idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-07.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == 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 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 112: '... scheme MUST be registered under the...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 117: '...cord for a URI scheme MUST NOT precede...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 131: '...RPA registration MAY accompany a reque...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 138: '... NAPTR record) MAY be submitted afte...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 149: '... 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 == Line 225 has weird spacing: '...tration mecha...' -- 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 8, 2001) is 8449 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2141 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 8141) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2396 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 3986) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2048 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 4288, RFC 4289) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2611 (ref. '4') (Obsoleted by RFC 3406) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2717 (ref. '5') (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: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Mealling 3 Internet-Draft Verisign 4 Expires: August 9, 2001 February 8, 2001 6 Assignment Procedures for URI Resolution Using DNS 7 draft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-07 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 16 other groups may also distribute working documents as 17 Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 20 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 21 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 To view the entire list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see 25 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 27 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 2001. 29 Copyright Notice 31 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 33 Abstract 35 RFCYYYY defines a how DNS is used as a DDDS database that contains 36 URI delegation rules (sometimes called resolution hints). That 37 document specifies that the first step in that algorithm is to 38 append 'URI.ARPA' to the URI scheme and retrieve the NAPTR record 39 for that domain-name. I.e., the first step in resolving 40 "http://foo.com/" would be to look up a NAPTR record for the domain 41 "http.URI.ARPA". URN resolution also follows a similar procedure but 42 uses the 'URN.ARPA' zone as its root. This document describes the 43 procedures for inserting a new rule into the 'URI.ARPA' and 44 'URN.ARPA' zones. 46 Table of Contents 48 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 3. Registration Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 3.1 URI.ARPA Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3.1.1 Only Schemes in the IETF Tree Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3.1.2 Scheme Registration Takes Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 3.1.3 NAPTR Registration May Accompany Scheme Registration . . . . 4 55 3.1.4 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration . . . . . 4 56 3.2 URN.ARPA Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 3.2.1 NID Registration Takes Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3.2.2 NAPTR Registration May Accompany NID Registration . . . . . 4 59 3.2.3 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration . . . . . 4 60 4. Requirements on hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 5. Submission Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 6. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 6.1 Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 6.2 Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 6.3 Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 7. Example Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 8. The URN Registration in the URI.ARPA zone . . . . . . . . . 7 68 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 1. Introduction 77 This document defines the policies and procedures for inserting 78 NAPTR records into the 'URI.ARPA' and 'URN.ARPA' zones for the 79 purpose of resolving URIs according to "URI Resolution using the 80 Dynamic Delegation Discovery System" (RFCXXXX)[7], which is an 81 Application that uses the DNS based DDDS Database defined in 82 RFCYYYY[6]. The algorithm expressed by these Rules is specified in 83 "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) (RFCZZZZ)[8]. 85 2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution 87 RFCXXXX[7] defines how both URI[2] resolution and URN[1] resolution 88 work when DNS is used as the delegation rule (or hint) database. 89 Specifically it says that the initial instructions ('hints') for 90 DNS-based resolution of URIs are stored as resource records in the 91 'URI.ARPA' DNS zone. 93 Since a URN is a kind of URI, a hint for resolution of the URI 94 prefix 'urn:' will also be stored in the 'URI.ARPA' zone. This rule 95 states that the namespace id[1] is extracted, 'URN.ARPA' is appended 96 to the end of the namespace id, and the result is used as the key 97 for retrieval of a subsequent NAPTR record[6]. 99 3. Registration Policies 101 The creation of a given URI scheme or URN namespace id (NID) follows 102 the appropriate registration documents for those spaces. URI schemes 103 follow "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names" (RFC 104 2717)[5]. URN namespace ids follow "URN Namespace Definition 105 Mechanisms" (RFC 2611) (or updates thereto)[4]. 107 3.1 URI.ARPA Registration 109 3.1.1 Only Schemes in the IETF Tree Allowed 111 In order to be inserted into the URI.ARPA zone, the subsequent URI 112 scheme MUST be registered under the IETF URI tree. The requirements 113 for this tree are specified in [5]. 115 3.1.2 Scheme Registration Takes Precedence 117 The registration of a NAPTR record for a URI scheme MUST NOT precede 118 proper registration of that scheme and publication of a stable 119 specification in accordance with [5]. The IESG or its designated 120 expert will review the request for 121 1. correctness and technical soundness 122 2. consistency with the published URI specification, and 123 3. to ensure that the NAPTR record for a DNS-based URI does not 124 delegate resolution of the URI to a party other than the holder 125 of the DNS name. This last rule is to insure that a given URI's 126 resolution hint doesn't hijack (inadvertently or otherwise) 127 network traffic for a given domain. 129 3.1.3 NAPTR Registration May Accompany Scheme Registration 131 A request for a URI.ARPA registration MAY accompany a request for a 132 URI scheme (in accordance with [5]), in which case both requests 133 will be reviewed simultaneously by IESG or its designated experts. 135 3.1.4 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration 137 A request for a NAPTR record (or an request to change an existing 138 NAPTR record) MAY be submitted after the URI prefix has been 139 registered. If the specification for the URI prefix is controlled 140 by some other party than IETF, IESG will require approval from the 141 owner/maintainer of that specification before the registration will 142 be accepted. This is in addition to any technical review of the 143 NAPTR registration done by IESG or its designated experts. 145 3.2 URN.ARPA Registration 147 3.2.1 NID Registration Takes Precedence 149 The registration of a NAPTR record for a URN NID MUST NOT precede 150 proper registration of that NID and publication of a stable 151 specification in accordance with [4]. This is to prevent the 152 registration of a NAPTR record in URN.ARPA from circumventing the 153 NID registration process. 155 3.2.2 NAPTR Registration May Accompany NID Registration 157 A request for a URN.ARPA registration MAY accompany a request for a 158 NID (in accordance with [4]), in which case both requests will be 159 reviewed at the same time. 161 3.2.3 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration 163 A request for a NAPTR record (or an request to change an existing 164 NAPTR record) MAY be submitted after the NID has been registered. 165 If the specification for the NID is controlled by some other party 166 than IETF, IESG will require approval from the owner/maintainer of 167 that specification before the registration will be accepted. This is 168 in addition to any technical review of the NAPTR registration done 169 by IESG or its designated experts. 171 Note that this applies to all NAPTR records for a particular NID, 172 even though a NAPTR record might affect only part of the URN space 173 assigned to an NID 175 4. Requirements on hints 177 Delegation of a namespace can happen in two ways. In the case of 178 most URIs, the key being delegated to is hard-coded into the 179 identifier itself (e.g. a hostname in an HTTP URL). The syntax of 180 where this new key is located is predetermined by the syntax of the 181 scheme. In other cases, the new key can be part of the hint itself. 182 This is the functional equivalent of saying, "if this rule matches 183 then this is always the key." 185 In order to minimize the query load on the URI.ARPA and URN.ARPA 186 zones, it is anticipated that the resource records in those zones 187 will have extremely long "times to live" (TTLs), perhaps measured in 188 years. 190 Thus, for any URI prefix or URN namespace for which the resolution 191 hints are likely to change, the actual rule should be stored in some 192 other (less stable) DNS zone, and within URI.ARPA or URN.ARPA a 193 stable NAPTR record should be used to delegate queries to that less 194 stable zone. 196 For example, the 'foo' URN namespace has flexible rules for how 197 delegation takes place. Instead of putting those rules in the 198 URN.ARPA zone, the entry instead punts those rules off to a 199 nameserver that has a shorter time to live. The record in URN.ARPA 200 would look like this: 202 foo IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "" "" urn-resolver.foo.com. 204 Thus, when the client starts out in the resolution process, the 205 first step will be to query foo.URN.ARPA to find the above record, 206 the second step is to begin asking 'urn-resolver.foo.com' for the 207 NAPTR records that contain the resolution rules. The TTL at the root 208 is very long. The TTL at the 'urn-resolver.foo.com' is much shorter. 210 Conversely, the 'http' URL scheme adheres to a particular syntax 211 that specifies that the host to ask is specified in the URL in 212 question. Since this syntax does not change, that rule can be 213 specified in the URI.ARPA zone. The record would look like this: 215 http IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "/http:\\/\\/([^\\/:]+)/\\2/i" . 217 Thus, the second step of resolution is to use the domain-name found 218 in the URL as the next key in the cycle. If, for example, that NAPTR 219 was terminal and contains some hostname in the replacement field, 220 then the client could contact that host in order to ask questions 221 about this particular URI. 223 5. Submission Procedure 225 Using the MIME Content-Type registration mechanism[3] as a model 226 for a successful registration mechanism, the 'URI.ARPA' and 227 'URN.ARPA' procedures consist of a request template submitted to an 228 open mailing list made up of interested parties. If no objections 229 are made within a two week period, a representative of the 230 registration authority considers the submission to be accepted and 231 enters that submission into the nameserver. 233 o Registrations for the 'URI.ARPA' zone are sent to 234 'register@URI.ARPA'. 235 o Registrations for the 'URN.ARPA' zone are sent to 236 'register@URN.ARPA'. 238 The registration authority is the Internet Assigned Numbers 239 Authority (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 individual or organization (entity) which has authority 264 for registering the record. It must be an authority recognized as 265 either the IESG or any authority defined in the URN NID[4] or URL 266 scheme registration[5] 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 RFCYYYY[6]. 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. From time to time the IANA may delegate or change 308 delegation of operations at its discretion. 309 o to maintain the mailing lists "register@URI.ARPA" and 310 "register@URN.ARPA" as the forum for discussions of submissions; 311 and 312 o to act as the party that determines if all objections have been 313 noted and accommodated. 315 10. Security Considerations 317 The 'uri.arpa' and 'urn.arpa' zones will be a common point of attack 318 both for Denial of Service and for spoofing entries in order to 319 redirect delegation paths. Any entity running nameservers that 320 contain these zones should take appropriate action for securing an 321 infrastructure level component of the Internet. When it becomes 322 possible for a nameserver to reliably sign the records in its zone 323 it should do so. 325 11. Acknowledgements 327 The author would like to thank Ron Daniel who was originally 328 co-author of these documents. Ron's original insite into the 329 intricate nature of delegation rules made these procedures and the 330 DDDS itself possible. 332 References 334 [1] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, November 1998. 336 [2] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform 337 Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 338 1998. 340 [3] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet 341 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", RFC 342 2048, November 1996. 344 [4] Faltstrom, P., Iannella, R., Daigle, L. and D. van Gulik, "URN 345 Namespace Definition Mechanisms", RFC 2611, October 1998. 347 [5] Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme 348 Names", RFC 2717, January 1999. 350 [6] Mealling, M., "A DDDS Database Using The Domain Name System", 351 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-00.txt, May 352 2000. 354 [7] Mealling, M., "URI Resolution using the Dynamic Delegation 355 Discovery System", Internet-Draft 356 draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-00.txt, July 2000. 358 [8] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)", 359 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-urn-ddds-00.txt, May 2000. 361 Author's Address 363 Michael Mealling 364 Verisign 365 505 Huntmar Park Drive 366 Herndon, VA 22070 367 US 369 Phone: (770) 721-2251 370 EMail: michaelm@netsol.com 372 Full Copyright Statement 374 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 376 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 377 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 378 or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published 379 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 380 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 381 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 382 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 383 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 384 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 385 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 386 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 387 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 388 English. 390 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 391 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 393 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 394 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 395 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 396 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 397 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 398 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 400 Acknowledgement 402 Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the 403 Internet Society.