idnits 2.17.1 draft-mcsweeney-drop-scheme-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document has an IETF Trust Provisions (28 Dec 2009) Section 6.c(i) Publication Limitation clause. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 320 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (May 22, 2020) is 1425 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7320 (Obsoleted by RFC 8820) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T.McSweeney 2 Internet-Draft 3 Intended status: Informational 4 Expires: Nov 19,2020 May 22, 2020 6 draft-mcsweeney-drop-scheme-01 7 Defined Resource Operator (drop) 8 The 'drop' URI Scheme 10 Abstract 12 This document describes the 'drop' Uniform Resource 13 Identifier (URI) scheme. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2020. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not 48 be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to 49 translate it into languages other than English. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. Scheme Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2.1. Demonstrable, New, Long-Lived Utility . . . . . . . . . 2 56 2.2. Syntactic Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2.3. Definitions and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 58 2.4. Internationalization and Character Encoding . . . . . . . 3 59 2.5. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 3. The drop URI Scheme Registration Request. . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 7. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 Contributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 1. Introduction 71 This document is provided to inform the internet community of the 72 'drop' URI scheme and to meet the required guidelines of a permanent 73 URI scheme. This scheme shortens the path to further unifying 74 communications by using public mechanisms of continuity for the pre- 75 resolution of private and public service integration. 77 2. Scheme definitions and syntax 79 2.1. Demonstrable, New, Long-Lived Utility 81 Phone numbers and physical addresses are antiquated but still very 82 useful. But what is to say that they both can not be represented by the 83 same character string? For any given person or business, it is simpler 84 to enter a single string into one's phone than what is currently an ever 85 growing list of communication method identifiers. When an owner is able 86 to update contact information it requires no changes by another user's 87 contact list or database. People, businesses, and machines generally 88 have a wide variety of, and specific uses for, different modes of 89 communication. Where those modes of communication overlap, there should 90 also be consolidation. The 'drop' scheme was created in a way to be 91 able to reuse current infrastructure making it easy to use and quick to 92 deploy. 94 2.2. Syntactic Compatibility 96 "While it is common for schemes to further delegate their 97 substructure to the URI's owner, publishing independent standards 98 that mandate particular forms of URI substructure is inappropriate, 99 because that essentially usurps ownership. [RFC7320] abstract 101 nonetheless.... 103 "The URI syntax defines a grammar that is a superset of all 104 valid URIs, allowing an implementation to parse the common components 105 of a URI reference without knowing the scheme-specific requirements 106 of every possible identifier. [RFC3986 abstract] 108 Section 3 of [RFC3986] defines the overall syntax for URIs and offers a 109 couple examples showing the component parts (1-5). The scheme and path 110 components are required, though the path may be empty (no characters). 112 foo://example.com:8042/over/there?name=ferret#nose 113 \_/ \______________/\_________/ \_________/ \__/ 114 | | | | | 115 URI= scheme(1) authority(2) path(3) query(4) fragment(5) 116 | _____________________|__ 117 / \ / \ 118 urn:example:animal:ferret:nose 120 The 'drop' URI does not use all 5 of the parse-able components 121 available to it. Instead, it uses only the required scheme(1) and 122 path(3) components. Previously registered URIs such as the 'tel' 123 [RFC3966] and 'geo' [RFC5870] schemes also use a limited number of 124 components. But unlike these other schemes the 'drop' scheme uses the 125 number sign '#' as a general delimiter where typically a colon ":" is 126 found. The ":" and the "#" are two of the seven charcters catagorized as 127 general delimiters (gen-delims) in the "reserved" set. The general 128 delimiters (gen-delims), described in Section 2.2 [RFC3986], can be used 129 to seperate generic URI components(1-5). The "#" is defined as a 130 delimiter by the implementation-specific syntax of the 'drop' URI's 131 dereferencing algorithm. The 'drop' scheme syntax is as follows: 133 drop-uri = drop "#" character string 135 drop # fg34htx 136 \__/ \_/ \_____/ 137 | | | 138 | 139 141 Characters of the scheme-specific-part have not been limited. 142 The following are some examples of 'drop' URIs: 144 drop#sd54g54 | drop#34.56 | drop#fgte8g-234.45 146 After the first step of resolution, the scheme-specific part of a 'drop' 147 URI becomes the subdomain portion of a FQDN where the resource(s) can be 148 located or further processing continued. It would look similar to 149 'sd54g54.dropexample.com'. There will be only one second level domain 150 for http use. This subdomain characteristic gives it a global 151 uniqueness which adds value and prevents ambiguity. 153 Compared against other URI schemes, the 'drop' scheme's use of a number 154 sign makes the scheme in its entirety unique, including the 155 scheme-specific-part. More so, the scheme-specific-part can be user 156 generated to add an extra layer of uniquess. Sending a fax to the same 157 digits as a phone call has been for around a long time proving that 158 being unique and being common can coexist. The 'drop' scheme can extend 159 that commonality to the web and beyond. 161 2.3. Definitions and Operations 163 Primarily functioning as a locator there are three ways to get to a 164 'drop' URI resource; http, SRV records, and private resolution. Private 165 resolution is only used if the resource(s) can not be found using the 166 previous two methods. This resource retrieval process utilizes the 167 Dynamic Delegation Discovery System [RFC3401]. Invoking the 'drop' URI 168 will cause a lookup for matching application information starting with 169 an A record [RFC1035], then on to Service Records [RFC2782], and then on 170 to other available records that may offer a new rule set for resolution. 171 As an example use case, when the 'drop' scheme is typed into the address 172 bar of a browser, the dns returns a FQDN to where the browser may then 173 go and retrieve a HTML document. Similarly, the same scheme-specific 174 part can be used in a messaging address, or mapping location 175 application. Reusability of a scheme-specific-part that has an output 176 of a hierarchical structure representing an administrative delegation 177 that translates into a domain name makes this scheme a perfect fit for 178 domain name system [RFC6950] section 3.3. Users and owners define what 179 operations are available. One user may have sip services enabled while 180 another may only let you go to a company's webpage. 182 Permanency of what is identified by the scheme-specific-part is not 183 guaranteed and is user specific. Permanency of a specific 184 scheme-specific-part is not guaranteed to exist or that it will re-exist 185 after it had once existed. There may be a future need where the 'drop' 186 URI scheme will want to be used as a strict identifier so it would not 187 be fair to constrain the definition of this scheme in this document at 188 this time. Other future uses beyond what is commonly known of unique 189 subdomain creation should be anticipated for this 'drop' scheme. 191 2.4. Internationalization and Character Encoding 193 The 'drop' scheme name follows the syntax of Section 3.1 of [RFC3986] 194 which only allows for a limited number of characters (US-ASCII). 195 The scheme name is also sufficiently short and distinguishable to 196 avoid problems. The 'drop' scheme name does not identify any 197 particular application and does not have any correspondence with a 198 particular service name. Queries that come in non-ASCII encoding 199 must be allowed to go forward so that private resolution can continue 200 if A and SRV record lookups fail. 202 2.5. Interoperability Considerations 204 The scheme creator is not aware of any details regarding the scheme 205 that may impact interoperability. 207 3. URI Scheme Registration Request 209 Scheme name: drop 211 Status: permanent 213 Applications/protocols that use this scheme name: 214 http, sip, email 216 Contact: 217 Registering party: Tim McSweeney 218 Scheme creator: Parameter One 220 Change controller: 221 Either the registering party or someone who is verified to represent 222 the scheme creator. 224 References: Section 6 of this document 226 4. IANA Considerations 228 Expert Review" with an initial (optional) 229 registration update request - permanent 231 5. Security Considerations 233 Security is partly dependent on the resource being located 234 and the application being used for the locating. Generally, security 235 concerns for this URI would come from the use of the URI and not 236 necessarily from the URI itself as [RFC3986] section 7 describes. 237 Examples are, domain spoofing, malicious redirection, domain hijacking, 238 and phishing attacks. 240 6. Normative References 242 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 243 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 244 RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, 245 . 247 [RFC7320] Nottingham, M., "URI Design and Ownership", BCP 190 RFC 248 7320, DOI 10.17487/RFC7320, July 2014, 249 . 251 [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vivie, P., and L. Esibov, "ADNS RR for 252 specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, 253 DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000, 254 . 256 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 257 Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, 258 November 1987, . 260 [RFC3966] Schulzrinne, H., "The tel URI for Telephone Numbers", RFC 261 3966, DOI 10.17487/RFC3966, December 2004, 262 . 264 [RFC3401] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) 265 Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, DOI.17487/ 266 RFC3401, October 2002, 267 . 269 [RFC6950] Peterson, J., Kolkman, O., Tschofenig, H., and B. Aboba, 270 "Architectural Considerations, on Application Features in 271 the DNS", RFC 6950, DOI 10.17487/RFC6950, October 2013, 272 . 274 [RFC5870] Mayrhofer, A. and C. Spanring, "A Uniform Resource 275 Identifier for Geographic Locations ('geo' URI)", RFC 276 5870, DOI 10.17487/RFC5870, June 2010, 277 . 279 7. Informative References 281 Acknowledgements 282 A special thank you to those individuals that take action and 283 participate at all levels of the URI review process from the IETF, IESG, 284 IANA, ICANN. 286 Contributors 287 Henry S. Thompson 288 Martin J. Durst 289 Ted Hardie 290 Daniel R. Tobias 292 Authors' Addressess 294 Tim McSweeney 295 Parameter One 296 950a Union Rd 297 Suite #432 298 West Seneca, NY 14224 300 Comments are solicited and should be directed to Tim McSweeney at 301 tim@dropnumber.com