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

Versions: 00 01 02

Domain Boundaries                                                 J. Yao
Internet-Draft                                                   N. Kong
Intended status: Standards Track                                   X. Li
Expires: July 29, 2016                                             CNNIC
                                                        January 26, 2016


           Resource Record for DNS Administrative Boundaries
                    draft-yao-dbound-dns-solution-02

Abstract

   Two or more DNS names may have the same DNS administrative
   boundaries.  This document adds the function of lookup of domain name
   administrative boundary to domain name system, which describes a new
   method for using dbound resource record for judging domain name
   administrative boundaries.

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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 29, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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




Yao, et al.               Expires July 29, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             dbound-dns-solution              January 2016


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Application Algorithm for Dbound Query  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Wildcard issue  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   10. Change History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.1.  draft-yao-dbound-dns-solution: Version 00  . . . . . . .   8
     10.2.  draft-yao-dbound-dns-solution: Version 01  . . . . . . .   8
     10.3.  draft-yao-dbound-dns-solution: Version 02  . . . . . . .   8
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Two or more DNS [RFC1034]  [RFC1035] names may have the same
   administrative boundaries.  If they share the same DNS administrative
   boundaries, we regard that they have a relationship.  Otherwise they
   have not a relationship.  This document describes an method for using
   dbound resource record for judging domain name administrative
   boundaries.

   The drafts [Boundaries-Problem] [Boundaries-Concepts] list many use
   cases where some applications may use domain name administrative
   boundaries.  With the growth of Internet, there should have more




Yao, et al.               Expires July 29, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             dbound-dns-solution              January 2016


   Internet applications which will use domain name administrative
   boundaries technology.

   With the growth of new gTLD program, it is very common for a company
   to have many domain names for the same aim.  So we should design a
   method for judging the two or more domain names which share the
   administrative boundaries.

2.  Terminology

   The basic key words such as "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "MAY", and "MAYNOT" are to be interpreted as
   described in [RFC2119].

   The basic DNS terms used in this specification are defined in the
   documents [RFC1034] and [RFC1035].

3.  Framework

   This section presents a mechanism to lookup of the administrative
   boundary between two domains.  The mechanism defines a new resource
   record type (RRTYPE) to satisfy the requirements specified in the
   previous section.  The RDATA for an Dbound RR consists of a 1 octet
   Flag field, a 1 octet Reserved 1 field, a 1 octet Reserved 2 field,
   and a Anchor Name / Name Collection field.


                        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Flag     |   Reserved 1  |   Reserved 2  |               /
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               /
   /                  Anchor Name / Name Collection                /
   /                                                               /
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


        Figure 2.  The structure of RDATA of Dbound resource record

   Flag:
   The Flag field identifies the usage of Anchor Name / Name Collection
   field.  If flag=0, the Anchor Name / Name Collection is the anchor
   name, the anchor name will be the string of PSL.  Through it, the DNS
   administrators can configure the relationship between the owner name
   and PSL.  Those which point to the PSL will share the same DNS
   administrative boundaries;





Yao, et al.               Expires July 29, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             dbound-dns-solution              January 2016


   If flag=1, the Anchor Name / Name Collection is the anchor name, it
   means that dbound record is to try to build a connection between the
   owner name and the anchor name which is a FQDN.  Through it, the DNS
   administrators can configure the relationship between the owner name
   and the anchor name.  Those which share the same anchor name will
   share the same DNS administrative boundaries;

   If flag=2, the Anchor Name / Name Collection is the name collection,
   the Name Collection will be a collection of names which are supposed
   to share the same DNS boundaries under the same anchor name and will
   be separated by comma(,).  The owner name is some names' anchor name
   in other dbound RR.  Through it, the application can learn how many
   names share the same DNS boundaries under the owner name (some names'
   anchor name in other dbound RRs)


   Reserved 1 field and Reserved 2 field:
   These two fields will be kept for the future use.

   Anchor Name / Name Collection:
   There are two kinds of relationship mechanism, one is controlled by
   PSL; the other is specified by building the connection among names.
   If Flag is 0, the Anchor Name / Name Collection field will have the
   value of PSL; If Flag is 1, the Anchor Name / Name Collection field
   will have the value of the anchor name.  The anchor name acts like a
   middleman.  All names sharing the same administrative boundaries will
   point to the same anchor name; If Flag is 2, the Anchor Name / Name
   Collection field will have the value of name collection with names
   separated by comma (,).

4.  Application Algorithm for Dbound Query

   Given two domain names A and B
   There are two cases where application can determin whether domain
   names A and B share the same administrative boundaries.

   Case 1: If A and B's flag value in the dbound record are 0,
   application should confirm that the Anchor Name / Name Collection
   fields of both names have the value of PSL.

   Case 2: If A and B's flag value in the dbound record are 1,
   application should check whether the names point to the same anchor.

   Algorithm 1:
   1)When the application needs to know whether two names A and B share
   the same administrative boundary, it needs to do the following steps
   to confirm it.




Yao, et al.               Expires July 29, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             dbound-dns-solution              January 2016


   Step 1, the application sends the query of A for dbound record to the
   DNS servers, and analyzes the response.  If the application gets the
   dbound RR for A, it checks whether there is a dbound record with the
   flag value of 0 or 1.  If the value of flag of A's dbound records is
   0, go to step 2; If the value of flag of A's dbound records is 1, go
   to step 3; Otherwise, go to step 4;

   Step 2, the application sends the query of B for dbound record to the
   DNS servers, and analyzes the response.  If the application gets the
   dbound RR, it checks this RR.  If the value of flag of B's dbound
   records is 0, check whether the value of anchor name of A and B's
   dbound records are PSL.  If yes, it means that A and B enjoys the
   same administrative boundaries under the PSL and exit.  Otherwise go
   to step 4

   Step 3, the application sends the query of B for dbound record to the
   DNS servers, and analyzes the response.  If the application gets the
   dbound RR, it checks this RR.  If the value of flag of B's dbound
   records is 1, check whether the value of anchor name of A and B's
   dbound records are same.  If yes, it means that A and B enjoys the
   same administrative boundaries under the same anchor name and exit.
   Otherwise go to step 4

   Step 4, Exit and display some error information

   2)Given name A, check who shares the same administrative boundaries
   with A.
   The application sends the query of A for dbound record to the DNS
   servers, and analyzes the response.  If the application gets the
   dbound RR for A, it checks whether there is a dbound record with the
   flag value of 2.  If yes, check the value of name collection of A's
   dbound record, find name list, check every name on the name list with
   A to confirm whether they enjoy the same administrative boundaries
   via the method 1) above.

   3)Given more names than two, check whether they shares the same
   administrative boundaries.
   The application selects one of the names as A and check whether every
   other name share the same administrative boundaries with A via the
   the method 1) above.

   For examples:

   EXAMPLE 1, if a.example and b.exmaple want to share the same DNS
   administrative boundaries, it can configure the following RRs:
   a.example dbound 1 c.example
   b.example dbound 1 c.example
   c.example dbound 2 a.example,b.example



Yao, et al.               Expires July 29, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             dbound-dns-solution              January 2016


   or the anchor name can also be one of the names who share the same
   DNS administrative boundaries:
   a.example dbound 1 b.exmaple
   b.example dbound 1 b.example
   b.example dbound 2 a.example,b.example

   USAGE: if the application wants to check whether a.example and
   b.example share the same DNS boundaries, it find a.example and
   b.example share the same anchor under the flag's value of 1 under the
   RRs above, and verify that a.example and b.example share the same DNS
   boundaries.
   if the application wants to check which domain names share the same
   DNS boundaries with a.example, it find a.example and b.example are
   supposed to have the same DNS boundaries under the flag's value of 2,
   and verify that a.example and b.example share the same DNS boundaries
   through checking a.example and b.example sharing the same anchor
   under the flag's value of 1 .

   EXAMPLE 2, if a.example and b.exmaple want to share the same DNS
   administrative boundaries under PSL, it can configure the following
   RRs:
   a.example dbound 0 http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-
   central/source/netwerk/dns/ effective_tld_names.dat?raw=1
   b.example dbound 0 http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-
   central/source/netwerk/dns/ effective_tld_names.dat?raw=1

   USAGE: if the application wants to check whether a.example and
   b.example share the same dns boundaries, it find a.example and
   b.example share the same anchor under the flag's value of 0, and
   verify that a.example and b.example share the same dns boundaries via
   the PSL link.

   ADVANTAGES: This new mechanism builds a relationship through the
   anchor name (middleman) to avoid to construct too many pairwise
   relationship.  It will help to reduce the RRs configuration and
   checking when there are many domain names which are supposed to share
   the same DNS boundaries.

5.  Wildcard issue

   The parent name may announce that all names under it to share the
   same administrative boundaries with itself, but it needs two-way
   assertion here.  Parents can say all its children are under its
   control and share the same boundaries.  In the other hand, the
   children should confirm that they share the same boundary with its
   parents too.

   For example:



Yao, et al.               Expires July 29, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             dbound-dns-solution              January 2016


   example.com dbound 1 example.com
   *.example.com dbound 1 example.com
   example.com dbound 2 example.com, *.example.com

   It means that example.com and its children share the same
   administrative boundaries.

   In some cases, the children may lose its parent's control by
   configure some DNS records for themselves.  The debound record has
   similar same limitation with the wildcard.  Wildcards work for the
   non-configured sub-domain names only.  Those names which can not
   queried through wildcard will not work for dbound too.  Those names
   should configure their own dbound record separately instead of
   wildcard dbound configuration.

   For example:
   If there is an A record at a.b.example.com, the wildcard will not
   match a.b.example.com or b.example.com.  In this exmaple, quering
   c.example.com will work if c.example.com is not configured in some
   ways.  If there is a A record for a.b.example.com, it indicates that
   the a.b.exmaple.com or b.exmaple.com might exist.  so under this
   situation, a.b.exmaple.com or b.exmaple.com should configure their
   own dbound record since a.b.exmaple.com or b.exmaple.com may be out
   of control of the parents.

6.  Discussion

   This section will be removed if it is published.

   It is an initial design.  It is open to change and will follow the
   WG's decision

7.  IANA Considerations

   The IANA should allocate the new DNS type for DBOUND.

8.  Security Considerations

   To be decided.

9.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks a lot for WG discussion in dbound WG.  Especially thanks for
   Andrew Sullivan and John R Levine's kind comments and helpful debate.







Yao, et al.               Expires July 29, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             dbound-dns-solution              January 2016


10.  Change History

   RFC Editor: Please remove this section.

10.1.  draft-yao-dbound-dns-solution: Version 00

   o  One solution for DBOUND problem.

10.2.  draft-yao-dbound-dns-solution: Version 01

   o  add the new method in section of discussion

10.3.  draft-yao-dbound-dns-solution: Version 02

   o  update the draft based on the new method discussed in Japan IETF
      meeting 2015.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.

   [RFC5585]  Hansen, T., Crocker, D., and P. Hallam-Baker, "DomainKeys
              Identified Mail (DKIM) Service Overview", RFC 5585,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5585, July 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5585>.








Yao, et al.               Expires July 29, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             dbound-dns-solution              January 2016


   [RFC6125]  Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
              Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
              within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
              (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
              2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.

   [RFC6265]  Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6265, April 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6265>.

   [RFC7208]  Kitterman, S., "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for
              Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1", RFC 7208,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7208, April 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7208>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [Boundaries-Concepts]
              Deccio, C. and J. Levine, "Concepts for Domain Name
              Relationships", draft: dbound concepts, July 2015.

              https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deccio-dbound-name-
              relationships-00

   [Boundaries-Problem]
              Sullivan, A., Hodges, J., and J. Levine, "DBOUND: DNS
              Administrative Boundaries Problem Statement",
              draft: dbound problem, July 2015.

              https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sullivan-dbound-problem-
              statement-01

   [publicsuffix.org]
              Mozilla Foundation, "Public Suffix List", also known
              as: Effective TLD (eTLD) List.

              https://publicsuffix.org/

Authors' Addresses











Yao, et al.               Expires July 29, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             dbound-dns-solution              January 2016


   Jiankang Yao
   CNNIC
   4 South 4th     Street,Zhongguancun,Haidian     District
   Beijing, Beijing  100190
   China

   Phone: +86 10   5881 3007
   Email: yaojk@cnnic.cn


   Ning Kong
   CNNIC
   4 South 4th     Street,Zhongguancun,Haidian     District
   Beijing, Beijing  100190
   China

   Phone: +86 10   5881 3147
   Email: nkong@cnnic.cn


   Xiaodong Li
   CNNIC
   4 South 4th     Street,Zhongguancun,Haidian     District
   Beijing, Beijing  100190
   China

   Phone: +86 10   5881 3020
   Email: xl@cnnic.cn























Yao, et al.               Expires July 29, 2016                [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/