draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-02.txt   draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-03.txt 
dnsop D. Crocker dnsop D. Crocker
Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking
Updates: 2782, 3263, 3404, 3529, 3620, July 15, 2018 Updates: 2782, 3263, 3404, 3529, 3620, July 21, 2018
3832, 3861, 3887, 3958, 4120, 3832, 3861, 3887, 3958, 4120,
4227, 4386, 4387, 4976, 5026, 4227, 4386, 4387, 4976, 5026,
5328, 5389, 5415, 5518, 5555, 5328, 5389, 5415, 5518, 5555,
5617, 5679, 5766, 5780, 5804, 5617, 5679, 5766, 5780, 5804,
5864, 5928, 6011, 6120, 6186, 5864, 5928, 6011, 6120, 6186,
6376, 6733, 7208, 7489 (if 6376, 6733, 7208, 7489 (if
approved) approved)
Intended status: Best Current Practice Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: January 16, 2019 Expires: January 22, 2019
DNS Attrleaf Changes: Fixing Specifications with Underscored Node Name DNS Attrleaf Changes: Fixing Specifications with Underscored Node Name
Use Use
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-02 draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-03
Abstract Abstract
Original uses of an underscore character as a domain node name Original uses of an underscore character as a domain node name
prefix, which creates a space for constrained interpretation of prefix, which creates a space for constrained interpretation of
resource records, were specified without the benefit of an IANA resource records, were specified without the benefit of an IANA
registry. This produced an entirely uncoordinated set of name- registry. This produced an entirely uncoordinated set of name-
creation activities, all drawing from the same namespace. A registry creation activities, all drawing from the same namespace. A registry
now has been defined. However the existing specifications that use now has been defined. However the existing specifications that use
underscore naming need to be modified, to be in line with the new underscore naming need to be modified, to be in line with the new
skipping to change at page 1, line 49 skipping to change at page 1, line 49
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 16, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 22, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 27 skipping to change at page 3, line 27
underscored name, this perpetuates uncoordinated assignment underscored name, this perpetuates uncoordinated assignment
activities by separate technical specifications, out of the same name activities by separate technical specifications, out of the same name
space. This document remedies that by providing detail for revisions space. This document remedies that by providing detail for revisions
to the SRV and URI specifications, to bring their use in line with to the SRV and URI specifications, to bring their use in line with
the single, integrated global underscore registry. the single, integrated global underscore registry.
The result of these changes preserves existing software and The result of these changes preserves existing software and
operations practices, while adapting the technical specifications to operations practices, while adapting the technical specifications to
the newer underscore registry model. the newer underscore registry model.
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].
2. Underscored RRset Use in Specifications 2. Underscored RRset Use in Specifications
The use of underscored node names is specific to each RRTYPE that is The use of underscored node names is specific to each RRTYPE that is
being scoped. Each name defines a place, but does not define the being scoped. Each name defines a place, but does not define the
rules for what appears underneath that place, either as additional rules for what appears underneath that place, either as additional
underscored naming or as a leaf node with resource records. Details underscored naming or as a leaf node with resource records. Details
for those rules are provided by specifications for individual for those rules are provided by specifications for individual
RRTYPEs. The sections below describe the way that existing RRTYPEs. The sections below describe the way that existing
underscore labels are used with the RRTYPEs that they name. underscore labels are used with the RRTYPEs that they name.
skipping to change at page 10, line 18 skipping to change at page 10, line 18
6.2. References -- Informative 6.2. References -- Informative
[IANA-reg] [IANA-reg]
"Protocol Registries", URL https://www.iana.org/protocols, "Protocol Registries", URL https://www.iana.org/protocols,
2018. 2018.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000. February 2000.
[RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation [RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June
2002. 2002.
[RFC3404] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) [RFC3404] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
4 lines changed or deleted 11 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/