draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-05.txt   draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-06.txt 
dnsop D. Crocker dnsop D. Crocker
Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking
Updates: 2782, 3263, 3404, 3529, 3620, October 10, 2018 Updates: 2782, 3263, 3529, 3620, 3832, November 3, 2018
3832, 3861, 3887, 6121, 3958, 3887, 3958, 4120, 4227, 4386,
4120, 4227, 4386, 4387, 4976, 4387, 4976, 5026, 5328, 5389,
5026, 5328, 5389, 5415, 5518, 5415, 5518, 5555, 5617, 5679,
5555, 5617, 5679, 5766, 5780, 5766, 5780, 5804, 5864, 5928,
5804, 5864, 5928, 6011, 6120, 6120, 6186, 6376, 6733, 6763,
6186, 6376, 6733, 6763, 7208, 7208, 7489, 8145 (if approved)
7489, 8145 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 13, 2019 Expires: May 7, 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-05 draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-06
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 48
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 April 13, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 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 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
2.3. URI RRset Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. URI RRset Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Underscored Template Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Underscored Template Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. SRV Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. SRV Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. URI Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. URI Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. DNSSEC Signaling Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. DNSSEC Signaling Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. References -- Informative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. References -- Informative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Original uses of an underscore character as a domain node name Original uses of an underscore character as a domain node name
[RFC1035] prefix, which creates a space for constrained [RFC1035] prefix, which creates a space for constrained
interpretation of resource records, were specified without the interpretation of resource records, were specified without the
benefit of an [IANA-reg] registry. This produced an entirely benefit of an [IANA-reg] registry. This produced an entirely
uncoordinated set of name-creation activities, all drawing from the uncoordinated set of name-creation activities, all drawing from the
same namespace. A registry has been now defined, and that document same namespace. A registry has been now defined, and that document
skipping to change at page 3, line 30 skipping to change at page 3, line 30
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", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
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.
2.1. TXT RRset Use 2.1. TXT RRset Use
NOTE - Documents falling into this category include:
[RFC6763], [RFC6120], [RFC5518], [RFC5617], [RFC6376],
[RFC7208], and [RFC7489]
This section provides a generic approach for changes to existing This section provides a generic approach for changes to existing
specifications that define straightforward use of underscored node specifications that define straightforward use of underscored node
names, when scoping the use of a "TXT" RRset. The approach provides names, when scoping the use of a "TXT" RRset. The approach provides
the information needed for adapting such specifications to the use of the information needed for adapting such specifications to the use of
the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry [Attrleaf]. the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry [Attrleaf].
Hence the approach is meant both as an update to these existing Hence the approach is meant both as an update to these existing
specifications, and as guidance for changes when those documents are specifications, and as guidance for changes when those documents are
revised. revised.
For any document that specifies the use of a "TXT" RRset under one or For any document that specifies the use of a "TXT" RRset under one or
more underscored names, that 'global' name is expected to be more underscored names, the 'global' name is expected to be
registered in the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry registered in the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry
[Attrleaf]. An effort has been made to locate existing drafts that [Attrleaf]. An effort has been made to locate existing drafts that
do this, register the global underscored names, and list them in the do this, register the global underscored names, and list them in the
initial set of names added to the registry. initial set of names added to the registry.
Note that a public specification, which defines use of an RRset and If a public specification defines use of a TXT RRset and calls for
calls for the use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, its global the use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, here is a template of
underscored name -- the one closest to the root -- is required to be suggested text for registering the global underscored name -- the one
entered into this registry, if it is not already registered. closest to the root -- through the IANA Considerations section of the
[Attrleaf]. specification:
Here is a template of suggested text for this to appear in the IANA
Considerations section of the specification:
"Per" [Attrleaf] "please add the following entry to the DNS "Per" [Attrleaf] "please add the following entry to the DNS
Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry:" Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry:"
+--------+----------------+-----------------------------------------+ +--------+----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| RR | _NODE NAME | REFERENCE | | RR | _NODE NAME | REFERENCE |
| Type | | | | Type | | |
+--------+----------------+-----------------------------------------+ +--------+----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| TXT | _{DNS node | {citation for the document making the | | TXT | _{DNS node | {citation for the document making the |
| | name} | addition.} | | | name} | addition.} |
+--------+----------------+-----------------------------------------+ +--------+----------------+-----------------------------------------+
Table 1: Underscore Global Registry Entry Table 1: Underscore Global Registry Entry for TXT RR Use
2.2. SRV RRset Use 2.2. SRV RRset Use
Specification for the SRV [RFC2782] resource record provides a NOTE - Documents falling into this category include:
[RFC3263], [RFC3529], [RFC3620], [RFC3832], [RFC3887],
[RFC3958], [RFC4120], [RFC4227], [RFC4386], [RFC4387],
[RFC4976], [RFC5026], [RFC5328], [RFC5389], [RFC5415],
[RFC5555], [RFC5679], [RFC5766], [RFC5780], [RFC5804],
[RFC5864], [RFC5928], [RFC6186]
Specification of the SRV [RFC2782] resource record provides a
template for use of underscored node names. The global name is template for use of underscored node names. The global name is
characterised as referencing the 'protocol' that is associated with characterised as referencing the 'protocol' that is associated with
"SRV" RRset usage. "SRV" RRset usage.
This section provides a generic approach for changes to existing This section provides a generic approach for changes to existing
specifications that define the use of an "SRV" RRset. The approach specifications that define the use of an "SRV" RRset. The approach
provides the information needed for adapting such specifications to provides the information needed for adapting such specifications to
the use of the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry the use of the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry
[Attrleaf]. Hence the approach is meant both as an update to these [Attrleaf]. Hence the approach is meant both as an update to these
existing specifications, and as guidance for changes when those existing specifications, and as guidance for changes when those
documents are revised. documents are revised.
For any document that specifies the use of an "SRV" RRset, the global For any document that specifies the use of an "SRV" RRset, the global
('protocol') underscored name is expected to be registered in the ('protocol') underscored name is expected to be registered in the
IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry [Attrleaf]. An IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry [Attrleaf]. An
effort has been made to locate existing drafts that do this, register effort has been made to locate existing drafts that do this, register
the global underscored names, and list them in the initial set of the global underscored names, and list them in the initial set of
names added to the registry. names added to the registry.
Note that a public specification, which defines use of an RRset and If a public specification defines use of a SRV RRset and calls for
calls for the use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, its global the use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, here is a template of
underscored name -- the one closest to the root -- is required to be suggested text for registering the global underscored name -- the one
entered into this registry, if it is not already registered. closest to the root -- through the IANA Considerations section of the
[Attrleaf]. specification:
Here is a template of suggested text for this to appear in the IANA
Considerations section of the specification:
"Per" [Attrleaf] "please add the following entry to the DNS "Per" [Attrleaf] "please add the following entry to the DNS
Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry:" Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry:"
+--------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+ +--------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
| RR | _NODE NAME | REFERENCE | | RR | _NODE NAME | REFERENCE |
| Type | | | | Type | | |
+--------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+ +--------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
| SRV | _{DNS 'protocol' | {citation for the document making | | SRV | _{DNS 'protocol' | {citation for the document making |
| | node name} | the addition.} | | | node name} | the addition.} |
+--------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+ +--------+----------------------+-----------------------------------+
Table 2: Underscore Global Registry Entry Table 2: Underscore Global Registry Entry for SRV RR Use
2.3. URI RRset Use 2.3. URI RRset Use
Specification for the URI [RFC7553] resource record provides a Specification of the URI [RFC7553] resource record provides a
template for use of underscored node names. The global name is template for use of underscored node names. The global name is
characterised as naming the 'protocol' that is associated with "URI" characterised as naming the 'protocol' that is associated with "URI"
RR usage or by reversing an Enumservice sequence [RFC6117]. RR usage or by reversing an Enumservice sequence [RFC6117].
This section provides a generic approach for changes to existing This section provides a generic approach for changes to existing
specifications that define use of a "URI" RRset. The approach specifications that define use of a "URI" RRset. The approach
provides the information needed for adapting such specifications to provides the information needed for adapting such specifications to
the use of the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry the use of the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry
[Attrleaf]. Hence the approach is meant both as an update to these [Attrleaf]. Hence the approach is meant both as an update to these
existing specifications, and as guidance for changes when those existing specifications, and as guidance for changes when those
documents are revised. documents are revised.
For any document that specifies the use of a "URI" RRset, the global For any document that specifies the use of a "URI" RRset, the global
('protocol' or highest-level enumservice) underscored name is ('protocol' or highest-level enumservice) underscored name is
expected to be registered in the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped expected to be registered in the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped
Entry Registry [Attrleaf]. An effort has been made to locate Entry Registry [Attrleaf]. An effort has been made to locate
existing drafts that do this and register the associated 'protocol' existing drafts that do this, register the global underscored names,
names. and list them in the initial set of names added to the registry.
Note that a public specification, which defines use of an RRset and
calls for the use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, its global
underscored name -- the one closest to the root -- is required to be
entered into this registry, if it is not already registered.
[Attrleaf].
Here is a template of suggested text for this to appear in the IANA If a public specification defines use of a URI RRset and calls for
Considerations section of the specification: the use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, here is a template of
suggested text for registering the global underscored name -- the one
closest to the root -- through the IANA Considerations section of the
specification:
"Per" [Attrleaf] "please add the following entry to the DNS "Per" [Attrleaf] "please add the following entry to the DNS
Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry:" Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry:"
+-------+---------------------------+-------------------------------+ +-------+---------------------------+-------------------------------+
| RR | _NODE NAME | REFERENCE | | RR | _NODE NAME | REFERENCE |
| Type | | | | Type | | |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------------------------+ +-------+---------------------------+-------------------------------+
| URI | _{DNS 'protocol' or | {citation for the document | | URI | _{DNS 'protocol' or | {citation for the document |
| | Enumservice node name} | making the addition.} | | | Enumservice node name} | making the addition.} |
+-------+---------------------------+-------------------------------+ +-------+---------------------------+-------------------------------+
Table 3: Underscore Global Registry Entry Table 3: Underscore Global Registry Entry for URI RR Use
3. Underscored Template Specifications 3. Underscored Template Specifications
3.1. SRV Specification Changes 3.1. SRV Specification Changes
The specification for a domain name, under which an SRV [RFC2782] The specification for a domain name, under which an SRV [RFC2782]
resource record appears, provides a template for use of underscored resource record appears, provides a template for use of underscored
node names. The global underscored name, is characterised as node names. The global underscored name is characterised as
indicating the 'protocol' that is associated with "SRV" RR usage. indicating the 'protocol' that is associated with "SRV" RR usage.
Text of that existing specification is changed as follows: Text of that existing specification is changed as follows:
OLD: OLD:
The format of the SRV RR The format of the SRV RR
Here is the format of the SRV RR, whose DNS type code is 33: Here is the format of the SRV RR, whose DNS type code is 33:
_Service._Proto.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Port Target _Service._Proto.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Port Target
skipping to change at page 7, line 43 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
labels that occur in nature. _TCP and _UDP are at present labels that occur in nature. _TCP and _UDP are at present
the most useful values for this field. The Proto is case the most useful values for this field. The Proto is case
insensitive. insensitive.
The SRV RRset protocol (global) underscored name SHOULD be The SRV RRset protocol (global) underscored name SHOULD be
registered in the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry registered in the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry
Registry [Attrleaf]. Registry [Attrleaf].
3.2. URI Specification Changes 3.2. URI Specification Changes
Specification for the domain name under which a URI [RFC7553] Specification for the domain name, under which a URI [RFC7553]
resource record occurs is similar to that for the SRV [RFC2782] resource record occurs, is similar to that for the SRV [RFC2782]
resource record, although the text refers only to 'service' name, resource record, although the text refers only to 'service' name,
rather than distinguishing 'service' from 'protocol'. Further, the rather than distinguishing 'service' from 'protocol'. Further, the
URI RR specification permits alternative underscored naming schemes: URI RR specification permits alternative underscored naming schemes:
One matches what is used for "SRV", with the global underscored One matches what is used for "SRV", with the global underscored
name called "protocol'. name called "protocol'.
The other is based on a reversing of an Enumservice [RFC6117] The other is based on a reversing of an Enumservice [RFC6117]
sequence. sequence.
Text of that existing specification is changed as follows: Text of that existing specification is changed as follows:
OLD: OLD:
4.1. Owner Name, Class, and Type 4.1. Owner Name, Class, and Type
The URI owner name is subject to special conventions. The URI owner name is subject to special conventions.
Just like the SRV RR [RFC2782], the URI RR has service information Just like the SRV RR [RFC2782], the URI RR has service information
skipping to change at page 9, line 38 skipping to change at page 9, line 38
As another example, suppose we are looking for the URI for a As another example, suppose we are looking for the URI for a
service with Service Name "A" and Transport Protocol "B" for service with Service Name "A" and Transport Protocol "B" for
host example.com. Then we would query for host example.com. Then we would query for
(QNAME,QTYPE)=("_A._B.example.com","URI"). (QNAME,QTYPE)=("_A._B.example.com","URI").
3.3. DNSSEC Signaling Specification Changes 3.3. DNSSEC Signaling Specification Changes
"Signaling Trust Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions "Signaling Trust Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions
(DNSSEC)" [RFC8145] defines a use of DNS node names that effectively (DNSSEC)" [RFC8145] defines a use of DNS node names that effectively
consumes all names beginning with the string "_ta-", when using the consumes all names beginning with the string ""_ta-"", when using the
NULL RR in the query. NULL RR in the query.
Text of Section 5.1, "Query Format", of that existing specification, Text of Section 5.1, "Query Format", of that existing specification,
is changed as follows: is changed as follows:
OLD: OLD:
For example, a validating DNS resolver ... QNAME=_ta-4444. For example, a validating DNS resolver ...
QNAME=_ta-4444.
NEW: NEW:
For example, a validating DNS resolver ... QNAME=_ta-4444. For example, a validating DNS resolver ... "QNAME=_ta-4444".
Under the NULL RR, an entry is registered in the IANA DNS Under the NULL RR, an entry is registered in the IANA DNS
Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry [Attrleaf] for all node Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry [Attrleaf] for all node
names beginning with "_ta-". names beginning with ""_ta-"".
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
Although this document makes reference to IANA registries, it Although this document makes reference to IANA registries, it
introduces no new IANA registries or procedures. introduces no new IANA registries or procedures.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This memo raises no security issues. This memo raises no security issues.
skipping to change at page 10, line 44 skipping to change at page 10, line 44
2011. 2011.
[RFC7553] Falstrom, P. and O. Kolkman, "The Uniform Resource [RFC7553] Falstrom, P. and O. Kolkman, "The Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record", RFC 7553, Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record", RFC 7553,
ISSN 2070-1721, June 2015. ISSN 2070-1721, June 2015.
[RFC8145] Wessels, D., Kumari, W., and P. Hoffman, "Signaling Trust [RFC8145] Wessels, D., Kumari, W., and P. Hoffman, "Signaling Trust
Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)",
RFC 8145, April 2017. RFC 8145, April 2017.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", RFC 8162, May 2017.
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 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 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)
Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)
Resolution Application", RFC 3404, October 2002.
[RFC3529] Harold, W., "Using Extensible Markup Language-Remote [RFC3529] Harold, W., "Using Extensible Markup Language-Remote
Procedure Calling (XML-RPC) in Blocks Extensible Exchange Procedure Calling (XML-RPC) in Blocks Extensible Exchange
Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 3529, April 2003. Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 3529, April 2003.
[RFC3620] New, D., "The TUNNEL Profile", RFC 3620, October 2003. [RFC3620] New, D., "The TUNNEL Profile", RFC 3620, October 2003.
[RFC3832] Columbia University, Columbia University, Sun [RFC3832] Columbia University, Columbia University, Sun
Microsystems, IBM, and IBM, "Remote Service Discovery in Microsystems, IBM, and IBM, "Remote Service Discovery in
the Service Location Protocol (SLP) via DNS SRV", the Service Location Protocol (SLP) via DNS SRV",
RFC 3832, July 2004. RFC 3832, July 2004.
[RFC3861] Peterson, J., "Address Resolution for Instant Messaging
and Presence", RFC 3861, August 2004.
[RFC3887] "Message Tracking Query Protocol", RFC 3887, September [RFC3887] "Message Tracking Query Protocol", RFC 3887, September
2007. 2007.
[RFC3958] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application [RFC3958] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application
Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation
Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005. Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.
[RFC4120] USC-ISI, MIT, MIT, and MIT, "The Kerberos Network [RFC4120] USC-ISI, MIT, MIT, and MIT, "The Kerberos Network
Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120, July 2005. Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120, July 2005.
skipping to change at page 13, line 22 skipping to change at page 13, line 11
[RFC5804] Melnikov, A., Ed. and T. Martin, "A Protocol for Remotely [RFC5804] Melnikov, A., Ed. and T. Martin, "A Protocol for Remotely
Managing Sieve Scripts", RFC 5804, July 2010. Managing Sieve Scripts", RFC 5804, July 2010.
[RFC5864] Allbery, R., "NS SRV Resource Records for AFS", RFC 5864, [RFC5864] Allbery, R., "NS SRV Resource Records for AFS", RFC 5864,
April 2010. April 2010.
[RFC5928] Petit-Huguenin, M., "Traversal Using Relays around NAT [RFC5928] Petit-Huguenin, M., "Traversal Using Relays around NAT
(TURN) Resolution Mechanism", RFC 5928, August 2010. (TURN) Resolution Mechanism", RFC 5928, August 2010.
[RFC6011] Lawrence, S., Ed. and J. Elwell, "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration", RFC 6011,
October 2010.
[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence [RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011. Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.
[RFC6121] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence",
RFC 6121, DOI 10.17487/RFC6121, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6121>.
[RFC6186] Daboo, C., "Use of SRV Records for Locating Email [RFC6186] Daboo, C., "Use of SRV Records for Locating Email
Submission/Access Services", RFC 6186, March 2011. Submission/Access Services", RFC 6186, March 2011.
[RFC6376] Crocker, D., Hansen, T., and M. Kucherawy, "DomainKeys [RFC6376] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed.,
Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", RFC 6376, Sept 2011. "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76,
RFC 6376, DOI 10.17487/RFC6376, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376>.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, [RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service [RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013, Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
skipping to change at page 14, line 14 skipping to change at page 13, line 44
[RFC7489] Kucherawy, M., Ed. and E. Zwicky, Ed., "Domain-based [RFC7489] Kucherawy, M., Ed. and E. Zwicky, Ed., "Domain-based
Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
(DMARC)", RFC 7489, March 2015. (DMARC)", RFC 7489, March 2015.
[RFC7671] Dukhovni, V. and W. Hardaker, "The DNS-Based [RFC7671] Dukhovni, V. and W. Hardaker, "The DNS-Based
Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Protocol: Updates Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Protocol: Updates
and Operational Guidance", RFC 7671, DOI 10.17487/RFC7671, and Operational Guidance", RFC 7671, DOI 10.17487/RFC7671,
October 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7671>. October 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7671>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Thanks go to Bill Fenner, Dick Franks, Tony Hansen, Peter Koch, Olaf Thanks go to Bill Fenner, Dick Franks, Tony Hansen, Peter Koch, Olaf
Kolkman, and Andrew Sullivan for diligent review of the (much) Kolkman, and Andrew Sullivan for diligent review of the (much)
earlier drafts. For the later enhancements, thanks to: Tim Wicinski, earlier drafts. For the later enhancements, thanks to: Tim Wicinski,
John Levine, Bob Harold, Joel Jaeggli, Ond&#345;ej Sury and Paul John Levine, Bob Harold, Joel Jaeggli, Ond&#345;ej Sury and Paul
Wouters. Wouters.
Special thanks to Ray Bellis for his persistent encouragement to Special thanks to Ray Bellis for his persistent encouragement to
continue this effort, as well as the suggestion for an essential continue this effort, as well as the suggestion for an essential
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
78 lines changed or deleted 72 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/