[Arcing] Fwd: [Inip] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01.txt

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 09 March 2016 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: arcing@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: arcing@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9E012D911 for <arcing@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:10:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ne4oMztfdgA0 for <arcing@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22f.google.com (mail-ob0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7015212D671 for <arcing@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:10:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id ts10so57088699obc.1 for <arcing@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 11:10:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=VPh9IVYE+bg3b9ODryc3fvJ55jFGuyCjkYLBSxnJNq0=; b=jQk7UDD+tHpNpGyQkzdstWanJoTj2I9U9N4/DFxdYyYhgiE6lrtdJmztpY80Q5BWZK pN8Ijm2eNMxhT24o9jwp7XPfynk4oXfqd0K9dQoBZKbb8vSFJdIAlsm82gzEWmHzpx6v Gtll46dnm+CNjqz3lxodgkEnhYKYpdFLjojEXNgPFI8omhV1EEqMozBaYRa2Pzdx83EH 1Vcmh4X9lYnbKSR2fDwuYuvJrASgl7m2AQe30XfppLIx74b17jvMsseB9ba82g6vvk++ L9vC6KNzIvIvCguKRJ3K3nzJa6ASFYZ1C0yQFyAVNorC+mpP+kuAWC1Gma3qDuzFX8PY AdQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=VPh9IVYE+bg3b9ODryc3fvJ55jFGuyCjkYLBSxnJNq0=; b=DlN6jqhBjxUVC30M7NcHj2jenJPX5KXA+CezMgcabSIzG986OiM8cJdpJjkA9pyQiV uIdiS/v4c1A42slhpopyrJKYhmwM0G0WS4B0R6XIv6Lhd1zTs4sxq9joK5d3eoJCuGZa HkNVwcj7/djzs00VIfg9pjV8a12f/4zeu1gmm5eQs/K2hOK0WdRN2gkcKAvGhtw0C+e2 nWHsruhFjpHNw+C7wguZLV7dKr7nEstCmec/dc7ykB8eB7ONeOk2RhaWrQGA4l5wxJQ8 T6T9zM8NXZFkDE5cyA3Dp+9ocH6NpsFgTZ8HLn43ue+2cspiX+nHrYsvM8bOHB2jfaVn WxeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKWrxnpMstH/8IJqCED1ae1eulQNSurHgehQq+FbjR6pzMFfeLQ/Vzc7TXgWwz/ykCs/6Fhg58gc8Tc2A==
X-Received: by 10.60.38.37 with SMTP id d5mr22228374oek.50.1457550620091; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 11:10:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.51.6 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:10:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C94A01CA-334A-40BB-8DB5-A37AB309B3E4@gmail.com>
References: <20160308135925.21390.49729.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <C94A01CA-334A-40BB-8DB5-A37AB309B3E4@gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:10:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCrhR0yigeH+NzxMC8zYZt61SW=EtqZ0SaP7WvkN_xY5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: arcing@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a1ee2f3eb17052da2723a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/arcing/1EwczPawPBSjjmxsPFrjZS9E5mY>
Subject: [Arcing] Fwd: [Inip] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01.txt
X-BeenThere: arcing@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: This list will discuss different architectural approaches to signalling alternative resolution contexts for Internet names <arcing.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/arcing>, <mailto:arcing-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/arcing/>
List-Post: <mailto:arcing@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:arcing-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/arcing>, <mailto:arcing-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 19:10:55 -0000

Howdy,

This is being discussed in DNSOP, but is obviously of interest here as
well.  One of the things to note is that this uses "domain name" in a way
that is a bit broader than it might first appear; section 4, which
discusses architectural issues is one place where this is described.

regards,

Ted

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *internet-drafts@ietf.org
*Subject: **I-D Action: draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01.txt*
*Date: *March 8, 2016 at 8:59:25 AM EST
*To: *<i-d-announce@ietf.org>
*Reply-To: *internet-drafts@ietf.org


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.


       Title           : Problem Statement for the Reservation of Top-Level
Domains in the Special-Use Domain Names Registry
       Authors         : Joe Abley
                         Peter Koch
                         Alain Durand
                         Warren
Filename        : draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01.txt
Pages           : 18
Date            : 2016-03-08

Abstract:
  The dominant protocol for name resolution on the Internet is the
  Domain Name System (DNS).  However, other protocols exist that are
  fundamentally different from the DNS, and may or may not share the
  same namespace.

  When an end-user triggers resolution of a name on a system which
  supports multiple, different protocols (or resolution mechanisms) for
  name resolution, it is desirable that the protocol used is
  unambiguous, and that requests intended for one protocol are not
  inadvertently answered using another.

  [RFC6761] introduced a framework by which, under certain
  circumstances, a particular domain name could be acknowledged as
  being special.  This framework has been used twice to reserve top-
  level domains (.local and .onion) that should not be used within the
  DNS to avoid the possibility of namespace collisions in parallel use
  of non-DNS name resolution protocols.

  Various challenges have become apparent with this application of the
  guidance provided in [RFC6761].  This document aims to document those
  challenges in the form of a problem statement, to facilitate further
  discussion of potential solutions.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt



_______________________________________________
Inip mailing list
Inip@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/inip