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

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:10:00 -0800

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: [email-masked]
*Subject: **I-D Action: draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-01.txt*
*Date: *March 8, 2016 at 8:59:25 AM EST
*To: *<[email-masked]>
*Reply-To: [email-masked]

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
[email-masked]
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
[email-masked]
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/inip