idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. ** There are 2 instances of lines with control characters in the document. == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. ** 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 113: '... scheme MUST be registered under the...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 118: '...cord for a URI scheme MUST NOT precede...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 132: '...NET registration MAY accompany a reque...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 139: '... NAPTR record) MAY be submitted afte...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 150: '... record for a URN NID MUST NOT precede...' (4 more instances...) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (February 2000) is 8830 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: '4' is defined on line 322, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 326, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '1' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '2' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2141 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 8141) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2396 (ref. '4') (Obsoleted by RFC 3986) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2048 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 4288, RFC 4289) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2611 (ref. '6') (Obsoleted by RFC 3406) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2717 (ref. '7') (Obsoleted by RFC 4395) Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Mealling 3 Internet-Draft Network Solutions, Inc. 4 Expires: August 1, 2000 R.D. Daniel 5 Metacode, Inc. 6 February 2000 8 Assignment Procedures for URI Resolution using DNS 9 draft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-03.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 14 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as 19 Internet-Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 22 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 23 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2000. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 38 Abstract 40 RFCXXXX defines a how DNS is used as a Resolver Discovery System 41 database that contains URI delegation rules (sometimes called 42 resolution hints). That document specifies that the first step in 43 that algorithm is to append 'URI.NET' to the URI scheme and retrieve 44 the NAPTR record for that domain-name. I.e., the first step in 45 resolving "http://foo.com/" would be to look up a NAPTR record for 46 the domain "http.URI.NET". URN resolution also follows a similar 47 procedure but uses the 'URN.NET' zone as its root. This document 48 describes the procedures for inserting a new rule into the 'URI.NET' 49 and 'URN.NET' zones. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Registration Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3.1 URI.NET Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3.1.1 Only Schemes in the IETF Tree Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3.1.2 Scheme Registration Takes Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3.1.3 NAPTR Registration May Accompany Scheme Registration . . . . 4 60 3.1.4 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration . . . . . 4 61 3.2 URN.NET Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3.2.1 NID Registration Takes Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 3.2.2 NAPTR Registration May Accompany NID Registration . . . . . 4 64 3.2.3 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration . . . . . 4 65 4. Requirements on hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 5. Submission Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 6. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 6.1 Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 6.2 Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 6.3 Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 7. Example Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 8. The URN Registration in the URI.NET zone . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 78 1. Introduction 80 This document defines the policies and procedures for inserting 81 NAPTR records into the 'URI.NET' and 'URN.NET' zones for the purpose 82 of resolving URIs according to "Resolution of Uniform Resource 83 Identifiers using the Domain Name System", RFCXXXX[1], which is an 84 application of the NAPTR DNS Resource Record defined in RFCXXXX[2]. 86 2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution 88 RFCXXXX[1] defines how both URI resolution and URN[3] resolution 89 work when DNS is used as the delegation rule (or hint) database. 90 Specifically it says that the initial instructions ('hints') for 91 DNS-based resolution of URIs are stored as resource records in the 92 'URI.NET' DNS zone. 94 Since a URN is a kind of URI, a hint for resolution of the URI 95 prefix 'urn:' will also be stored in the 'URI.NET' zone. This rule 96 states that the namespace id[3] is extracted, 'URN.NET' is appended 97 to the end of the namespace id, and the result is used as the key 98 for retrieval of a subsequent NAPTR record[2]. 100 3. Registration Policies 102 The creation of a given URI scheme or URN namespace id (NID) follows 103 the appropriate registration documents for those spaces. URI schemes 104 follow "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names" (RFC 105 2717)[7]. URN namespace ids follow "URN Namespace Definition 106 Mechanisms" (RFC 2611)[6]. 108 3.1 URI.NET Registration 110 3.1.1 Only Schemes in the IETF Tree Allowed 112 In order to be inserted into the URI.NET zone, the subsequent URI 113 scheme MUST be registered under the IETF URI tree. The requirements 114 for this tree are specified in [7]. 116 3.1.2 Scheme Registration Takes Precedence 118 The registration of a NAPTR record for a URI scheme MUST NOT precede 119 proper registration of that scheme and publication of a stable 120 specification in accordance with [7]. The IESG or its designated 121 expert will review the request for 122 1. correctness and technical soundness 123 2. consistency with the published URI specification, and 124 3. to ensure that the NAPTR record for a DNS-based URI does not 125 delegate resolution of the URI to a party other than the holder 126 of the DNS name. This last rule is to insure that a given URI's 127 resolution hint doesn't hijack (inadvertently or otherwise) 128 network traffic for a given domain. 130 3.1.3 NAPTR Registration May Accompany Scheme Registration 132 A request for a URI.NET registration MAY accompany a request for a 133 URI scheme (in accordance with [7]), in which case both requests 134 will be reviewed simultaneously by IESG or its designated experts. 136 3.1.4 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration 138 A request for a NAPTR record (or an request to change an existing 139 NAPTR record) MAY be submitted after the URI prefix has been 140 registered. If the specification for the URI prefix is controlled 141 by some other party than IETF, IESG will require approval from the 142 owner/maintainer of that specification before the registration will 143 be accepted. This is in addition to any technical review of the 144 NAPTR registration done by IESG or its designated experts. 146 3.2 URN.NET Registration 148 3.2.1 NID Registration Takes Precedence 150 The registration of a NAPTR record for a URN NID MUST NOT precede 151 proper registration of that NID and publication of a stable 152 specification in accordance with [6]. This is to prevent the 153 registration of a NAPTR record in URN.NET from circumventing the NID 154 registration process. 156 3.2.2 NAPTR Registration May Accompany NID Registration 158 A request for a URN.NET registration MAY accompany a request for a 159 NID (in accordance with [6]), in which case both requests will be 160 reviewed at the same time. 162 3.2.3 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration 164 A request for a NAPTR record (or an request to change an existing 165 NAPTR record) MAY be submitted after the NID has been registered. 166 If the specification for the NID is controlled by some other party 167 than IETF, IESG will require approval from the owner/maintainer of 168 that specification before the registration will be accepted. This is 169 in addition to any technical review of the NAPTR registration done 170 by IESG or its designated experts. 172 Note that this applies to all NAPTR records for a particular NID, 173 even though a NAPTR record might affect only part of the URN space 174 assigned to an NID 176 4. Requirements on hints 178 Delegation of a namespace can happen in two ways. In the case of 179 most URIs, the key being delegated to is hard-coded into the 180 identifier itself (i.e. a hostname in an HTTP URL). The syntax of 181 where this new key is located is predetermined by the syntax of the 182 scheme. In other cases, the new key can be part of the hint itself. 183 This is the functional equivalent of saying, "if this rule matches 184 then this is always the key." 186 In order to minimize the query load on the URI.NET and URN.NET 187 zones, it is anticipated that the resource records in those zones 188 will have extremely long "times to live" (TTLs), perhaps measured in 189 years. 191 Thus, for any URI prefix or URN namespace for which the resolution 192 hints are likely to change, the actual rule should be stored in some 193 other (less stable) DNS zone, and within URI.NET or URN.NET a stable 194 NAPTR record should be used to delegate queries to that less stable 195 zone. 197 For example, the 'foo' URN namespace has flexible rules for how 198 delegation takes place. Instead of putting those rules in the 199 URN.NET zone, the entry instead punts those rules off to a 200 nameserver that has a shorter time to live. The record in URN.NET 201 would look like this: 203 foo IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "" "" urn-resolver.foo.com. 205 Thus, when the client starts out in the resolution process, the 206 first step will be to query foo.URN.NET to find the above record, 207 the second step is to begin asking 'urn-resolver.foo.com' for the 208 NAPTR records that contain the resolution rules. The TTL at the root 209 is very long. The TTL at the 'urn-resolver.foo.com' is much shorter. 211 Conversely, the 'http' URL scheme adheres to a particular syntax 212 that specifies that the host to ask is specified in the URL in 213 question. Since this syntax does not change, that rule can be 214 specified in the URI.NET zone. The record would look like this: 216 http IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "/http:\\/\\/([^\\/:]+)/\\2/i" . 218 Thus, the second step of resolution is to use the domain-name found 219 in the URL as the next key in the cycle. If, for example, that NAPTR 220 was terminal and contains some hostname in the replacement field, 221 then the client could contact that host in order to ask questions 222 about this particular URI. 224 5. Submission Procedure 226 Using the MIME Content-Type registration mechanism[5]as a model for 227 a successful registration mechanism, the 'URI.NET' and 'URN.NET' 228 procedures consist of a request template submitted to an open 229 mailing list made up of interested parties. If no objections are 230 made within a two week period, a representative of the registration 231 authority considers the submission to be accepted and enters that 232 submission into the nameserver. 234 o Registrations for the 'URI.NET' zone are sent to 235 'register@URI.NET'. 236 o Registrations for the 'URN.NET' zone are sent to 237 'register@URN.NET'. 239 At this time the registration authority is expected to be the IANA. 241 Objections are restricted to those that point out impacts on the 242 zone itself or to DNS in general. Objections to the URL scheme or to 243 the URN namespace-id are not allowed, as these should be raised in 244 their respective forums. The logical conclusion of this is that ANY 245 sanctioned URL scheme or URN namespace MUST be allowed to be 246 registered if it meets the requirements specified in this document 247 as regards times to live and general impact to the DNS. 249 6. Registration Template 251 The template to be sent to the appropriate list MUST contain the 252 following values: 254 6.1 Key 256 This is the URN NID or URL scheme, which is used as the domain 257 portion of the DNS entry. It must be valid according to the 258 procedures specified in the URN namespace-id assignment document and 259 any future standards for registering new URL schemes. 261 6.2 Authority 263 This is the authority doing the registration of the record. It must 264 be an authority recognized as either the IESG or any authority 265 defined in the URN NID[6] or URL scheme registration[7] documents. 267 6.3 Records 269 The actual DNS records representing the rule set for the key. The 270 required values are Preference, Order, Flags, Services, Regex, and 271 Replacement as defined by RFCXXXX[2]. 273 7. Example Template 275 To: register@URN.NET 276 From: joe@foo.com 278 Key: foo 279 Authority: Foo Technology, Inc as specified in RFCFOO 280 Record: foo IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "" urn.foo.com. 282 8. The URN Registration in the URI.NET zone 284 Since this document discusses the URI.NET and URN.NET zones and the 285 URN rule that exists in the URI.NET zone, it makes sense for the 286 registration template for the URN URI rule to be specified here: 288 To: register@URI.NET 289 From: The IETF URN Working Group 291 Key: urn 292 Authority: RFC2141 293 Record: urn IN NAPTR 0 0 "" "" "/urn:([^:]+)/\\2/i" . 295 9. IANA Considerations 297 This document describes a mechanism for registering representations 298 of protocol items that have already been registered with some IETF 299 sanctioned agency (probably the IANA as well). This means that the 300 IANA need not determine appropriateness of the underlying 301 namespaces, since that is determined by another process. 303 The only real impact on the IANA will be 304 o to create and maintain (or designate some other entity to 305 maintain) a primary nameserver for the URI.NET and URN.NET zones; 306 o to maintain the mailing lists "register@URI.NET" and 307 "register@URN.NET" as the forum for discussions of submissions; 308 and 309 o to act as the party that determines if all objections have been 310 noted and accommodated. 312 References 314 [1] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "Resolution of Uniform Resource 315 Identifiers using the Domain Name System", November 1998. 317 [2] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "The Naming Authority Pointer 318 (NAPTR) DNS Resource Record", November 1998. 320 [3] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, November 1998. 322 [4] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform 323 Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 324 1998. 326 [5] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet 327 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", RFC 328 2048, November 1996. 330 [6] Faltstrom, P., Iannella, R., Daigle, L. and D. van Gulik, "URN 331 Namespace Definition Mechanisms", RFC 2611, October 1998. 333 [7] Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme 334 Names", RFC 2717, January 1999. 336 Authors' Addresses 338 Michael Mealling 339 Network Solutions, Inc. 340 505 Huntmar Park Drive 341 Herndon, VA 22070 342 US 344 Phone: (703) 742-0400 345 EMail: michaelm@netsol.com 347 Ron 348 Metacode, Inc. 349 139 Townsend Street, Ste. 100 350 San Francisco, CA 94107 351 US 353 Phone: +1 415 222 0100 354 EMail: rdaniel@metacode.com 355 URI: http://www.metacode.com 357 Full Copyright Statement 359 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 361 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 362 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 363 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published 364 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 365 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 366 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 367 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 368 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 369 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 370 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 371 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 372 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 373 English. 375 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 376 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 378 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 379 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 380 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 381 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 382 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 383 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 385 Acknowledgement 387 Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the 388 Internet Society.