idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-05.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 114: '... scheme MUST be registered under the...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 119: '...cord for a URI scheme MUST NOT precede...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 133: '...RPA registration MAY accompany a reque...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 140: '... NAPTR record) MAY be submitted afte...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 151: '... 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 (September 20, 2000) is 8613 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: '1' is defined on line 316, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 328, 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) == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-urn-ddds-00 Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group M. Mealling 2 Internet-Draft Network Solutions, Inc. 3 Expires: March 21, 2001 R.D. Daniel 4 Metacode, Inc. 5 September 20, 2000 7 Assignment Procedures for URI Resolution Using DNS 8 draft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-05.txt 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as 18 Internet-Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 21 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 22 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 21, 2001. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 37 Abstract 39 RFCXXXX defines a how DNS is used as a DDDS database that contains 40 URI delegation rules (sometimes called resolution hints). That 41 document specifies that the first step in that algorithm is to 42 append 'URI.ARPA' to the URI scheme and retrieve the NAPTR record 43 for that domain-name. I.e., the first step in resolving 44 "http://foo.com/" would be to look up a NAPTR record for the domain 45 "http.URI.ARPA". URN resolution also follows a similar procedure but 46 uses the 'URN.ARPA' zone as its root. This document describes the 47 procedures for inserting a new rule into the 'URI.ARPA' and 48 'URN.ARPA' zones. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3. Registration Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3.1 URI.ARPA Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3.1.1 Only Schemes in the IETF Tree Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3.1.2 Scheme Registration Takes Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 3.1.3 NAPTR Registration May Accompany Scheme Registration . . . . 4 59 3.1.4 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration . . . . . 4 60 3.2 URN.ARPA Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3.2.1 NID Registration Takes Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3.2.2 NAPTR Registration May Accompany NID Registration . . . . . 4 63 3.2.3 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration . . . . . 4 64 4. Requirements on hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 5. Submission Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 6. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 6.1 Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 6.2 Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 6.3 Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 7. Example Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 8. The URN Registration in the URI.ARPA zone . . . . . . . . . 7 72 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 77 1. Introduction 79 This document defines the policies and procedures for inserting 80 NAPTR records into the 'URI.ARPA' and 'URN.ARPA' zones for the 81 purpose of resolving URIs according to "URI Resolution using the 82 Dynamic Delegation Discovery System" (RFCXXXX)[9], which is an 83 Application that uses the DNS based DDDS Database defined in 84 RFCXXXX[8]. The algorithm expressed by these Rules is specified in 85 "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) (RFCXXXX)[10]. 87 2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution 89 RFCXXXX[9] defines how both URI[4] resolution and URN[3] resolution 90 work when DNS is used as the delegation rule (or hint) database. 91 Specifically it says that the initial instructions ('hints') for 92 DNS-based resolution of URIs are stored as resource records in the 93 'URI.ARPA' DNS zone. 95 Since a URN is a kind of URI, a hint for resolution of the URI 96 prefix 'urn:' will also be stored in the 'URI.ARPA' zone. This rule 97 states that the namespace id[3] is extracted, 'URN.ARPA' is appended 98 to the end of the namespace id, and the result is used as the key 99 for retrieval of a subsequent NAPTR record[2]. 101 3. Registration Policies 103 The creation of a given URI scheme or URN namespace id (NID) follows 104 the appropriate registration documents for those spaces. URI schemes 105 follow "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names" (RFC 106 2717)[7]. URN namespace ids follow "URN Namespace Definition 107 Mechanisms" (RFC 2611)[6]. 109 3.1 URI.ARPA Registration 111 3.1.1 Only Schemes in the IETF Tree Allowed 113 In order to be inserted into the URI.ARPA zone, the subsequent URI 114 scheme MUST be registered under the IETF URI tree. The requirements 115 for this tree are specified in [7]. 117 3.1.2 Scheme Registration Takes Precedence 119 The registration of a NAPTR record for a URI scheme MUST NOT precede 120 proper registration of that scheme and publication of a stable 121 specification in accordance with [7]. The IESG or its designated 122 expert will review the request for 123 1. correctness and technical soundness 124 2. consistency with the published URI specification, and 125 3. to ensure that the NAPTR record for a DNS-based URI does not 126 delegate resolution of the URI to a party other than the holder 127 of the DNS name. This last rule is to insure that a given URI's 128 resolution hint doesn't hijack (inadvertently or otherwise) 129 network traffic for a given domain. 131 3.1.3 NAPTR Registration May Accompany Scheme Registration 133 A request for a URI.ARPA registration MAY accompany a request for a 134 URI scheme (in accordance with [7]), in which case both requests 135 will be reviewed simultaneously by IESG or its designated experts. 137 3.1.4 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration 139 A request for a NAPTR record (or an request to change an existing 140 NAPTR record) MAY be submitted after the URI prefix has been 141 registered. If the specification for the URI prefix is controlled 142 by some other party than IETF, IESG will require approval from the 143 owner/maintainer of that specification before the registration will 144 be accepted. This is in addition to any technical review of the 145 NAPTR registration done by IESG or its designated experts. 147 3.2 URN.ARPA Registration 149 3.2.1 NID Registration Takes Precedence 151 The registration of a NAPTR record for a URN NID MUST NOT precede 152 proper registration of that NID and publication of a stable 153 specification in accordance with [6]. This is to prevent the 154 registration of a NAPTR record in URN.ARPA from circumventing the 155 NID registration process. 157 3.2.2 NAPTR Registration May Accompany NID Registration 159 A request for a URN.ARPA registration MAY accompany a request for a 160 NID (in accordance with [6]), in which case both requests will be 161 reviewed at the same time. 163 3.2.3 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration 165 A request for a NAPTR record (or an request to change an existing 166 NAPTR record) MAY be submitted after the NID has been registered. 167 If the specification for the NID is controlled by some other party 168 than IETF, IESG will require approval from the owner/maintainer of 169 that specification before the registration will be accepted. This is 170 in addition to any technical review of the NAPTR registration done 171 by IESG or its designated experts. 173 Note that this applies to all NAPTR records for a particular NID, 174 even though a NAPTR record might affect only part of the URN space 175 assigned to an NID 177 4. Requirements on hints 179 Delegation of a namespace can happen in two ways. In the case of 180 most URIs, the key being delegated to is hard-coded into the 181 identifier itself (i.e. a hostname in an HTTP URL). The syntax of 182 where this new key is located is predetermined by the syntax of the 183 scheme. In other cases, the new key can be part of the hint itself. 184 This is the functional equivalent of saying, "if this rule matches 185 then this is always the key." 187 In order to minimize the query load on the URI.ARPA and URN.ARPA 188 zones, it is anticipated that the resource records in those zones 189 will have extremely long "times to live" (TTLs), perhaps measured in 190 years. 192 Thus, for any URI prefix or URN namespace for which the resolution 193 hints are likely to change, the actual rule should be stored in some 194 other (less stable) DNS zone, and within URI.ARPA or URN.ARPA a 195 stable NAPTR record should be used to delegate queries to that less 196 stable zone. 198 For example, the 'foo' URN namespace has flexible rules for how 199 delegation takes place. Instead of putting those rules in the 200 URN.ARPA zone, the entry instead punts those rules off to a 201 nameserver that has a shorter time to live. The record in URN.ARPA 202 would look like this: 204 foo IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "" "" urn-resolver.foo.com. 206 Thus, when the client starts out in the resolution process, the 207 first step will be to query foo.URN.ARPA to find the above record, 208 the second step is to begin asking 'urn-resolver.foo.com' for the 209 NAPTR records that contain the resolution rules. The TTL at the root 210 is very long. The TTL at the 'urn-resolver.foo.com' is much shorter. 212 Conversely, the 'http' URL scheme adheres to a particular syntax 213 that specifies that the host to ask is specified in the URL in 214 question. Since this syntax does not change, that rule can be 215 specified in the URI.ARPA zone. The record would look like this: 217 http IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "/http:\\/\\/([^\\/:]+)/\\2/i" . 219 Thus, the second step of resolution is to use the domain-name found 220 in the URL as the next key in the cycle. If, for example, that NAPTR 221 was terminal and contains some hostname in the replacement field, 222 then the client could contact that host in order to ask questions 223 about this particular URI. 225 5. Submission Procedure 227 Using the MIME Content-Type registration mechanism[5]as a model for 228 a successful registration mechanism, the 'URI.ARPA' and 'URN.ARPA' 229 procedures consist of a request template submitted to an open 230 mailing list made up of interested parties. If no objections are 231 made within a two week period, a representative of the registration 232 authority considers the submission to be accepted and enters that 233 submission into the nameserver. 235 o Registrations for the 'URI.ARPA' zone are sent to 236 'register@URI.ARPA'. 237 o Registrations for the 'URN.ARPA' zone are sent to 238 'register@URN.ARPA'. 240 At this time the registration authority is expected to be the IANA. 242 Objections are restricted to those that point out impacts on the 243 zone itself or to DNS in general. Objections to the URL scheme or to 244 the URN namespace-id are not allowed, as these should be raised in 245 their respective forums. The logical conclusion of this is that ANY 246 sanctioned URL scheme or URN namespace MUST be allowed to be 247 registered if it meets the requirements specified in this document 248 as regards times to live and general impact to the DNS. 250 6. Registration Template 252 The template to be sent to the appropriate list MUST contain the 253 following values: 255 6.1 Key 257 This is the URN NID or URL scheme, which is used as the domain 258 portion of the DNS entry. It must be valid according to the 259 procedures specified in the URN namespace-id assignment document and 260 any future standards for registering new URL schemes. 262 6.2 Authority 264 This is the authority doing the registration of the record. It must 265 be an authority recognized as either the IESG or any authority 266 defined in the URN NID[6] or URL scheme registration[7] documents. 268 6.3 Records 270 The actual DNS records representing the rule set for the key. The 271 required values are Preference, Order, Flags, Services, Regex, and 272 Replacement as defined by RFCXXXX[2]. 274 7. Example Template 276 To: register@URN.ARPA 277 From: joe@foo.com 279 Key: foo 280 Authority: Foo Technology, Inc as specified in RFCFOO 281 Record: foo IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "" urn.foo.com. 283 8. The URN Registration in the URI.ARPA zone 285 Since this document discusses the URI.ARPA and URN.ARPA zones and 286 the URN rule that exists in the URI.ARPA zone, it makes sense for 287 the registration template for the URN URI rule to be specified here: 289 To: register@URI.ARPA 290 From: The IETF URN Working Group 292 Key: urn 293 Authority: RFC2141 294 Record: urn IN NAPTR 0 0 "" "" "/urn:([^:]+)/\\2/i" . 296 9. IANA Considerations 298 This document describes a mechanism for registering representations 299 of protocol items that have already been registered with some IETF 300 sanctioned agency (probably the IANA as well). This means that the 301 IANA need not determine appropriateness of the underlying 302 namespaces, since that is determined by another process. 304 The only real impact on the IANA will be 305 o to create and maintain (or designate some other entity to 306 maintain) a primary nameserver for the URI.ARPA and URN.ARPA 307 zones; 308 o to maintain the mailing lists "register@URI.ARPA" and 309 "register@URN.ARPA" as the forum for discussions of submissions; 310 and 311 o to act as the party that determines if all objections have been 312 noted and accommodated. 314 References 316 [1] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "Resolution of Uniform Resource 317 Identifiers using the Domain Name System", November 1998. 319 [2] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "The Naming Authority Pointer 320 (NAPTR) DNS Resource Record", November 1998. 322 [3] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, November 1998. 324 [4] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform 325 Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 326 1998. 328 [5] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet 329 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", RFC 330 2048, November 1996. 332 [6] Faltstrom, P., Iannella, R., Daigle, L. and D. van Gulik, "URN 333 Namespace Definition Mechanisms", RFC 2611, October 1998. 335 [7] Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme 336 Names", RFC 2717, January 1999. 338 [8] Mealling, M.M., "A DDDS Database Using The Domain Name System", 339 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-00.txt, May 340 2000. 342 [9] Mealling, M.M., "URI Resolution using the Dynamic Delegation 343 Discovery System", Internet-Draft 344 draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-00.txt, July 2000. 346 [10] Mealling, M.M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)", 347 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-urn-ddds-00.txt, May 2000. 349 Authors' Addresses 351 Michael Mealling 352 Network Solutions, Inc. 353 505 Huntmar Park Drive 354 Herndon, VA 22070 355 US 357 Phone: (703) 742-0400 358 EMail: michaelm@netsol.com 360 Ron 361 Metacode, Inc. 362 139 Townsend Street, Ste. 100 363 San Francisco, CA 94107 364 US 366 Phone: +1 415 222 0100 367 EMail: rdaniel@metacode.com 368 URI: http://www.metacode.com 370 Full Copyright Statement 372 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 374 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 375 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 376 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published 377 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 378 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 379 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 380 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 381 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 382 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 383 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 384 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 385 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 386 English. 388 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 389 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 391 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 392 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 393 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 394 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 395 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 396 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 398 Acknowledgement 400 Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the 401 Internet Society.