draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-07.txt   rfc8553.txt 
dnsop D. Crocker Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Crocker
Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking Request for Comments: 8553 Brandenburg InternetWorking
Updates: 2782, 3263, 3529, 3620, 3832, November 20, 2018 BCP: 222 March 2019
Updates: 2782, 3263, 3529, 3620, 3832,
3887, 3958, 4120, 4227, 4386, 3887, 3958, 4120, 4227, 4386,
4387, 4976, 5026, 5328, 5389, 4387, 4976, 5026, 5328, 5389,
5415, 5518, 5555, 5617, 5679, 5415, 5518, 5555, 5617, 5679,
5766, 5780, 5804, 5864, 5928, 5766, 5780, 5804, 5864, 5928,
6120, 6186, 6376, 6733, 6763, 6120, 6186, 6376, 6733, 6763,
7208, 7489, 8145 (if approved) 7208, 7489, 8145
Intended status: Standards Track Category: Best Current Practice
Expires: May 24, 2019 ISSN: 2070-1721
DNS Attrleaf Changes: Fixing Specifications with Underscored Node Name DNS AttrLeaf Changes:
Use Fixing Specifications That Use Underscored Node Names
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-fix-07
Abstract Abstract
Original uses of an underscore character as a domain node name Using an underscore for a prefix creates a space for constrained
prefix, which creates a space for constrained interpretation of interoperation of resource records. Original uses of an underscore
resource records, were specified without the benefit of an IANA character as a domain node name prefix were specified without the
registry. This produced an entirely uncoordinated set of name- benefit of an IANA registry. This produced an entirely uncoordinated
creation activities, all drawing from the same namespace. A registry set of name-creation activities, all drawing from the same namespace.
now has been defined. However the existing specifications that use A registry for these names has now been defined by RFC 8552.
underscore naming need to be modified, to be in line with the new However, the existing specifications that use underscored naming need
registry. This document specifies those changes. The changes to be modified in order to be in line with the new registry. This
preserve existing software and operational practice, while adapting document specifies those changes. The changes preserve existing
the specifications for those practices to the newer underscore software and operational practice, while adapting the specifications
registry model. for those practices to the newer underscore registry model.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 24, 2019. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8553.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Underscored RRset Use in Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Underscored RRset Use in Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. TXT RRset Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. TXT RRset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. SRV RRset Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. SRV RRset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. URI RRset Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. URI RRset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Underscored Template Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Underscored Template Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. SRV Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. SRV Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. URI Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. URI Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. DNSSEC Signaling Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. DNSSEC Signaling Specification Changes . . . . . . . . . 10
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. References -- Informative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
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 registry [IANA-reg]. 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 now been defined (see Section 4 of
discusses the background for underscored domain name use [Attrleaf]. [RFC8552]); the RFC that defined it discusses the background for the
use of underscored domain names [RFC8552].
The basic model for underscored name registration, as specified in The basic model for underscored name registration, as specified in
[Attrleaf], is to have each registry entry be unique in terms of the [RFC8552], is to have each registry entry be unique in terms of the
combination of a resource record type and a 'global' (highest-level) combination of a resource record type and a "global" (highest-level)
underscored name; that is, the node name beginning with an underscored node name; that is, the node name beginning with an
underscore, which is the closest to the DNS root. underscore that is the closest to the DNS root.
The existing uses of underscored naming have specifications that do The specifications describing the existing uses of underscored naming
not reflect the existence of this integrated registry. For the new do not reflect the existence of this integrated registry. For the
reader or the new editor of one of those documents, there is new reader or the new editor of one of those documents, there is
currently nothing signaling that the underscore name(s) defined in currently nothing signaling that the underscored name(s) defined in
the document are now processed through an IANA registry. This the document are now processed through an IANA registry. This
document remedies that, by marking such a published document with an document remedies that, by marking such a published document with an
update, indicating the nature of the change. update that indicates the nature of the change.
Further, the documents that define the SRV [RFC2782] and URI Further, the documents that define the SRV [RFC2782] and URI
[RFC7553] DNS resource records provide a meta-template for [RFC7553] DNS resource records provide a meta-template for
underscored name assignments, partially based on separate registries underscored name assignments, partially based on separate registries
[RFC6335]. For the portion that selects the global (highest-level) [RFC6335]. For the portion that selects the global (highest-level)
underscored name, this perpetuates uncoordinated assignment underscored node name, this perpetuates uncoordinated assignment
activities by separate technical specifications, out of the same name activities by separate technical specifications, out of the same
space. This document remedies that by providing detail for revisions namespace. This document remedies that by providing detail for
to the SRV and URI specifications, to bring their use in line with revisions to the SRV and URI specifications to bring their use in
the single, integrated global underscore registry. line with the single, integrated "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS
Node Names" 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. 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 RR TYPE 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 RR
RRTYPEs. The sections below describe the way that existing TYPEs. The sections below describe the way that existing underscored
underscore labels are used with the RRTYPEs that they name. names are used with the RR TYPEs that they name.
2.1. TXT RRset Use
NOTE - Documents falling into this category include: 2.1. TXT RRset
[RFC6763], [RFC6120], [RFC5518], [RFC5617], [RFC6376], NOTE - Documents falling into this category include: [RFC5518],
[RFC7208], and [RFC7489] [RFC5617], [RFC6120], [RFC6376], [RFC6763], [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
the information needed for adapting such specifications to the use of information needed for adapting such specifications to the use of the
the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry [Attrleaf]. IANA "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry
Hence the approach is meant both as an update to these existing [RFC8552]. Hence, the approach is meant both as an update to these
specifications, and as guidance for changes when those documents are existing specifications and as guidance for changes when those
revised. documents are 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, the 'global' name is expected to be more underscored names, the global node name is expected to be
registered in the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry registered in the IANA "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node
[Attrleaf]. An effort has been made to locate existing drafts that Names" registry [RFC8552]. An effort has been made to locate
do this, register the global underscored names, and list them in the existing documents that do this, to register the global underscored
initial set of names added to the registry. node names, and to list them in the initial set of names added to the
registry.
If a public specification defines use of a TXT RRset and calls for If a public specification defines use of a TXT RRset and calls for
the use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, here is a template of the use of an underscored node name, here is a template of suggested
suggested text for registering the global underscored name -- the one text for registering the global underscored node name -- the one
closest to the root -- through the IANA Considerations section of the closest to the root -- that can be used through the IANA
specification: Considerations section of the specification:
"Per" [Attrleaf] "please add the following entry to the DNS "Per [RFC8552], please add the following entry to the "Underscored
Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry:" and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" 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 for TXT RR Use Table 1: Entry for the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS
Node Names" Registry for TXT RR Use
2.2. SRV RRset Use 2.2. SRV RRset
NOTE - Documents falling into this category include: NOTE - Documents falling into this category include:
[RFC3263], [RFC3529], [RFC3620], [RFC3832], [RFC3887], [RFC3263], [RFC3529], [RFC3620], [RFC3832], [RFC3887],
[RFC3958], [RFC4120], [RFC4227], [RFC4386], [RFC4387], [RFC3958], [RFC4120], [RFC4227], [RFC4386], [RFC4387],
[RFC4976], [RFC5026], [RFC5328], [RFC5389], [RFC5415], [RFC4976], [RFC5026], [RFC5328], [RFC5389], [RFC5415],
[RFC5555], [RFC5679], [RFC5766], [RFC5780], [RFC5804], [RFC5555], [RFC5679], [RFC5766], [RFC5780], [RFC5804],
[RFC5864], [RFC5928], [RFC6186] [RFC5864], [RFC5928], and [RFC6186].
Specification of the SRV [RFC2782] resource record provides a Specification of the SRV resource record [RFC2782] provides a
template for use of underscored node names. The global name is template for use of underscored node names. The global node name is
characterised as referencing the 'protocol' that is associated with characterized 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 "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names"
[Attrleaf]. Hence the approach is meant both as an update to these registry [RFC8552]. Hence, the approach is meant both as an update
existing specifications, and as guidance for changes when those to these existing specifications and as guidance for changes when
documents are revised. those 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 node name is expected to be registered in
IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry [Attrleaf]. An the IANA "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry
effort has been made to locate existing drafts that do this, register [RFC8552]. An effort has been made to locate existing documents that
the global underscored names, and list them in the initial set of do this, to register the global underscored node names, and to list
names added to the registry. them in the initial set of names added to the registry.
If a public specification defines use of a SRV RRset and calls for If a public specification defines use of an SRV RRset and calls for
the use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, here is a template of the use of an underscored node name, here is a template of suggested
suggested text for registering the global underscored name -- the one text for registering the global underscored node name -- the one
closest to the root -- through the IANA Considerations section of the closest to the root -- that can be used through the IANA
specification: Considerations section of the specification:
"Per" [Attrleaf] "please add the following entry to the DNS "Per [RFC8552], please add the following entry to the "Underscored
Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry:" and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" 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 for SRV RR Use Table 2: Entry for the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node
Names" Registry for SRV RR Use
2.3. URI RRset Use 2.3. URI RRset
Specification of the URI [RFC7553] resource record provides a Specification of the URI resource record [RFC7553] provides a
template for use of underscored node names. The global name is template for use of underscored node names. The global node name is
characterised as naming the 'protocol' that is associated with "URI" characterized as naming the 'protocol' that is associated with URI RR
RR usage or by reversing an Enumservice sequence [RFC6117]. 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
provides the information needed for adapting such specifications to the information needed for adapting such specifications to the use of
the use of the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry the IANA "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry
[Attrleaf]. Hence the approach is meant both as an update to these [RFC8552]. 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 node name is
expected to be registered in the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped expected to be registered in the IANA "Underscored and Globally
Entry Registry [Attrleaf]. An effort has been made to locate Scoped DNS Node Names" registry [RFC8552]. An effort has been made
existing drafts that do this, register the global underscored names, to locate existing documents that do this, to register the global
and list them in the initial set of names added to the registry. underscored node names, and to list them in the initial set of names
added to the registry.
If a public specification defines use of a URI RRset and calls for If a public specification defines use of a URI RRset and calls for
the use of an underscore-prefixed domain name, here is a template of the use of an underscored node name, here is a template of suggested
suggested text for registering the global underscored name -- the one text for registering the global underscored node name -- the one
closest to the root -- through the IANA Considerations section of the closest to the root -- that can be used through the IANA
specification: Considerations section of the specification:
"Per" [Attrleaf] "please add the following entry to the DNS "Per [RFC8552], please add the following entry to the "Underscored
Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry:" and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" 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 for URI RR Use Table 3: Entry for the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node
Names" Registry 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 resource
resource record appears, provides a template for use of underscored record [RFC2782] appears, provides a template for use of underscored
node names. The global underscored name is characterised as node names. The global underscored node name is characterized 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: The text of [RFC2782] is changed as described below. In addition,
note that a normative reference to RFC 8552 is added to the
References section of RFC 2782.
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
... ...
Proto Proto
The symbolic name of the desired protocol, with an underscore The symbolic name of the desired protocol, with an underscore
skipping to change at page 7, line 31 skipping to change at page 8, line 18
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 "_Service._Proto.Name TTL Class SRV Priority Weight Port
Target" Target"
_..._ _..._
Proto Proto
The symbolic name of the desired protocol, with an The symbolic name of the desired protocol with an underscore
underscore (_) prepended to prevent collisions with DNS (e.g., "_name") prepended to prevent collisions with DNS
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 node name
registered in the IANA DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry SHOULD be registered in the IANA "Underscored and Globally
Registry [Attrleaf]. Scoped DNS Node Names" registry [RFC8552].
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 resource record
resource record occurs, is similar to that for the SRV [RFC2782] [RFC7553] occurs) is similar to that for the SRV resource record
resource record, although the text refers only to 'service' name, [RFC2782], although the text refers only to 'service' name, rather
rather than distinguishing 'service' from 'protocol'. Further, the than distinguishing 'service' from 'protocol'. Further, the URI RR
URI RR specification permits alternative underscored naming schemes: 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 node
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 [RFC7553] is changed as described below. In addition, a
normative reference to RFC 8552 is added to the References section of
RFC 7553.
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
encoded in its owner name. In order to encode the service for a encoded in its owner name. In order to encode the service for a
specific owner name, one uses service parameters. Valid service specific owner name, one uses service parameters. Valid service
skipping to change at page 8, line 49 skipping to change at page 9, line 41
example.com. Then we would query for example.com. Then we would query for
(QNAME,QTYPE)=("_A._B.example.com","URI"). (QNAME,QTYPE)=("_A._B.example.com","URI").
NEW: NEW:
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.
As for the SRV RRset [RFC2782], the URI RRset global (highest- As for the SRV RRset [RFC2782], the URI RRset global (highest-
level) underscored name SHOULD be registered in the IANA DNS level) underscored node name SHOULD be registered in the IANA
Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry [Attrleaf]. "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry
[RFC8552].
Just like the SRV RRset, the URI RRset has service information Just like the SRV RRset, the URI RRset has service information
encoded in its owner name. In order to encode the service for encoded in its owner name. In order to encode the service for
a specific owner name, one uses service parameters. Valid a specific owner name, one uses service parameters. Valid
service parameters are: service parameters are:
+ Those registered by IANA in the "Service Name and Transport + Those registered by IANA in the "Service Name and Transport
Protocol Port Number Registry" [RFC6335] . The underscore is Protocol Port Number Registry" [RFC6335]. The underscore is
prepended to the service parameters to avoid collisions with prepended to the service parameters to avoid collisions with
DNS labels that occur in nature, and the order is reversed DNS labels that occur in nature, and the order is reversed
to make it possible to do delegations, if needed, to to make it possible to do delegations, if needed, to
different zones (and therefore providers of DNS). different zones (and therefore providers of DNS).
+ Those listed in "Enumservice Registrations" [RFC6117]. The + Those listed in "Enumservice Registrations" [RFC6117]. The
Enumservice Registration parameters are reversed (i.e., Enumservice Registration parameters are reversed (i.e.,
subtype(s) before type), prepended with an underscore (_), subtype(s) before type), prepended with an underscore (e.g.,
and prepended to the owner name in separate labels. The "_name"), and prepended to the owner name in separate
highest-level (global) underscored Enumservice name becomes labels. The highest-level (global) underscored Enumservice
the global Attrleaf name to register. name becomes the global name per RFC 8552 to register.
For example, suppose we are looking for the URI for a service For example, suppose we are looking for the URI for a service
with ENUM Service Parameter "A:B:C" for host example.com. Then with ENUM Service Parameter "A:B:C" for host example.com. Then
we would query for we would query for
(QNAME,QTYPE)=("_C._B._A.example.com","URI"). (QNAME,QTYPE)=("_C._B._A.example.com","URI").
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 RFC 8145 is changed as
is changed as follows: described below. In addition, a normative reference to RFC 8552 is
added to the References section of RFC 8145.
OLD: OLD:
For example, a validating DNS resolver ... For example, a validating DNS resolver ...
QNAME=_ta-4444. 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
Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry [Attrleaf] for all node "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry
names beginning with ""_ta-"". [RFC8552] for all node 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.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[Attrleaf] [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Crocker, D., "DNS Scoped Data Through 'Underscore' Naming Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
of Attribute Leaves", I-D draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf, 2018. DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6117] Hoeneisen, B., Mayrhofer, A., and J. Livingood, "IANA [RFC6117] Hoeneisen, B., Mayrhofer, A., and J. Livingood, "IANA
Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template, and IANA
Considerations", RFC 6117, March 2011. Considerations", RFC 6117, DOI 10.17487/RFC6117, March
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6117>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Tpuch, J., Westerlund, M., and S. [RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", RFC 6335, Aug Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
2011. RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC7553] Falstrom, P. and O. Kolkman, "The Uniform Resource [RFC7553] Faltstrom, 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. DOI 10.17487/RFC7553, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7553>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC8145, April 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8145>.
6.2. References -- Informative [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>.
[RFC8552] Crocker, D., "Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource
Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute Leaves",
RFC 8552, DOI 10.17487/RFC8552, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8552>.
6.2. Informative References
[IANA-reg] [IANA-reg]
"Protocol Registries", URL https://www.iana.org/protocols, IANA, "Protocol Registries",
2018. <https://www.iana.org/protocols>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[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. DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.
[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,
2002. DOI 10.17487/RFC3263, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3263>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3529, April
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3529>.
[RFC3620] New, D., "The TUNNEL Profile", RFC 3620, October 2003. [RFC3620] New, D., "The TUNNEL Profile", RFC 3620,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3620, October 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3620>.
[RFC3832] Columbia University, Columbia University, Sun [RFC3832] Zhao, W., Schulzrinne, H., Guttman, E., Bisdikian, C., and
Microsystems, IBM, and IBM, "Remote Service Discovery in W. Jerome, "Remote Service Discovery in the Service
the Service Location Protocol (SLP) via DNS SRV", Location Protocol (SLP) via DNS SRV", RFC 3832,
RFC 3832, July 2004. DOI 10.17487/RFC3832, July 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3832>.
[RFC3887] "Message Tracking Query Protocol", RFC 3887, September [RFC3887] Hansen, T., "Message Tracking Query Protocol", RFC 3887,
2007. DOI 10.17487/RFC3887, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3887>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3958,
January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3958>.
[RFC4120] USC-ISI, MIT, MIT, and MIT, "The Kerberos Network [RFC4120] Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The
Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120, July 2005. Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4120, July 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4120>.
[RFC4227] O'Tuathail, E. and M. Rose, "Using the Simple Object [RFC4227] O'Tuathail, E. and M. Rose, "Using the Simple Object
Access Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange Access Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange
Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 4227, January 2006. Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 4227, DOI 10.17487/RFC4227, January
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4227>.
[RFC4386] Boeyen, S. and P. Hallam-Baker, "Internet X.509 Public Key [RFC4386] Boeyen, S. and P. Hallam-Baker, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure: Repository Locator Service", RFC 4386, Infrastructure Repository Locator Service", RFC 4386,
February 2006. DOI 10.17487/RFC4386, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4386>.
[RFC4387] Gutmann, P., Ed., "Internet X.509 Public Key [RFC4387] Gutmann, P., Ed., "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Operational Protocols: Certificate Store Infrastructure Operational Protocols: Certificate Store
Access via HTTP", RFC 4387, February 2006. Access via HTTP", RFC 4387, DOI 10.17487/RFC4387, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4387>.
[RFC4976] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and Roach, "Relay Extensions for [RFC4976] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and A. Roach, "Relay Extensions
the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4976, for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4976,
September 2007. DOI 10.17487/RFC4976, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4976>.
[RFC5026] Giaretta, G., Ed., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, Ed., [RFC5026] Giaretta, G., Ed., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, Ed.,
"Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, "Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5026, October 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC5026, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5026>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5026>.
[RFC5328] Adolf, A. and P. MacAvock, "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) [RFC5328] Adolf, A. and P. MacAvock, "A Uniform Resource Name (URN)
Namespace for the Digital Video Broadcasting Project Namespace for the Digital Video Broadcasting Project
(DVB)", RFC 5328, September 2008. (DVB)", RFC 5328, DOI 10.17487/RFC5328, September 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5328>.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, Mahy, Matthews, and Wing, "Session Traversal [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, October 2008. "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5389, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5389>.
[RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley, [RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley,
Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009. (CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5415, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5415>.
[RFC5518] Hoffman, P., Levine, J., and A. Hathcock, "Vouch By [RFC5518] Hoffman, P., Levine, J., and A. Hathcock, "Vouch By
Reference", RFC 5518, April 2009. Reference", RFC 5518, DOI 10.17487/RFC5518, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5518>.
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack [RFC5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack
Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, DOI 10.17487/RFC5555, June
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5555>.
[RFC5617] Sendmail, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and [RFC5617] Allman, E., Fenton, J., Delany, M., and J. Levine,
Taughannock Networks, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Author Domain Signing
Author Domain Signing Practices (ADSP)", RFC 5617, August Practices (ADSP)", RFC 5617, DOI 10.17487/RFC5617, August
2009. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5617>.
[RFC5679] Bajko, G., "Locating IEEE 802.21 Mobility Services Using [RFC5679] Bajko, G., "Locating IEEE 802.21 Mobility Services Using
DNS", RFC 5679, December 2009. DNS", RFC 5679, DOI 10.17487/RFC5679, December 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5679>.
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using [RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010. Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5766, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5766>.
[RFC5780] MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery [RFC5780] MacDonald, D. and B. Lowekamp, "NAT Behavior Discovery
Using Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", Using Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)",
RFC 5780, May 2010. RFC 5780, DOI 10.17487/RFC5780, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5780>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5804,
July 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5804>.
[RFC5864] Allbery, R., "NS SRV Resource Records for AFS", RFC 5864, [RFC5864] Allbery, R., "DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS", RFC 5864,
April 2010. DOI 10.17487/RFC5864, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5864>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5928, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5928>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120,
March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120>.
[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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6186, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6186>.
[RFC6376] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed., [RFC6376] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed.,
"DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76,
RFC 6376, DOI 10.17487/RFC6376, September 2011, RFC 6376, DOI 10.17487/RFC6376, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376>.
[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>.
[RFC7208] Kitterman, S., "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for [RFC7208] Kitterman, S., "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for
Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1", Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1", RFC 7208,
RFC 7208, April 2014. DOI 10.17487/RFC7208, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7208>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC7489, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7489>.
[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 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 draft versions. For the later enhancements, thanks to Tim
John Levine, Bob Harold, Joel Jaeggli, Ond&#345;ej Sury and Paul Wicinski, John Levine, Bob Harold, Joel Jaeggli, Ondrej Sury, and
Wouters. Paul 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
simplification to the registration model. simplification to the registration model.
Author's Address Author's Address
Dave Crocker Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking Brandenburg InternetWorking
675 Spruce Dr. 675 Spruce Dr.
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Sunnyvale, CA 94086
USA United States of America
Phone: +1.408.246.8253 Phone: +1.408.246.8253
Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net
URI: http://bbiw.net/ URI: http://bbiw.net/
 End of changes. 103 change blocks. 
255 lines changed or deleted 306 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/