[rfc-dist] RFC 8324 on DNS Privacy, Authorization, Special Uses, Encoding, Characters, Matching, and Root Structure: Time for Another Look?

rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Wed, 28 February 2018 00:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A1512EAD7 for <ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:49:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sVVmlMpnhure for <ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BFDA12E8A8 for <rfc-dist-archive-yuw6Xa6hiena@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D839B800AE; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:48:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 1DA5FB800A1; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:48:49 -0800 (PST)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20180228004849.1DA5FB800A1@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:48:49 -0800
Subject: [rfc-dist] RFC 8324 on DNS Privacy, Authorization, Special Uses, Encoding, Characters, Matching, and Root Structure: Time for Another Look?
X-BeenThere: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Announcements <rfc-dist.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-dist <rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 8324

        Title:      DNS Privacy, Authorization, Special Uses, 
                    Encoding, Characters, Matching, and Root Structure: 
                    Time for Another Look? 
        Author:     J. Klensin
        Status:     Informational
        Stream:     Independent
        Date:       February 2018
        Mailbox:    john-ietf@jck.com
        Pages:      29
        Characters: 75196
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-klensin-dns-function-considerations-05.txt

        URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8324

        DOI:        10.17487/RFC8324

The basic design of the Domain Name System was completed almost 30
years ago.  The last half of that period has been characterized by
significant changes in requirements and expectations, some of which
either require changes to how the DNS is used or can be accommodated
only poorly or not at all.  This document asks the question of
whether it is time to either redesign and replace the DNS to match
contemporary requirements and expectations (rather than continuing to
try to design and implement incremental patches that are not fully
satisfactory) or draw some clear lines about functionality that is
not really needed or that should be performed in some other way.


INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community.
It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
  https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist

For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.


The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC


_______________________________________________
rfc-dist mailing list
rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
http://www.rfc-editor.org