draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-01.txt   draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-02.txt 
Network Working Group T. Lemon Network Working Group T. Lemon
Internet-Draft Nominum, Inc. Internet-Draft Nominum, Inc.
Intended status: Informational R. Droms Intended status: Informational R. Droms
Expires: July 31, 2017 Expires: August 3, 2017
W. Kumari W. Kumari
Google Google
January 27, 2017 January 30, 2017
Special-Use Names Problem Statement Special-Use Names Problem Statement
draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-01 draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-02
Abstract Abstract
The Special-Use Domain Names IANA registry policy defined in RFC 6761 The Special-Use Domain Names IANA registry policy defined in RFC 6761
has been shown through experience to present unanticipated has been shown through experience to present unanticipated
challenges. This memo presents a list, intended to be comprehensive, challenges. This memo presents a list, intended to be comprehensive,
of the problems that have been identified. In addition it reviews of the problems that have been identified. In addition it reviews
the history of Domain Names and summarizes current IETF publications the history of Domain Names and summarizes current IETF publications
and some publications from other standards organizations relating to and some publications from other standards organizations relating to
special-use Domain Names. special-use Domain Names.
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://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 July 31, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 3, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://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 43 skipping to change at page 3, line 43
SUTLDN Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name SUTLDN Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name
IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
3. Problems associated with Special-Use Domain Names 3. Problems associated with Special-Use Domain Names
This section presents a list of problems that have been identified This section presents a list of problems that have been identified
with respect to the assignment of special-use names. Solutions to with respect to the assignment of special-use names. Solutions to
these problems are out of scope for this document, and will be these problems are out of scope for this document. Because of that,
discussed in separate documents. problems with solutions to these problems are also out of scope for
this document, and will be covered in a separate document.
No assertion is made that any of these problems is more or less No assertion is made that any of these problems is more or less
important than any other. The point of this is simply to enumerate important than any other. The point of this is simply to enumerate
and briefly describe the problems that have been raised during and briefly describe the problems that have been raised during
discussions of the special-use name problem. The degree of detail is discussions of the special-use name problem. The degree of detail is
intended to be sufficient that that participants in the discussion intended to be sufficient that that participants in the discussion
can agree that the problems they've raised have been adequately can agree that the problems they've raised have been adequately
described, and no more. These problems should not appear to every described, and no more. These problems should not appear to every
reader to all be problems: we intend to cover any problem that any reader to all be problems: we intend to cover any problem that any
participant considers a problem, not just those problems that participant considers a problem, not just those problems that
skipping to change at page 6, line 20 skipping to change at page 6, line 24
* The semantics of alternative resolution protocols may differ * The semantics of alternative resolution protocols may differ
from the DNS protocol; DNS has the concept of RRtypes; other from the DNS protocol; DNS has the concept of RRtypes; other
protocols may not support RRtypes, or may support some entirely protocols may not support RRtypes, or may support some entirely
different data structuring mechanism. different data structuring mechanism.
* If there is an IETF process through which a name can be * If there is an IETF process through which a name can be
assigned at zero cost other than time, this process will be assigned at zero cost other than time, this process will be
used as an alternative to purchasing the name through ICANN. used as an alternative to purchasing the name through ICANN.
* The semantics associated with a particular name at the time of * A name might be assigned for a particular purpose when a more
its assignment might conflict with other possible semantics and general use of the name would be more beneficial.
preclude assignment of the name to a better use in the future.
* If the IETF assigns a name that some third party or parties * If the IETF assigns a name that some third party or parties
believes belongs to them in some way, the IETF could become believes belongs to them in some way, the IETF could become
embroiled in an expensive dispute with those parties. embroiled in an expensive dispute with those parties.
o If there were no process for assigning names for technical use o If there were no process for assigning names for technical use
through the IETF, there is a concern that protocols that require through the IETF, there is a concern that protocols that require
such names would not be able to get them. such names would not be able to get them.
o In cases where the IETF has made assignments through the RFC 6761 o In cases where the IETF has made assignments through the RFC 6761
skipping to change at page 14, line 9 skipping to change at page 14, line 9
Although this document failed to gain consensus to publish, the need Although this document failed to gain consensus to publish, the need
it was intended to fill still exists. Unfortunately, although a fair it was intended to fill still exists. Unfortunately, although a fair
amount is known about the use of these names, no document exists that amount is known about the use of these names, no document exists that
documents how they are used, and why it would be a problem to documents how they are used, and why it would be a problem to
delegate them. Additionally, to the extent that the uses being made delegate them. Additionally, to the extent that the uses being made
of these names are valid, no document exists indicating when it might of these names are valid, no document exists indicating when it might
make sense to use them, and when it would not make sense to use them. make sense to use them, and when it would not make sense to use them.
RFC 7788 [RFC7788] defines the Domain Name TLD ".home" for use as the RFC 7788 [RFC7788] defines the Domain Name TLD ".home" for use as the
default name for name resolution relative to a home network context. default name for name resolution relative to a home network context.
Although, as define in RFC 7788, ".home" is a special-use Domain Although, as defined in RFC 7788, ".home" is a special-use Domain
Name, RFC 7788 did not follow the process in RFC 6761 and request the Name, RFC 7788 did not follow the process in RFC 6761 and request the
addition of ".home" to the IANA Special-Use Domain Name registry. addition of ".home" to the IANA Special-Use Domain Name registry.
Additionally, ".home" is an example of an attempt to reuse a Domain Additionally, ".home" is an example of an attempt to reuse a Domain
Name that has already been commandeered for other purposes Name that has already been commandeered for other purposes
[SDO-ICANN-COLL], which further complicates the situation. At the [SDO-ICANN-COLL], which further complicates the situation. At the
time this document was written, the IETF was developing a solution to time this document was written, the IETF was developing a solution to
this problem. this problem.
4.3. Summary 4.3. Summary
skipping to change at page 19, line 22 skipping to change at page 19, line 22
Sun Microsystems, "Large System and Network Sun Microsystems, "Large System and Network
Administration", March 1990. Administration", March 1990.
[IETF-PRO-51] [IETF-PRO-51]
Internet Engineering Task Force, "Proceedings of the 51st Internet Engineering Task Force, "Proceedings of the 51st
IETF", August 2001, IETF", August 2001,
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/51/51-45.htm#TopOfPage>. <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/51/51-45.htm#TopOfPage>.
Appendix A. Change Log. Appendix A. Change Log.
-01 to -02:
Language cleanup from Ted.
-00 to -01: -00 to -01:
Improved the terminology. Improved the terminology.
Included reference to SAC090. Included reference to SAC090.
Added ICANN Reserved Names (e.g .icann, .iesg, .arin) to types of Added ICANN Reserved Names (e.g .icann, .iesg, .arin) to types of
names. names.
Improved background. Improved background.
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 14 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/