draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04.txt   draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-05.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: November 16, 2017 Expires: December 8, 2017
W. Kumari W. Kumari
Google Google
May 15, 2017 June 6, 2017
Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement
draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-04 draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-05
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 organizations relating to Special- and some publications from other organizations relating to Special-
Use Domain Names. 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 November 16, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 8, 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 2, line 21 skipping to change at page 2, line 21
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problems associated with Special-Use Domain Names . . . . . . 4 3. Problems associated with Special-Use Domain Names . . . . . . 4
4. Existing Practice Regarding Special-Use Domain Names . . . . 9 4. Existing Practice Regarding Special-Use Domain Names . . . . 9
4.1. Primary Special-Use Domain Name Documents . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Primary Special-Use Domain Name Documents . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root . . . . 10 4.1.1. IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root . . . . 10
4.1.2. Special-Use Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1.2. Special-Use Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.3. MoU Concerning the Technical Work of the IANA . . . . 13 4.1.3. MoU Concerning the Technical Work of the IANA . . . . 13
4.1.4. Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain 4.1.4. Liaison Statement on Technical Use of Domain
Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Secondary documents relating to the Special-Use 4.2. Secondary documents relating to the Special-Use
Domain Name question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Domain Name question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1. Multicast DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.1. Multicast DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.2. The .onion Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name . . . . 14 4.2.2. The .onion Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name . . . . 15
4.2.3. Locally Served DNS Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2.3. Locally Served DNS Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.4. Name Collision in the DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2.4. Name Collision in the DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.5. SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain 4.2.5. SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain
Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.6. Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address 4.2.6. Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address
Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.7. Additional Reserved Top Level Domains . . . . . . . . 16 4.2.7. Additional Reserved Top Level Domains . . . . . . . . 16
5. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Change Log. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix A. Change Log. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
skipping to change at page 4, line 11 skipping to change at page 4, line 11
This document uses the terminology from RFC 7719 [RFC7719]. Other This document uses the terminology from RFC 7719 [RFC7719]. Other
terms used in this document are defined here: terms used in this document are defined here:
Domain Name This document uses the term "Domain Name" as defined in Domain Name This document uses the term "Domain Name" as defined in
section 2 of RFC 7719 [RFC7719]. section 2 of RFC 7719 [RFC7719].
Domain Namespace The set of all possible Domain Names. Domain Namespace The set of all possible Domain Names.
Special-Use Domain Name A Domain Name listed in the Special-Use Special-Use Domain Name A Domain Name listed in the Special-Use
Domain Names registry. Domain Names registry [SDO-IANA-SUDR].
For the sake of brevity this document uses some abbreviations, which For the sake of brevity this document uses some abbreviations, which
are expanded here: are expanded here:
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
TLD Top-Level Domain, as defined in in section 2 of RFC 7719 TLD Top-Level Domain, as defined in section 2 of RFC 7719 [RFC7719]
[RFC7719]
gTLD Generic Top-Level Domain, as defined in in section 2 of RFC gTLD Generic Top-Level Domain (see section 2 of RFC 2352 [RFC2352])
7719 [RFC7719]
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 Domain Names. with respect to the assignment of Special-Use Domain Names.
Solutions to these problems, including their costs or tradeoffs, are Solutions to these problems, including their costs or tradeoffs, are
out of scope for this document. They will be covered in a separate out of scope for this document. They will be covered in a separate
document. New problems that might be created in the process of document. New problems that might be created in the process of
solving problems described in this document are also out of scope: solving problems described in this document are also out of scope:
these problems are expected to be addressed in the process of these problems are expected to be addressed in the process of
skipping to change at page 4, line 49 skipping to change at page 4, line 47
identified to which Special-Use Domain Names are a solution and identified to which Special-Use Domain Names are a solution and
enumerate all of the problems that have been raised in the process of enumerate all of the problems that have been raised in the process of
trying to use RFC 6761 as it was intended. As some of those problems trying to use RFC 6761 as it was intended. As some of those problems
may fall into both categories, this document makes no attempt to may fall into both categories, this document makes no attempt to
categorize the problems. categorize the problems.
There is a broad diversity of opinion about this set of problems. There is a broad diversity of opinion about this set of problems.
Not every participant agrees that each of the problems enumerated in Not every participant agrees that each of the problems enumerated in
this document is actually a problem. This document takes no position this document is actually a problem. This document takes no position
on the relative validity of the various problems that have been on the relative validity of the various problems that have been
enumerated. The sole purposes of the document are to enumerate those enumerated, nor on the organization responsible for addressing each
problems, provide the reader with context for thinking about them and individual problem, if it is to be addressed. The sole purposes of
provide a context for future discussion of solutions. the document are to enumerate those problems, provide the reader with
context for thinking about them and provide a context for future
discussion of solutions, regardless of whether such solutions may be
work for IETF, ICANN, IANA or some other group.
This is the list of problems: This is the list of problems:
o No formal coordination process exists between the IETF and ICANN o No formal coordination process exists between the IETF and ICANN
as they follow their respective name assignment processes (see as they follow their respective name assignment processes (see
Section 4.1.3). The lack of coordination complicates the Section 4.1.3). The lack of coordination complicates the
management of the root of the Domain Namespace and could lead to management of the root of the Domain Namespace and could lead to
conflicts in name assignments [SDO-ICANN-SAC090]. conflicts in name assignments [SDO-ICANN-SAC090].
o There is no explicit scoping as to what can constitute a o There is no explicit scoping as to what can constitute a
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 39
o In some cases where the IETF has made assignments through the RFC o In some cases where the IETF has made assignments through the RFC
6761 process, technical mistakes have been made due to 6761 process, technical mistakes have been made due to
misunderstandings as to the actual process that RFC 6761 specifies misunderstandings as to the actual process that RFC 6761 specifies
(e.g., treating the list of suggested considerations for assigning (e.g., treating the list of suggested considerations for assigning
a name as a set of requirements all of which must be met). In a name as a set of requirements all of which must be met). In
other cases, the IETF has made de facto assignments of Special-Use other cases, the IETF has made de facto assignments of Special-Use
Domain Names without following the RFC 6761 process. Domain Names without following the RFC 6761 process.
o There are several Domain Name TLDs that are in use without due o There are several Domain Name TLDs that are in use without due
process for a variety of purposes [SDO-ICANN-COLL]. The status of process for a variety of purposes. The status of these names need
these names need to be clarified and recorded to avoid future to be clarified and recorded to avoid future disputes about their
disputes about their use. use [SDO-ICANN-COLL].
o In principle, the RFC 6761 process could be used to document the o In principle, the RFC 6761 process could be used to document the
existence of Domain Names that are not safe to assign, and provide existence of Domain Names that are not safe to assign, and provide
information on how those names are used in practice. However, information on how those names are used in practice. However,
attempts to use RFC 6761 to accomplish this documentation have not attempts to use RFC 6761 to accomplish this documentation have not
been successful (for example, see "Additional Reserved Top Level been successful (for example, see "Additional Reserved Top Level
Domains [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and Section 4.2.7). Domains [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] and Section 4.2.7).
One side effect of the lack of documentation is that any One side effect of the lack of documentation is that any
mitigation effect on the root name servers or on privacy mitigation effect on the root name servers or on privacy
considerations has been missed. considerations has been missed.
skipping to change at page 10, line 21 skipping to change at page 10, line 21
Special-Use Domain Name problem. However, it speaks directly to Special-Use Domain Name problem. However, it speaks directly to
several of the key issues that must be considered, and, coming as it several of the key issues that must be considered, and, coming as it
does from the IAB, it is rightly treated as having significant does from the IAB, it is rightly treated as having significant
authority despite not being an IETF consensus document. authority despite not being an IETF consensus document.
This document should be considered required reading for IETF This document should be considered required reading for IETF
participants who wish to express an informed opinion on the topic of participants who wish to express an informed opinion on the topic of
Special-Use Domain Names. The main points that appear relevant to Special-Use Domain Names. The main points that appear relevant to
the Special-Use Domain Names problem are: the Special-Use Domain Names problem are:
o The Internet requires a globally unique namespace o The Internet requires a globally unique namespace: a namespace in
which any given name refers to the same information (has the same
meaning) no matter who requests that information and no matter
from which specific name server they request it.
o Private networks may operate private namespaces, but still require o Private networks may operate private namespaces, with names that
that names in the public namespace be globally unique. have meanings only locally (within the private network) but still
require that names in the public namespace be globally unique.
o The Domain Name System [RFC1035] is not the only protocol that may o The Domain Name System [RFC1035] is not the only protocol that may
be used for resolving domain names. be used for resolving domain names.
o Users cannot be assumed to know how to distinguish between o Users cannot be assumed to know how to distinguish between
symbolic references that have local meaning and references that symbolic references that have local meaning and references that
have global meaning. Users may therefore share references that have global meaning. Users may therefore share references that
incorporate Domain Names with no global meaning (for example, a incorporate Domain Names with no global meaning (for example, a
URL of 'http://mysite.example.corp', where 'example.corp' is a URL of 'http://mysite.example.corp', where 'example.corp' is a
domain used privately and informally as described in domain used privately and informally as described in
skipping to change at page 14, line 30 skipping to change at page 14, line 38
considerable historical importance to note that the -00 version of considerable historical importance to note that the -00 version of
this document, an individual submission, was published in July of this document, an individual submission, was published in July of
2001. This version contains substantially the same text in section 2001. This version contains substantially the same text in section
3, and was discussed in the DNSEXT working group at IETF 51 in August 3, and was discussed in the DNSEXT working group at IETF 51 in August
of 2001[IETF-PRO-51]. The first version of this document designated of 2001[IETF-PRO-51]. The first version of this document designated
'.LOCAL.ARPA' as the Special-Use Domain Name. This idea was strongly '.LOCAL.ARPA' as the Special-Use Domain Name. This idea was strongly
opposed by DNSEXT working group participants, and as a result the opposed by DNSEXT working group participants, and as a result the
author eventually switched to using '.LOCAL'. author eventually switched to using '.LOCAL'.
The history of RFC 6762 is documented in substantial detail in The history of RFC 6762 is documented in substantial detail in
Appendix H; some notable milestones include the initial proposal to Appendix H of RFC 6762; some notable milestones include the initial
replace Appletalk's NBP in July 1997, the chartering of the Zeroconf proposal to replace Appletalk's NBP in July 1997, the chartering of
working group in September 1999, assignment of a multicast address the Zeroconf working group in September 1999, assignment of a
for link-local name discovery in April of 2000. A companion multicast address for link-local name discovery in April of 2000. A
requirements document, eventually published as [RFC6760] was first companion requirements document, eventually published as [RFC6760]
published in September of 2001. was first published in September of 2001.
The point of mentioning these dates is so that discussions involving The point of mentioning these dates is so that discussions involving
the time when the '.LOCAL' domain was first deployed, and the context the time when the '.LOCAL' domain was first deployed, and the context
in which it was deployed, may be properly informed. in which it was deployed, may be properly informed.
4.2.2. The .onion Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name 4.2.2. The .onion Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name
The .onion Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name [RFC7686] is important The .onion Special-Use Top-Level Domain Name [RFC7686] is important
because it is the most recent IETF action on the topic of Special-Use because it is the most recent IETF action on the topic of Special-Use
Domain Names; although it does not set new policy, the mere fact of Domain Names; although it does not set new policy, the mere fact of
skipping to change at page 15, line 43 skipping to change at page 16, line 7
Name Collision in the DNS [SDO-ICANN-COLL] is a study commissioned by Name Collision in the DNS [SDO-ICANN-COLL] is a study commissioned by
ICANN that attempts to characterize the potential risk to the ICANN that attempts to characterize the potential risk to the
Internet of adding global DNS delegations for names that were not Internet of adding global DNS delegations for names that were not
previously delegated in the DNS, not reserved under any RFC, but also previously delegated in the DNS, not reserved under any RFC, but also
known to be (.home) or surmised to be (.corp) in significant use for known to be (.home) or surmised to be (.corp) in significant use for
Special-Use-type reasons (local scope DNS, or other resolution Special-Use-type reasons (local scope DNS, or other resolution
protocols altogether). protocols altogether).
4.2.5. SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace 4.2.5. SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace
SSAC Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace ICANN SSAC ([SDO-ICANN-SSAC]) Advisory on the Stability of the Domain
[SDO-ICANN-SAC090] reports on some issues surrounding the conflicting Namespace [SDO-ICANN-SAC090] reports on some issues surrounding the
uses, interested parties and processes related to the Domain conflicting uses, interested parties and processes related to the
Namespace. The document recommends the development of collaborative Domain Namespace. The document recommends the development of
processes among the various interested parties to coordinate their collaborative processes among the various interested parties to
activities related to the Domain Namespace. coordinate their activities related to the Domain Namespace.
4.2.6. Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis 4.2.6. Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis
Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis
[RFC7050] is an example of a document that successfully used the RFC [RFC7050] is an example of a document that successfully used the RFC
6761 process to designate '.ipv4only.arpa' as a Special-Use Domain 6761 process to designate '.ipv4only.arpa' as a Special-Use Domain
Name; in this case the process worked smoothly and without Name; in this case the process worked smoothly and without
controversy. controversy.
Unfortunately, while the IETF process worked smoothly, in the sense Unfortunately, while the IETF process worked smoothly, in the sense
skipping to change at page 16, line 29 skipping to change at page 16, line 38
illustration of one of the problems that we have with the 6761 illustration of one of the problems that we have with the 6761
process: it is apparently fairly easy to miss the step of adding the process: it is apparently fairly easy to miss the step of adding the
name to the registry. name to the registry.
4.2.7. Additional Reserved Top Level Domains 4.2.7. Additional Reserved Top Level Domains
Additional Reserved Top Level Domains Additional Reserved Top Level Domains
[I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] is an example of a document [I-D.chapin-additional-reserved-tlds] is an example of a document
that attempted to reserve several TLDs identified by ICANN as that attempted to reserve several TLDs identified by ICANN as
particularly at risk for collision as Special-Use Domain Names with particularly at risk for collision as Special-Use Domain Names with
no documented use. This attempt did not advance in the IETF process. no documented use. This attempt failed.
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 RFC documents how amount is known about the use of these names, no RFC documents how
they are used, and why it would be a problem to delegate them. they are used, and why it would be a problem to delegate them.
Additionally, to the extent that the uses being made of these names Additionally, to the extent that the uses being made of these names
are valid, no document exists indicating when it might make sense to are valid, no document exists indicating when it might make sense to
use them, and when it would not make sense to use them. 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 defined 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 specified in RFC 6761: it
addition of ".home" to the IANA Special-Use Domain Name registry. did not request that ".home" be added to the IANA Special-Use Domain
Additionally, ".home" is an example of an attempt to reuse a Domain Name registry. This was recognized as a mistake, and resulted in the
Name that has already been put into use for other purposes without publication of an errata, [ERRATA-4677]. Additionally, ".home" is an
following established processes[SDO-ICANN-COLL], which further example of an attempt to reuse a Domain Name that has already been
complicates the situation. At the time this document was written, put into use for other purposes without following established
the IETF was developing a solution to this problem. processes[SDO-ICANN-COLL], which further complicates the situation.
At the time this document was written, the IETF was developing a
solution to this problem.
5. History 5. History
Newcomers to the problem of resolving Domain Names may be under the Newcomers to the problem of resolving Domain Names may be under the
mistaken impression that the DNS sprang, as in the Greek legend of mistaken impression that the DNS sprang, as in the Greek legend of
Athena, directly from Paul Mockapetris' forehead. This is not the Athena, directly from Paul Mockapetris' forehead. This is not the
case. At the time of the writing of the IAB technical document, case. At the time of the writing of the IAB technical document,
memories would have been fresh of the evolutionary process that led memories would have been fresh of the evolutionary process that led
to the DNS' dominance as a protocol for Domain Name resolution. to the DNS' dominance as a protocol for Domain Name resolution.
skipping to change at page 19, line 39 skipping to change at page 19, line 44
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>. November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC2352] Vaughan, O., "A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain
Names", RFC 2352, DOI 10.17487/RFC2352, May 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2352>.
[RFC2826] Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical Comment on the [RFC2826] Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical Comment on the
Unique DNS Root", RFC 2826, DOI 10.17487/RFC2826, May Unique DNS Root", RFC 2826, DOI 10.17487/RFC2826, May
2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2826>. 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2826>.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000, DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
skipping to change at page 21, line 13 skipping to change at page 21, line 18
in progress), March 2015. in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names] [I-D.grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names]
Grothoff, C., Wachs, M., hellekin, h., Appelbaum, J., and Grothoff, C., Wachs, M., hellekin, h., Appelbaum, J., and
L. Ryge, "Special-Use Domain Names of Peer-to-Peer L. Ryge, "Special-Use Domain Names of Peer-to-Peer
Systems", draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-04 Systems", draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-04
(work in progress), January 2015. (work in progress), January 2015.
[I-D.lewis-domain-names] [I-D.lewis-domain-names]
Lewis, E., "Domain Names, A Case for Clarifying", draft- Lewis, E., "Domain Names, A Case for Clarifying", draft-
lewis-domain-names-06 (work in progress), March 2017. lewis-domain-names-07 (work in progress), June 2017.
[SDO-CABF-INT] [SDO-CABF-INT]
CA/Browser Forum, "Guidance on the Deprecation of Internal CA/Browser Forum, "Guidance on the Deprecation of Internal
Server Names and Reserved IP Addresses", June 2012, Server Names and Reserved IP Addresses", June 2012,
<https://www.digicert.com/internal-names.htm>. <https://www.digicert.com/internal-names.htm>.
[SDO-ICANN-COLL] [SDO-ICANN-COLL]
Interisle Consulting Group, LLC, "Name Collisions in the Interisle Consulting Group, LLC, "Name Collisions in the
DNS", August 2013, DNS", August 2013,
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name- <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-
collision-02aug13-en.pdf>. collision-02aug13-en.pdf>.
[SDO-ICANN-SAC090] [SDO-ICANN-SAC090]
ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, "SSAC ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, "SSAC
Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace", Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace",
December 2016, December 2016,
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac- <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-
090-en.pdf>. 090-en.pdf>.
[SDO-ICANN-SSAC]
ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, "SSAC
Advisory on the Stability of the Domain Namespace",
December 2016, <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac>.
[SDO-IANA-SUDR] [SDO-IANA-SUDR]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Special-Use Domain Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Special-Use Domain
Names registry", October 2015, Names registry", October 2015,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/special-use-domain-names/
special-use-domain-names.xhtml>. special-use-domain-names.xhtml>.
[SDO-ICANN-DAG] [SDO-ICANN-DAG]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Special-Use Domain Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Special-Use Domain
Names registry", October 2015, Names registry", October 2015,
<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook- <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-
full-04jun12-en.pdf>. full-04jun12-en.pdf>.
[SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS] [SDO-IAB-ICANN-LS]
Internet Architecture Board, "Liaison Statement from the Internet Architecture Board, "Liaison Statement from the
IAB to the ICANN Board on Technical Use of Domain Names", IAB to the ICANN Board on Technical Use of Domain Names",
September 2015, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ September 2015, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/
liaison/1351>. liaison/1351>.
[ERRATA-4677]
Internet Architecture Board, "Errata ID: 4677 (RFC7788)",
April 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4677>.
[CORP-SUN-NIS] [CORP-SUN-NIS]
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>.
[TOR] The Tor Project, "Tor", 2017, [TOR] The Tor Project, "Tor", 2017,
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
42 lines changed or deleted 62 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/