[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

IETF                                                      L. Chapin, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                Interisle Consulting Group
Intended status: Standards Track                        M. McFadden, Ed.
Expires: September 3, 2015               InterConnect Communications Ltd
                                                           March 2, 2015


                 Additional Reserved Top Level Domains
                draft-chapin-additional-reserved-tlds-02

Abstract

   The Internet Domain Name System (DNS) defines a tree of names
   starting with root, ".", immediately below which are top level domain
   (TLD) names such as ".com" and ".us".  In June 1999 [RFC2606]
   reserved a small number of TLD names for use in documentation
   examples, private testing, experiments, and other circumstances in
   which it is desirable to avoid conflict with current or future actual
   TLD names in the DNS.

   There has been significant evolution of Internet engineering and
   operation practices since [RFC2606] was published.  In February 2013
   [RFC6761] defined criteria and procedures for reserving a domain name
   for special use, and established an IANA registry for such names.
   This document reserves three domain name labels for special use in
   accordance with the criteria and procedures of [RFC6761]: home, corp,
   and mail.

   It is important to note that TLD names may be reserved, in other
   contexts, for policy, political, or other reasons that are distinct
   from the IETF's concern with Internet engineering and operations.
   This document reserves TLD names only for operational and engineering
   reasons.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."



Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  New top-level domain name reservations  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.1.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations for home . . . . .   6
       5.1.1.  Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.1.2.  Application Software  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.1.3.  Name Resolution APSs and Libraries  . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.1.4.  Caching DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.1.5.  Authoritative DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.1.6.  DNS Server Operators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.1.7.  DNS Registries/Registrars . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations for corp . . . . .   8
       5.2.1.  Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.2.2.  Application Software  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.2.3.  Name Resolution APSs and Libraries  . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.2.4.  Caching DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.2.5.  Authoritative DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.2.6.  DNS Server Operators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.2.7.  DNS Registries/Registrars . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations for mail . . . . .  10
       5.3.1.  Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.3.2.  Application Software  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.3.3.  Name Resolution APSs and Libraries  . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.3.4.  Caching DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.3.5.  Authoritative DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.3.6.  DNS Server Operators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.3.7.  DNS Registries/Registrars . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12



Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   The Internet Domain Name System is documented in [RFC1034],
   [RFC1035], [RFC1591] and numerous additional Requests for Comment.
   It defines a tree of names starting with root, ".", immediately below
   which are top level domain names such as ".com" and ".us".  Below top
   level domain names there are normally additional levels of names.

   [RFC2606] reserves a small number of TLD names which can be used for
   private testing of existing DNS related code, examples in
   documentation, DNS related experimentation, invalid DNS names, or
   other similar uses without fear of conflicts with current or future
   actual top-level domain names in the global DNS.  [RFC2606] also
   notes that the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) reserves
   the label "example" at the second level below the TLDs .com, .net,
   and .org.

   Since [RFC2606] was published in 1999, Internet engineering and
   operation practices have evolved in ways that led to the publication
   in February 2013 of [RFC6761], which defined criteria and procedures
   for reserving a domain name for special use and established an IANA
   registry to which additional reserved special use names might be
   added as new requirements arose.

   This document follows [RFC6761] to add three reserved top-level
   domain name labels to the IANA special-use names registry.  It is
   prompted by the impending advent of new TLDs which might, in the
   absence of the reservations for which this document provides,
   introduce TLD labels that could create engineering and operational
   problems for root server operators and other DNS infrastructure
   providers.

   It is important to note that TLD names may be reserved, in other
   contexts, for policy, political, or other reasons that are distinct
   from the IETF's concern with Internet engineering and operations.
   This document reserves TLD names only for operational and engineering
   reasons.







Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS.  Lower case uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.

3.  New top-level domain name reservations

   In its report [SAC045] of a quantitative study of queries to the DNS
   root servers entitled "Invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root
   Level of the Domain Name System" [SAC045] ICANN's Security and
   Stability Advisory Committee "calls attention to the potential
   problems that may arise should a new TLD applicant use a string that
   has been seen with measurable (and meaningful) frequency in a query
   for resolution by the root system and the root system has previously
   generated a response."

   Of particular concern is the case in which a string "has been queried
   and a root name server has responded to the query with a non-existent
   domain (NXDOMAIN) result, i.e., the string has not been delegated but
   has been queried."  [SAC045] reports the results of a CAIDA
   measurement study [RSSAC_DNS] which found that "NXDOMAIN responses
   account for more than 25 percent of the total responses from root
   name servers observed in the study, and the top ten such strings
   account for 10 percent of the total query load."

   [SAC045] describes in detail the engineering and operational problems
   that would ensue from the delegation, as new valid TLD names, of
   previously invalid labels that have frequently appeared in queries to
   the root: "If the [new TLD label] were to be approved and the TLD
   included in the root zone, queries to the root level of the DNS for a
   string that hitherto returned NXDOMAIN would begin to return positive
   responses containing name servers of the new TLD."

   Recommendation (2) of [SAC045] calls for the community to develop
   principles for "prohibiting the delegation of strings in addition to
   those already identified in [RFC2606]."  As the first step in that
   process, based on the data reported by [SAC045], this document adds
   to the list of names that may not be used for top-level domains the
   following labels:

   o  home

   o  corp



Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


   These two top-level domain labels are to be added to the "Special-Use
   Domain Names" registry created by [RFC6761], as described in the IANA
   Considerations section of this document.

   In addition, [SAC062] describes the risks associated with delegating
   a name in the root of the public DNS that is also used in privately
   defined namespaces (in which it is also syntactically valid).  Users,
   software, or other functions in the private domain may confuse the
   private and public instances of the same name.  This risk, referred
   to as "name collision," results in potential harm to enterprise
   networks that use previously undelegated names at the root of a
   private namespace when the name is delegated in the public root.

   Research conducted by Interisle Consulting Group [INTERISLE]
   indicates that another name, in addition to those identified by
   [SAC045], presents a particularly high risk of name collision.  This
   document therefore also adds the following string to the "Special-Use
   Domain Names" registry:

   o  mail

   Further resesarch, conducted by JAS Advisors on behalf of ICANN
   [JAS_MITIGATION] shows that the names .corp, .home and .mail are
   clear and significant risks for name collision.  In that report the
   following recommendation is made: "The TLDs .corp, .home, and .mail
   be permanently reserved for internal use and receive RFC 1918-like
   protection/treatment, potentially via RFC 6761."

   The three names that are reserved by this document are those on which
   all three studies (by SSAC, Interisle and JAS Advisors) agree.

4.  Security Considerations

   The name reservations specified in this document are intended to
   reduce the risk of harmful collision between names that are in well-
   established common use as TLDs in private namespaces and
   syntactically identical names that could otherwise be delegated as
   TLDs in the global DNS.

   The security concerns associated with name collision are well
   presented in [SAC045], [SAC062], the Interisle report [INTERISLE],
   and the ICANN report "Name Collision Identification and Mitigation
   for IT Professionals" [ICANN_MITIGATION].








Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document specifies three new labels to be added to the "Special-
   Use Domain Names" registry maintained by IANA pursuant to [RFC6761].
   The labels are to be added to the registry in the following way:

           Name             Reference
           ----------------+---------------
           home             [ RFC-to-be ]
           corp             [ RFC-to-be ]
           mail             [ RFC-to-be ]


                                 Figure 1

5.1.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations for home

5.1.1.  Users

   Are human users expected to recognize these names as special and use
   them differently?  In what way?

   The reservations provided in this document are intended to reduce
   spurious queries at the root of the DNS and avoid potential
   collisions between resolutions of names in private name spaces and
   the public DNS.  Users do not have to know that these names are
   special.

5.1.2.  Application Software

   Are writers of application software expected to make their software
   recognize these names as special and treat them differently?  In what
   way?  (For example, if a human user enters such a name, should the
   application software reject it with an error message?)

   These names are being added to the Special-Use Domain Name registry,
   in part, because some application software implementations have long
   used these names for special purposes in private networks.
   Developers of new applications do not need to filter or test for the
   names.  Instead, the intent is to reserve the names for local use and
   avoid unnecessary queries in the public DNS.

5.1.3.  Name Resolution APSs and Libraries

   Are writers of name resolution APIs and libraries expected to make
   their software recognize these names as special and treat them
   differently?  If so, how?




Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


   Authors of name resolution APIs and libraries SHOULD restrict these
   names to local resolution and SHOULD NOT allow queries for strings
   that use these Special-Use Domain Names to be forwarded to the public
   DNS for resolution.

5.1.4.  Caching DNS Servers

   Are developers of caching domain name servers expected to make their
   implementations recognize these names as special and treat them
   differently?  If so, how?

   Authors of caching domain name server software SHOULD restrict these
   names to local resolution and SHOULD NOT allow queries for strings
   that use these Special-Use Domain Names to be forwarded to the public
   DNS for resolution.

5.1.5.  Authoritative DNS Servers

   Are developers of authoritative domain name servers expected to make
   their implementations recognize these names as special and treat them
   differently?  If so, how?

   Authors of authoritative domain name server software SHOULD restrict
   these names to local resolution and SHOULD NOT allow queries for
   strings that use these Special-Use Domain Names to be forwarded to
   the public DNS for resolution.

5.1.6.  DNS Server Operators

   Does this reserved Special-Use Domain Name have any potential impact
   on DNS server operators?  If they try to configure their
   authoritative DNS server as authoritative for this reserved name,
   will compliant name server software reject it as invalid?  Do DNS
   server operators need to know about that and understand why?  Even if
   the name server software doesn't prevent them from using this
   reserved name, are there other ways that it may not work as expected,
   of which the DNS server operator should be aware?

   The intent of the reservations in this IANA Considerations section is
   to prevent spurious and potentially problematic queries from
   appearing in the public DNS.  DNS server operators SHOULD always
   treat strings with the Special-Use Domain Names in section 5 as names
   for local resolution.

   Since these strings are intended to have local use, it is quite
   possible that DNS operators would configure an authoritative DNS
   server as authoritative for these reserved names in a private
   network.  This would be consistent with the goal of having these



Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


   names resolved locally rather than on the public Internet.  Compliant
   name server software MUST NOT reject these names as invalid.
   Instead, name server software SHOULD allow for local resolution of
   the name and SHOULD NOT transmit a query for resolution into the
   public DNS.

5.1.7.  DNS Registries/Registrars

   How should DNS Registries/Registrars treat requests to register this
   reserved domain name?  Should such requests be denied?  Should such
   requests be allowed, but only to a specially-designated entity?  (For
   example, the name "www.example.org" is reserved for documentation
   examples and is not available for registration; however, the name is
   in fact registered; and there is even a web site at that name, which
   states circularly that the name is reserved for use in documentation
   and cannot be registered!)

   Requests to register any names added to the Special-Use Domain Name
   registry as part of the IANA Considerations section of this document
   MUST be denied.

5.2.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations for corp

5.2.1.  Users

   Are human users expected to recognize these names as special and use
   them differently?  In what way?

   The reservations provided in this document are intended to reduce
   spurious queries at the root of the DNS and avoid potential
   collisions between resolutions of names in private name spaces and
   the public DNS.  Users do not have to know that these names are
   special.

5.2.2.  Application Software

   Are writers of application software expected to make their software
   recognize these names as special and treat them differently?  In what
   way?  (For example, if a human user enters such a name, should the
   application software reject it with an error message?)

   These names are being added to the Special-Use Domain Name registry,
   in part, because some application software implementations have long
   used these names for special purposes in private networks.
   Developers of new applications do not need to filter or test for the
   names.  Instead, the intent is to reserve the names for local use and
   avoid unnecessary queries in the public DNS.




Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


5.2.3.  Name Resolution APSs and Libraries

   Are writers of name resolution APIs and libraries expected to make
   their software recognize these names as special and treat them
   differently?  If so, how?

   Authors of name resolution APIs and libraries SHOULD restrict these
   names to local resolution and SHOULD NOT allow queries for strings
   that use these Special-Use Domain Names to be forwarded to the public
   DNS for resolution.

5.2.4.  Caching DNS Servers

   Are developers of caching domain name servers expected to make their
   implementations recognize these names as special and treat them
   differently?  If so, how?

   Authors of caching domain name server software SHOULD restrict these
   names to local resolution and SHOULD NOT allow queries for strings
   that use these Special-Use Domain Names to be forwarded to the public
   DNS for resolution.

5.2.5.  Authoritative DNS Servers

   Are developers of authoritative domain name servers expected to make
   their implementations recognize these names as special and treat them
   differently?  If so, how?

   Authors of authoritative domain name server software SHOULD restrict
   these names to local resolution and SHOULD NOT allow queries for
   strings that use these Special-Use Domain Names to be forwarded to
   the public DNS for resolution.

5.2.6.  DNS Server Operators

   Does this reserved Special-Use Domain Name have any potential impact
   on DNS server operators?  If they try to configure their
   authoritative DNS server as authoritative for this reserved name,
   will compliant name server software reject it as invalid?  Do DNS
   server operators need to know about that and understand why?  Even if
   the name server software doesn't prevent them from using this
   reserved name, are there other ways that it may not work as expected,
   of which the DNS server operator should be aware?

   The intent of the reservations in this IANA Considerations section is
   to prevent spurious and potentially problematic queries from
   appearing in the public DNS.  DNS server operators SHOULD always




Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


   treat strings with the Special-Use Domain Names in section 5 as names
   for local resolution.

   Since these strings are intended to have local use, it is quite
   possible that DNS operators would configure an authoritative DNS
   server as authoritative for these reserved names in a private
   network.  This would be consistent with the goal of having these
   names resolved locally rather than on the public Internet.  Compliant
   name server software MUST NOT reject these names as invalid.
   Instead, name server software SHOULD allow for local resolution of
   the name and SHOULD NOT transmit a query for resolution into the
   public DNS.

5.2.7.  DNS Registries/Registrars

   How should DNS Registries/Registrars treat requests to register this
   reserved domain name?  Should such requests be denied?  Should such
   requests be allowed, but only to a specially-designated entity?  (For
   example, the name "www.example.org" is reserved for documentation
   examples and is not available for registration; however, the name is
   in fact registered; and there is even a web site at that name, which
   states circularly that the name is reserved for use in documentation
   and cannot be registered!)

   Requests to register any names added to the Special-Use Domain Name
   registry as part of the IANA Considerations section of this document
   MUST be denied.

5.3.  Domain Name Reservation Considerations for mail

5.3.1.  Users

   Are human users expected to recognize these names as special and use
   them differently?  In what way?

   The reservations provided in this document are intended to reduce
   spurious queries at the root of the DNS and avoid potential
   collisions between resolutions of names in private name spaces and
   the public DNS.  Users do not have to know that these names are
   special.

5.3.2.  Application Software

   Are writers of application software expected to make their software
   recognize these names as special and treat them differently?  In what
   way?  (For example, if a human user enters such a name, should the
   application software reject it with an error message?)




Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


   These names are being added to the Special-Use Domain Name registry,
   in part, because some application software implementations have long
   used these names for special purposes in private networks.
   Developers of new applications do not need to filter or test for the
   names.  Instead, the intent is to reserve the names for local use and
   avoid unnecessary queries in the public DNS.

5.3.3.  Name Resolution APSs and Libraries

   Are writers of name resolution APIs and libraries expected to make
   their software recognize these names as special and treat them
   differently?  If so, how?

   Authors of name resolution APIs and libraries SHOULD restrict these
   names to local resolution and SHOULD NOT allow queries for strings
   that use these Special-Use Domain Names to be forwarded to the public
   DNS for resolution.

5.3.4.  Caching DNS Servers

   Are developers of caching domain name servers expected to make their
   implementations recognize these names as special and treat them
   differently?  If so, how?

   Authors of caching domain name server software SHOULD restrict these
   names to local resolution and SHOULD NOT allow queries for strings
   that use these Special-Use Domain Names to be forwarded to the public
   DNS for resolution.

5.3.5.  Authoritative DNS Servers

   Are developers of authoritative domain name servers expected to make
   their implementations recognize these names as special and treat them
   differently?  If so, how?

   Authors of authoritative domain name server software SHOULD restrict
   these names to local resolution and SHOULD NOT allow queries for
   strings that use these Special-Use Domain Names to be forwarded to
   the public DNS for resolution.

5.3.6.  DNS Server Operators

   Does this reserved Special-Use Domain Name have any potential impact
   on DNS server operators?  If they try to configure their
   authoritative DNS server as authoritative for this reserved name,
   will compliant name server software reject it as invalid?  Do DNS
   server operators need to know about that and understand why?  Even if
   the name server software doesn't prevent them from using this



Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


   reserved name, are there other ways that it may not work as expected,
   of which the DNS server operator should be aware?

   The intent of the reservations in this IANA Considerations section is
   to prevent spurious and potentially problematic queries from
   appearing in the public DNS.  DNS server operators SHOULD always
   treat strings with the Special-Use Domain Names in section 5 as names
   for local resolution.

   Since these strings are intended to have local use, it is quite
   possible that DNS operators would configure an authoritative DNS
   server as authoritative for these reserved names in a private
   network.  This would be consistent with the goal of having these
   names resolved locally rather than on the public Internet.  Compliant
   name server software MUST NOT reject these names as invalid.
   Instead, name server software SHOULD allow for local resolution of
   the name and SHOULD NOT transmit a query for resolution into the
   public DNS.

5.3.7.  DNS Registries/Registrars

   How should DNS Registries/Registrars treat requests to register this
   reserved domain name?  Should such requests be denied?  Should such
   requests be allowed, but only to a specially-designated entity?  (For
   example, the name "www.example.org" is reserved for documentation
   examples and is not available for registration; however, the name is
   in fact registered; and there is even a web site at that name, which
   states circularly that the name is reserved for use in documentation
   and cannot be registered!)

   Requests to register any names added to the Special-Use Domain Name
   registry as part of the IANA Considerations section of this document
   MUST be denied.

6.  References

7.  Acknowledgments

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.




Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


   [RFC1591]  Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation",
              RFC 1591, March 1994.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2606]  Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
              Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.

   [RFC6761]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names",
              RFC 6761, February 2013.

8.2.  Informative References

   [ICANN_MITIGATION]
              Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
              "Guide to Name Collision Identification and Mitigation for
              IT Professionals", August 2013,
              <http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/
              name-collision-mitigation-05dec13-en.pdf>.

   [INTERISLE]
              Chapin, L., "Name Collision in the DNS", August 2013,
              <http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/
              name-collision-02aug13-en.pdf>.

   [JAS_MITIGATION]
              Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
              "Mitigating the Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions",
              February 2014,
              <https://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/name-
              collision-mitigation-26feb14-en.pdf>.

   [RSSAC_DNS]
              claffy, kc., "DNS Research Update from CAIDA Status and
              Recent Experiences", March 2009,
              <http://www.caida.org/publications/presentations/2009/
              rssac_dns/rssac_dns.pdf>.

   [SAC045]   ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, "Invalid
              Top Level Domain Queries at the Root Level of the Domain
              Name System", December 2010,
              <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac045.pdf>.








Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          Additional Reserved TLDs              March 2015


   [SAC062]   ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, "SSAC
              Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision
              Risk", November 2013,
              <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/
              sac-062-en.pdf>.

Authors' Addresses

   Lyman Chapin (editor)
   Interisle Consulting Group
   125A Magazine Street
   Cambridge, MA  02139
   UK

   Phone: +1 617 686 2527
   Email: lyman@interisle.net


   Mark McFadden (editor)
   InterConnect Communications Ltd
   Merlin House; Station Road
   Chepstow, Monmouthshire  NP16 5PB
   UK

   Phone: +44 7792 276 904
   Email: markmcfadden@icc-uk.com

























Chapin & McFadden       Expires September 3, 2015              [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/