Network Working Group M. Mealling Internet-Draft
VerisignVeriSign Expires: April 28,August 20, 2002 February 19, 2002 October 28, 2001Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures draft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-09.txtdraft-ietf-urn-net-procedures-10.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28,August 20, 2002. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).(2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract RFCYYYY defines a how DNS is used as a DDDS database that contains URI delegation rules (sometimes called resolution hints). That document specifies that the first step in that algorithm is to append 'URI.ARPA' to the URI scheme and retrieve the NAPTR record for that domain-name. I.e., the first step in resolving "http://foo.com/" would be to look up a NAPTR record for the domain "http.URI.ARPA". URN resolution also follows a similar procedure but uses the 'URN.ARPA' zone as its root. This document describes the procedures for inserting a new rule into the 'URI.ARPA' and 'URN.ARPA' zones. This document is fifth in a series that is completely specified in "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS Standard" (RFC WWWW). It is very important to note that it is impossible to read and understand any document in this series without reading the others. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Registration Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1 URI.ARPA Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.1 Only Schemes in the IETF Tree Allowed . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.2 Scheme Registration Takes Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.3 NAPTR Registration May Accompany Scheme Registration . . . . 4 3.1.4 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration . . . . . 4 3.2 URN.ARPA Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.1 NID Registration Takes Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.2 NAPTR Registration May Accompany NID Registration . . . . . 4 3.2.3 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration . . . . . 4 4. Requirements on hints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Submission Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1 Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2 Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.3 Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Example Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. The URN Registration in the URI.ARPA zone . . . . . . . . . 7 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1. Introduction This document defines the policies and procedures for inserting NAPTR records into the 'URI.ARPA' and 'URN.ARPA' zones for the purpose of resolving URIs according to "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The URI Resolution Application" (RFCXXXX) , which is an Application that uses the DNS based DDDS Database. All of these concepts are defined in RFC WWWW . It is very important to note that it is impossible to correctly understand this document without reading RFC WWWW and the documents it specifies. 2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution RFCXXXX  defines how both URI  resolution and URN  resolution work when DNS is used as the delegation rule (or hint) database. Specifically it says that the initial instructions ('hints') for DNS-based resolution of URIs are stored as resource records in the 'URI.ARPA' DNS zone. Since a URN is a URI scheme, a hint for resolution of the URI prefix 'urn:' will also be stored in the 'URI.ARPA' zone. This rule states that the namespace id  is extracted, 'URN.ARPA' is appended to the end of the namespace id, and the result is used as the key for retrieval of a subsequent NAPTR record . 3. Registration Policies The creation of a given URI scheme or URN namespace id (NID) follows the appropriate registration documents for those spaces. URI schemes follow "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names" (RFC 2717) . URN namespace ids follow "URN Namespace Definition Mechanisms" (RFC 2611) (or updates thereto) . 3.1 URI.ARPA Registration 3.1.1 Only Schemes in the IETF Tree Allowed In order to be inserted into the URI.ARPA zone, the subsequent URI scheme MUST be registered under the IETF URI tree. The requirements for this tree are specified in . 3.1.2 Scheme Registration Takes Precedence The registration of a NAPTR record for a URI scheme MUST NOT precede proper registration of that scheme and publication of a stable specification in accordance with . The IESG or its designated expert will review the request for 1. correctness and technical soundness 2. consistency with the published URI specification, and 3. to ensure that the NAPTR record for a DNS-based URI does not delegate resolution of the URI to a party other than the holder of the DNS name. This last rule is to insure that a given URI's resolution hint doesn't hijack (inadvertently or otherwise) network traffic for a given domain. 3.1.3 NAPTR Registration May Accompany Scheme Registration A request for a URI.ARPA registration MAY accompany a request for a URI scheme (in accordance with ), in which case both requests will be reviewed simultaneously by IESG or its designated experts. 3.1.4 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration A request for a NAPTR record (or an request to change an existing NAPTR record) MAY be submitted after the URI prefix has been registered. If the specification for the URI prefix is controlled by some other party than IETF, IESG will require approval from the owner/maintainer of that specification before the registration will be accepted. This is in addition to any technical review of the NAPTR registration done by IESG or its designated experts. 3.2 URN.ARPA Registration 3.2.1 NID Registration Takes Precedence The registration of a NAPTR record for a URN NID MUST NOT precede proper registration of that NID and publication of a stable specification in accordance with . This is to prevent the registration of a NAPTR record in URN.ARPA from circumventing the NID registration process. 3.2.2 NAPTR Registration May Accompany NID Registration A request for a URN.ARPA registration MAY accompany a request for a NID (in accordance with ), in which case both requests will be reviewed at the same time. 3.2.3 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration A request for a NAPTR record (or an request to change an existing NAPTR record) MAY be submitted after the NID has been registered. If the specification for the NID is controlled by some other party than IETF, IESG will require approval from the owner/maintainer of that specification before the registration will be accepted. This is in addition to any technical review of the NAPTR registration done by IESG or its designated experts. Note that this applies to all NAPTR records for a particular NID, even though a NAPTR record might affect only part of the URN space assigned to an NID 4. Requirements on hints Delegation of a namespace can happen in two ways. In the case of most URIs, the key being delegated to is hard-coded into the identifier itself (e.g. a hostname in an HTTP URL).URI). The syntax of where this new key is located is predetermined by the syntax of the scheme. In other cases, the new key can be part of the hint itself. This is the functional equivalent of saying, "if this rule matches then this is always the key." In order to minimize the query load on the URI.ARPA and URN.ARPA zones, it is anticipated that the resource records in those zones will have extremely long "times to live" (TTLs), perhaps measured in years. Thus, for any URI prefix or URN namespace for which the resolution hints are likely to change, the actual rule should be stored in some other (less stable) DNS zone, and within URI.ARPA or URN.ARPA a stable NAPTR record should be used to delegate queries to that less stable zone. For example, the 'foo' URN namespace has flexible rules for how delegation takes place. Instead of putting those rules in the URN.ARPA zone, the entry instead punts those rules off to a nameserver that has a shorter time to live. The record in URN.ARPA would look like this: foo IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "" "" urn-resolver.foo.com. Thus, when the client starts out in the resolution process, the first step will be to query foo.URN.ARPA to find the above record, the second step is to begin asking 'urn-resolver.foo.com' for the NAPTR records that contain the resolution rules. The TTL at the root is very long. The TTL at the 'urn-resolver.foo.com' is much shorter. Conversely, the 'http' URLURI scheme adheres to a particular syntax that specifies that the host to ask is specified in the URLURI in question. Since this syntax does not change, that rule can be specified in the URI.ARPA zone. The record would look like this: http IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "/http:\\/\\/([^\\/:]+)/\\2/i" . Thus, the second step of resolution is to use the domain-name found in the URLURI as the next key in the cycle. If, for example, that NAPTR was terminal and contains some hostname in the replacement field, then the client could contact that host in order to ask questions about this particular URI. 5. Submission Procedure Using the MIME Content-Type registration mechanism  as a model for a successful registration mechanism, the 'URI.ARPA' and 'URN.ARPA' procedures consist of a request template submitted to an open mailing list made up of interested parties. If no objections are made within a two week period, a representative of the registration authority considers the submission to be accepted and enters that submission into the nameserver. o Registrations for the 'URI.ARPA' zone are sent to 'register@URI.ARPA'. o Registrations for the 'URN.ARPA' zone are sent to 'register@URN.ARPA'. The registration authority is the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Objections are restricted to those that point out impacts on the zone itself or to DNS in general. Objections to the URLURI scheme or to the URN namespace-id are not allowed, as these should be raised in their respective forums. The logical conclusion of this is that ANY sanctioned URLURI scheme or URN namespace MUST be allowed to be registered if it meets the requirements specified in this document as regards times to live and general impact to the DNS. 6. Registration Template The template to be sent to the appropriate list MUST contain the following values: 6.1 Key This is the URN NID or URLURI scheme, which is used as the domain portion of the DNS entry. It must be valid according to the procedures specified in the URN namespace-id assignment document and any future standards for registering new URLURI schemes. 6.2 Authority This is the individual or organization (entity) which has authority for registering the record. It must be an authority recognized as either the IESG or any authority defined in the URN NID  or URLURI scheme registration  documents. 6.3 Records The actual DNS records representing the rule set for the key. The required values are Preference, Order, Flags, Services, Regex, and Replacement as defined by RFCYYYY . 7. Example Template To: register@URN.ARPA From: firstname.lastname@example.org Key: foo Authority: Foo Technology, Inc as specified in RFCFOO Record: foo IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "" urn.foo.com. 8. The URN Registration in the URI.ARPA zone Since this document discusses the URI.ARPA and URN.ARPA zones and the URN rule that exists in the URI.ARPA zone, it makes sense for the registration template for the URN URI rule to be specified here: To: register@URI.ARPA From: The IETF URN Working Group Key: urn Authority: RFC2141 Record: urn IN NAPTR 0 0 "" "" "/urn:([^:]+)/\\2/i" . 9. IANA Considerations This memo requests that the IANA create the zones URN.ARPA and URI.ARPA. The hierarchical name structure, and the only names to be assigned within these zones, are the "keys" as described in Section 6.1 of this document. The administrative and operational management of these zones are recommended to be undertaken by the IANA. The DNS records to be inserted in these zones are subject to the review process described in this document. This memo also requires the creation of 2 discussion lists, email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org, for the purposes described in this document. It is recommended that IANA create and manage these mailing lists." 10. Security Considerations The 'uri.arpa' and 'urn.arpa' zones will be a common point of attack both for Denial of Service and for spoofing entries in order to redirect delegation paths. Any entity running nameservers that contain these zones should take appropriate action for securing an infrastructure level component of the Internet. When it becomes possible for a nameserver to reliably sign the records in its zone it should do so. 11. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Ron Daniel who was originally co- author of these documents. Ron's original insite into the intricate nature of delegation rules made these procedures and the DDDS itself possible. References  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS Standard", RFC WWWW, draft-ietf- urn-ddds-toc-00.txturn-ddds-toc-02.txt (work in progress), October 2001.February 2002.  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Two: The Algorithm", RFC XXXX, draft-ietf-urn-ddds-05.txtdraft-ietf-urn-ddds-06.txt (work in progress), May 2000.February 2002.  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three: The DNS Database", RFC ZZZZ, draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds- database-07.txtdatabase-08.txt (work in progress), May 2000.February 2002.  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The URI Resolution Application", RFC YYYY, draft-ietf- urn-uri-res-ddds-05.txturn-uri-res-ddds-06.txt (work in progress), October 2000.February 2002.  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures", RFC VVVV, draft-ietf- urn-net-procedures-09.txturn-net-procedures-10.txt (work in progress), October 2001.February 2002.  Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, November 1998.  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998.  Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996.  Faltstrom, P., Iannella, R., Daigle, L. and D. van Gulik, "URN Namespace Definition Mechanisms", RFC 2611, October 1998.  Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names", RFC 2717, January 1999. Author's Address Michael Mealling Verisign 505 Huntmar Park Drive Herndon,VeriSign 21345 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 2207020166 US Phone: (770) 721-2251EMail: email@example.com@neonym.net URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).(2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.