after the NIS protocol fell into disuse. 826 Microsoft used to recommend that site administrators use a "private" 827 TLD for internal use, and this practice was very much a part of the 828 zeitgeist at the time (see section 5.1 of [SDO-ICANN-COLL] and 829 Appendix G of [RFC6762]). This attitude is at the root of the 830 widespread practice of simply picking an unused TLD and using it for 831 experimental purposes, which persists even at the time of writing of 832 this memo. 834 This history is being presented because discussions about Special-Use 835 Domain Names in the IETF often come down to the question of why users 836 of new name resolution protocols choose to use Domain Names, rather 837 than using some other naming concept that doesn't overlap with the 838 namespace that, in modern times is, by default, resolved using the 839 DNS. 841 The answer is that as a consequence of this long history of resolving 842 Domain Names using a wide variety of name resolution systems, Domain 843 Names are required in a large variety of contexts in user interfaces 844 and applications programming interfaces. Any name that appears in 845 such a context is a Domain Name. So developers of new name 846 resolution systems that must work in existing contexts actually have 847 no choice: they must use a Special-Use Domain Name to segregate a 848 portion of the namespace for use with their system. 850 6. Security Considerations 852 This document mentions various security and privacy considerations in 853 the text. However, this document creates no new security or privacy 854 concerns. 856 7. IANA considerations 858 This document has no actions for IANA. 860 8. Contributors 862 This document came about as a result of conversations that occurred 863 in the conference hotel lobby, the weekend before IETF 95, when the 864 original author, Ted Lemon, was trying to come up with a better 865 problem statement. Stuart Cheshire, Mark Andrews, David Conrad, Paul 866 Ebersman and Aaron Falk all made helpful and insightful observations 867 or patiently answered questions. This should not be taken as an 868 indication that any of these folks actually agree with what the 869 document says, but their generosity with time and thought are 870 appreciated in any case. 872 Ralph started out as an innocent bystander, but discussion with him 873 was the key motivating factor in the writing of this document, and he 874 agreed to co-author it without too much arm-twisting. Warren spent a 875 lot of time working with us on this document after it was first 876 published, and joined as an author in order to make sure that the 877 work got finished; without him the -01 and -02 versions might not 878 have happened. 880 This document also owes a great deal to Ed Lewis' excellent work on 881 what a "Domain Name" is [I-D.lewis-domain-names]. 883 9. RFC Editor Considerations 885 The authors were unable to find dates for references 886 [SDO-CABF-DEADLINE] and [SDO-CABF]. Please fix up those references 887 as appropriate (and remove this section before publication). 889 10. Informative References 891 [CORP-SUN-NIS] 892 Sun Microsystems, "Large System and Network 893 Administration", March 1990. 895 [ERRATA-4677] 896 Internet Architecture Board, "Errata ID: 4677 (RFC7788)", 897 April 2016, . 899 [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] 900 Chapin, L. and M. McFadden, "Additional Reserved Top Level 901 Domains", draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02 (work 902 in progress), March 2015. 904 [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names] 905 Grothoff, C., Wachs, M., hellekin, h., Appelbaum, J., and 906 L. Ryge, "Special-Use Domain Names of Peer-to-Peer 907 Systems", draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-04 908 (work in progress), January 2015. 910 [I-D.lewis-domain-names] 911 Lewis, E., "Domain Names, A Case for Clarifying", draft- 912 lewis-domain-names-07 (work in progress), June 2017. 914 [IETF-PRO-51] 915 Internet Engineering Task Force, "Proceedings of the 51st 916 IETF", August 2001, 917 . 919 [RFC0882] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names: Concepts and facilities", 920 RFC 882, DOI 10.17487/RFC0882, November 1983, 921 . 923 [RFC0883] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names: Implementation 924 specification", RFC 883, DOI 10.17487/RFC0883, November 925 1983, . 927 [RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", 928 STD 9, RFC 959, DOI 10.17487/RFC0959, October 1985, 929 . 931 [RFC1002] NetBIOS Working Group in the Defense Advanced Research 932 Projects Agency, Internet Activities Board, and End-to-End 933 Services Task Force, "Protocol standard for a NetBIOS 934 service on a TCP/UDP transport: Detailed specifications", 935 STD 19, RFC 1002, DOI 10.17487/RFC1002, March 1987, 936 . 938 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", 939 STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, 940 . 942 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 943 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, 944 November 1987, . 946 [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., 947 and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", 948 BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, 949 . 951 [RFC2352] Vaughan, O., "A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain 952 Names", RFC 2352, DOI 10.17487/RFC2352, May 1998, 953 . 955 [RFC2826] Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical Comment on the 956 Unique DNS Root", RFC 2826, DOI 10.17487/RFC2826, May 957 2000, . 959 [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of 960 Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the 961 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, 962 DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000, 963 . 965 [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 966 Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005, 967 . 969 [RFC6303] Andrews, M., "Locally Served DNS Zones", BCP 163, 970 RFC 6303, DOI 10.17487/RFC6303, July 2011, 971 . 973 [RFC6598] Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and 974 M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address 975 Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, DOI 10.17487/RFC6598, April 976 2012, . 978 [RFC6760] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Requirements for a Protocol 979 to Replace the AppleTalk Name Binding Protocol (NBP)", 980 RFC 6760, DOI 10.17487/RFC6760, February 2013, 981 . 983 [RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names", 984 RFC 6761, DOI 10.17487/RFC6761, February 2013, 985 . 987 [RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762, 988 DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013, 989 . 991 [RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of 992 the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", 993 RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013, 994 . 996 [RFC7686] Appelbaum, J. and A. Muffett, "The ".onion" Special-Use 997 Domain Name", RFC 7686, DOI 10.17487/RFC7686, October 998 2015, . 1000 [RFC7719] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS 1001 Terminology", RFC 7719, DOI 10.17487/RFC7719, December 1002 2015, . 1004 [RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking 1005 Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April 1006 2016, . 1008 [SDO-CABF] 1009 CA/Browser Forum, "CA/Browser Forum", ??? ????, 1010 . 1012 [SDO-CABF-BALLOT144] 1013 CA/Browser Forum, "Ballot 144 - Validation Rules for 1014 .onion Names", February 2015, 1015 . 1018 [SDO-CABF-DEADLINE] 1019 CA/Browser Forum, "SSL Certificates for Internal Server 1020 Names", ??? ????, . 1023 [SDO-CABF-INT] 1024 CA/Browser Forum, "Guidance on the Deprecation of Internal 1025 Server Names and Reserved IP Addresses", June 2012, 1026 . 1028 [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] 1029 Internet Architecture Board, "Liaison Statement from the 1030 IAB to the ICANN Board on Technical Use of Domain Names", 1031 September 2015, . 1034 [SDO-IANA-SUDR] 1035 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Special-Use Domain 1036 Names registry", October 2015, 1037 . 1040 [SDO-ICANN-COLL] 1041 Interisle Consulting Group, LLC, "Name Collisions in the 1042 DNS", August 2013, 1043 . 1046 [SDO-ICANN-DAG] 1047 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Special-Use Domain 1048 Names registry", October 2015, 1049 . 1052 [SDO-ICANN-SAC090] 1053 ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, "SSAC 1054 Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace", 1055 December 2016, 1056 . 1059 [SDO-ICANN-SSAC] 1060 ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, "SSAC 1061 Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace", 1062 December 2016, . 1064 [TOR] The Tor Project, "Tor", 2017, 1065 . 1067 Appendix A. Change Log. 1069 -03 to -04: 1071 o Issue #72: Corrected original text to reflect that RFC 7050 1072 neglected to request an SUDN registry entry for "ipv4only.arpa", 1073 but any inference about the cause for the oversight would be 1074 speculation. 1076 o Issue #69: Edited Joel's suggested text. 1078 o Issue #67: Minor change to Joel's suggested text. 1080 o Issue #66: Edited second text update suggested by Joel and 1081 reverted third change back to the original text. 1083 o Issue #64: Minor changes to text suggested by Joel. 1085 o Issue #61: Minor edit based on authors' consensus in response to 1086 Joel's comment. 1088 o Addressed Joel / Benoit's AD comments. See GH issues 1090 -02 to -03 (in Github): 1092 Passes idnits except for errors resulting from a reference to an 1093 RFC 2119 keyword and a citation of RFC 5226 with no matching 1094 reference in quoted text at line 493. 1096 Issue #60: Add new section "6. Summary" -- Petr Spacek 1097 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/60 1099 Issue #57: Document needs an "Security Considerations" section 1100 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/57 1102 Numerous editorial changes for consistency; e.g. use "Special-Use 1103 Domain Names" throughout. 1105 Issue #58: Document needs an "IANA Considerations" section 1106 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/58 1108 Issue #39: Overlapping bullets in Section 3, with proposed 1109 restructuring -- Russ Housley https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1110 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/39 1112 Issue #55: Editorial improvement to Section 3 (4) -- John 1113 Dickinson https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ 1114 issues/55 1116 Issue #34: Separate two problems in paragraph that begins "No 1117 mechanism exists for adding a name to the registry...." (2 issues) 1118 -- Suzanne Woolf https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld- 1119 ps/issues/34 1121 Issue #52: Editorial improvement to Section 3 (1) -- John 1122 Dickinson https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ 1123 issues/52 1125 Issue #51: Clarification in Introduction -- John Dickinson 1126 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/51 1128 Issue #49: Should cite https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1351 1129 -- George Michaelson https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr- 1130 sutld-ps/issues/49 1132 Issue #50: IETF precedence in Special-Use names registry -- Ted 1133 Lemon https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/50 1135 Issue #48: 4.1.2 cites sub-domains of .ARPA arguing for special 1136 use TLD -- George Michaelson https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1137 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/48 1138 Issue #47: 4.3 should be made more prominent -- George Michaelson 1139 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/47 1141 Issue #43: Spell out SUDN and SUTLDN rather than use acronyms -- 1142 Russ Housley https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ 1143 issues/43 1145 Issue #41: Reword bullet in Section 3 regarding Domain Name TLDs 1146 that have been commandeered, as reported in SDO-ICANN-COLL -- Russ 1147 Housley https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ 1148 issues/41 1150 Issue #40: Note that time to publish spec for .local included 1151 inventing SUDN registry -- Russ Housley 1152 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/41 1154 Issue #37: Title should be "Special-Use Domain Names Problem 1155 Statement" -- Russ Housley https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1156 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/37 1158 Issue #36: Expand on desire for Special-Use names to be human- 1159 readable -- Suzanne Woolf https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1160 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/36 1162 Issue #35: Clarify "No process exists [...]" to include both IETF 1163 process and other process -- Suzanne Woolf 1164 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/35 1166 Issue #31: Add justification for concern about IETF's ability to 1167 assign names for technical use -- Suzanne Woolf 1168 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/31 1170 Issue #12: Add DNSSEC to text -- John Levine 1171 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/12 1173 Issue #6: Without a process, we just have chaos -- Stuart Cheshire 1174 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/6 1176 Issue #32: Have assignments through RFC 6761 really had "technical 1177 mistakes"? -- Suzanne Wolff https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1178 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/32 1180 Issue #29: Add a reason to bypass external process: expectation 1181 for use of new name to be restricted to local scope -- Suzanne 1182 Wolff https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/29 1183 Issue #27: Is "technical use" really ambiguous; too inclusive for 1184 some people and too limited for others -- Suzanne Wolff 1185 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/27 1187 Issue #24: Replacement for "commandeer" (2 issues)-- Suzanne Wolff 1188 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/24 1190 Issue #22: Clarify importance of the "root of the Domain 1191 Namespace" -- Suzanne Wolff https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1192 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/22 1194 Issue #21: Section 3 - clarify paragraphs 2 and 3 -- Suzanne Wolff 1195 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/21 1197 Issue #20: Section 3: Clarify sentences beginning "Solutions to 1198 these problems..." -- Suzanne Wolff https://github.com/Abhayakara/ 1199 draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/20 1201 Issue #19: Define "default" or "assumed" use of domain names to be 1202 within DNS -- Suzanne Wolff https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1203 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/19 1205 Issue #18: Cite definition of RFC 7719 and domain names draft in 1206 definition of "domain name" -- Suzanne Wolff 1207 https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/18 1209 Issue #45: Correct usages of Tor Browser and Tor -- Russ Housley 1210 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/45) 1212 Issue #46: Reformat citation of RFC 2860 -- Russ Housley 1213 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/46) 1215 Issue #44: Clean up reference to SDO-ICANN-DAG in first bullet in 1216 section 3 -- Russ Housley (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1217 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/44) 1219 Issue #42: Add reference to SDO-ICANN-SAC090 in section 4.2.5 -- 1220 Russ Housley (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ 1221 issues/42) 1223 Issue #30: Leaked queries aren't an operational problem in 1224 practice -- Suzanne Wolf (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft- 1225 tldr-sutld-ps/issues/30) 1227 Address some of the simpler issues, including: 1229 Issue #13: Spelling of Tor -- Jeremy Rand 1230 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/13) 1231 Issue #14: Change SDO to "organizations" -- Suzanne Woolf 1232 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/14) 1234 Issue #16: Match number of "policies" and "that policy" -- Suzanne 1235 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/16) 1237 Issue #17: Clarify sentence beginning with "In support of the 1238 particular set of problems described here...." -- Suzanne. 1239 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/14) 1241 Issue #23: Match number of "names" and "a TLD" -- Suzanne. 1242 (https://github.com/Abhayakara/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/issues/23) 1244 -01 to -02: 1246 Language cleanup from Ted. 1248 -00 to -01: 1250 Improved the terminology. 1252 Included reference to SAC090. 1254 Added ICANN Reserved Names (e.g .icann, .iesg, .arin) to types of 1255 names. 1257 Improved background. 1259 Noted that semantics may differ between resolution contexts. 1261 Pointer to .home / .corp / .mail, other "toxic" names 1263 Readability fixes. 1265 -04 to ietf-00 1267 Document adopted by WG. 1269 Significant changes from CfA integrated, please refer to diff. 1271 -03 to -04: 1273 o Replaced 'Internet Names' with 'Domain Names' - suggestion by John 1274 Levine. 1276 -02 to -03: 1278 o Readability fixes, small grammar updates. 1280 -01 to -02: 1282 o Cleaned up the abstract. 1284 o Fixed the case of Internet 1286 o Reference to Ed Lewis' "Domain Names" 1288 o Fleshed out the problems, primarily the coordination, collisions 1289 ones. 1291 -00 to -01: 1293 o Large refactoring, basically a rewrite. Incorporated comments, 1294 removed a bunch of unneeded text, etc. 1296 Authors' Addresses 1298 Ted Lemon 1299 Nominum, Inc. 1300 800 Bridge Parkway 1301 Redwood City, California 94065 1302 United States of America 1304 Phone: +1 650 381 6000 1305 Email: ted.lemon@nominum.com 1307 Ralph Droms 1309 Email: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com 1311 Warren Kumari 1312 Google 1313 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 1314 Mountain View, CA 94043 1315 US 1317 Email: warren@kumari.net