draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-01.txt   draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-02.txt 
Network Working Group D. Crocker dnsop D. Crocker
Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking
Intended status: Best Current Practice March 5, 2017 Intended status: Best Current Practice March 29, 2017
Expires: September 6, 2017 Expires: September 30, 2017
DNS Scoped Data Through '_Underscore' Attribute Leaves DNS Scoped Data Through Global '_Underscore' Naming of Attribute Leaves
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-01 draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-02
Abstract Abstract
Historically, any DNS RR may occur for any domain name. Recent Formally, any DNS "RR" may occur for any domain name. However some
additions have defined DNS leaf nodes that contain a reserved node services have defined an operational convention that applies to DNS
name, beginning with an underscore. The underscore construct is used leaf nodes that have a reserved node name, beginning with an
to define a semantic scope for DNS records that are associated with underscore. The underscore construct is used to define a semantic
the parent domain. This specification explores the nature of this scope for DNS records that are associated with the parent domain.
DNS usage and defines the "underscore names" registry with IANA. This specification explores the nature of this DNS usage and defines
the "DNS Global Underscore Scoped Entry Registry" registry with IANA.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 September 6, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Scaling Benefits and TXT and SRV Resource Records . . . . . . 3 2. Scaling Benefits and TXT and SRV Resource Records . . . . . . 3
3. Underscore DNS Registry Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. DNS Global Underscore Scoped Entry Registry Function . . . . 4
4. DNS Underscore Registry Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. DNS Global Underscore Scoped Entry Registry Definition . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Related and Updated Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Related and Updated Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. References -- Informative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.2. References -- Informative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
** This is merely a re-submission of the -00 version, to re-initiate
discussion. /Dave
The core DNS technical specifications assign no semantics to domain The core DNS technical specifications assign no semantics to domain
names or their parts, and no constraints upon which resource records names or their parts, and no constraints upon which resource records
(RRs) are permitted to be associated with particular names. Over (RRs) are permitted to be associated with particular names. Over
time, some leaf node names, such as "www" and "ftp" have come to time, some leaf node names, such as "www" and "ftp" have come to
imply support for particular services, but this is a matter of imply support for particular services, but this is a matter of
operational convention, rather than defined protocol semantics . operational convention, rather than defined protocol semantics. This
This freedom in the basic technology has permitted a wide range of freedom in the basic technology has permitted a wide range of
administrative and semantic policies to be used -- in parallel. Data administrative and semantic policies to be used -- in parallel. Data
semantics have been limited to the specification of particular semantics have been limited to the specification of particular
resource records, on the expectation that new ones would be added as resource records, on the expectation that new ones would be added as
needed. needed.
As an alternative to defining new RRs, some DNS service enhancements As an alternative to defining new RRs, some DNS service enhancements
have specified a restricted scope for the occurrence of particular reuse an existing resource record, but have specified a restricted
resource records. That scope is a leaf node, within which the uses scope for its occurrence. That scope is a leaf node, within which
of specific resource records can be formally defined and constrained. the uses of specific resource records can be formally defined and
The leaf has a distinguished naming convention: It uses a reserved constrained. The leaf has a distinguished naming convention: It uses
DNS node name that begins with an underscore ("_"). Because a "host" a reserved DNS node name that begins with an underscore ("_").
domain name is not allowed to use the underscore character, this Because the DNS rules for a "host" (host name) are not allowed to use
distinguishes the name from all legal host names.[RFC1035] the underscore character, this distinguishes the underscore name from
Effectively, this convention creates a space for attributes that are all legal host names [RFC1035]. Effectively, this convention for
associated with the parent domain, one level up. leaf node naming creates a space for attributes that are associated
with the parent domain, one level up.
An established example is the SRV record [RFC2782] which generalizes One example is the "SRV" record [RFC2782] which generalizes concepts
concepts long-used for email routing by the MX record long-used for email routing by the "MX" record [RFC0974][RFC5321].
[RFC0974][RFC2821]. The use of special DNS names has significant An equivalent usage to "SRV" is the "URI" "RR" [RFC7553]. Relying on
benefits and detriments. Some of these are explored in [RFC5507]. special DNS names has significant benefits and detriments. Some of
these are explored in [RFC5507].
[Comment]: The terms "resolution context" and "scoping rules" have [Comment]: The terms "resolution context" and "scoping rules" have
been suggested, in place of "semantic scope". In order to avoid been suggested, in place of "semantic scope". In order to avoid
concern for matters of semantics, this specification uses the term concern for matters of semantics, this specification uses the term
"scoping rules", to create a focus on the mechanics being defined, "scoping rules", to create a focus on the mechanics being defined,
rather than nuances of interpretation for the mechanism. rather than nuances of interpretation for the mechanism.
The scoping feature is particularly useful when generalized resource The scoping feature is particularly useful when generalized resource
records are used -- notably TXT and SRV. It provides efficient records are used -- notably "TXT", "SRV" and "URI". It provides
separation of one use of them from another. Absent this separation, efficient separation of one use of them from others. Absent this
an undifferentiated mass of these RRs is returned to the DNS client, separation, an undifferentiated mass of these "RR"s is returned to
which then must parse through the internals of the records in the the DNS client, which then must parse through the internals of the
hope of finding ones that are relevant; in some cases the results are records in the hope of finding ones that are relevant. Worse, in
ambiguous, because the records do not adequately self-identify. With some cases the results are ambiguous because the records do not
underscore-based scoping, only the relevant RRs are returned. adequately self-identify. With underscore-based scoping, only the
relevant "RR"s are returned.
This specification discusses the underscore "attribute" enhancement, This specification discusses the underscore "attribute" enhancement,
provides an explicit definition of it, and establishes an IANA provides an explicit definition of it, and establishes an IANA
registry for the reserved names that begin with underscore. It registry for the highest-level reserved names that begin with
updates the many existing specifications that have defined underscore _underscore; underscore-based names that are farther down the
names, in order to aggregate the references to a single IANA table. hierarchy is handled within the scope of the highest-level
_underscore name. It updates the many existing specifications that
have defined underscore names, in order to aggregate the references
to a single IANA table.
Discussion Venue: Discussion about this draft is directed to the Discussion Venue: Discussion about this draft should be directed
apps-discuss@ietf.org [1] mailing list. to the dnsop@ietf.org [1] mailing list.
2. Scaling Benefits and TXT and SRV Resource Records 2. Scaling Benefits and TXT and SRV Resource Records
Some resource records are generic and support a variety of uses. Some resource records are generic and support a variety of uses.
Each additional use defines its own rules and, possibly, its own Each additional use defines its own rules and, possibly, its own
internal syntax and node-naming conventions to distinguish among internal syntax and node-naming conventions to distinguish among
particular types. The TXT and SRV records are the notable examples. particular types. The "TXT" and "SRV" records are notable examples.
Used freely, some of these approaches scale poorly, particularly when Used freely, some of these approaches scale poorly, particularly when
the same RR can be present in the same leaf node, but with different the same "RR" can be present in the same leaf node, but with
uses. An increasingly-popular approach, with excellent scaling different uses. An increasingly-popular approach, with excellent
properties, uses an underscore-based name, at a defined place in the scaling properties, uses an underscore-based name, at a defined place
DNS tree, so as to constrain to particular uses for particular RRs in the DNS tree, so as to constrain to particular uses for particular
farther down the branch using that name. This means that a direct "RR"s farther down the branch using that name. This means that a
lookup produces only the desired records, at no greater cost than a direct lookup produces only the desired records, at no greater cost
typical DNS lookup. than a typical DNS lookup.
In the case of TXT records, different uses have developed largely In the case of "TXT" records, different uses have developed largely
without coordination. One side-effect is that there is no without coordination. One side-effect is that there is no
consistently distinguishable internal syntax for the record; even the consistently distinguishable internal syntax for the record; even the
inefficiencies of internal inspection might not provide a reliable inefficiencies of internal inspection might not provide a reliable
means of distinguishing among the different uses. Underscore-based means of distinguishing among the different uses. Underscore-based
names therefore define an administrative way of separating TXT names therefore define an administrative way of separating "TXT"
records that might have different uses, but otherwise would have no records that might have different uses, but otherwise would have no
syntactic markers for distinguishing among them. syntactic markers for distinguishing among them.
In the case of the SRV RR distinguishing among different types of use In the case of the "SRV" "RR" and "URI" "RR", distinguishing among
was part of the design. [RFC2782] The SRV specification serves as a different types of use was part of the design [RFC2782], [RFC7553].
template, defining an RR that might only be used for specific The "SRV" and "URI" specifications serve as templates, defining "RR"s
applications when there is an additional specification. The template that might only be used for specific applications when there is an
definition includes reference to tables of names from which additional specification. The template definition includes reference
underscore-names should be drawn. The set of <service> names is to two levels of tables of names from which underscore-names should
be drawn. The lower-level (local scope) set of <"_service"> names is
defined in terms of other IANA tables, namely any table with symbolic defined in terms of other IANA tables, namely any table with symbolic
names. The other SRV naming field is <proto>, although its pool of names. The upper-level (global scope) "SRV" naming field is
names is not explicitly defined. <"_proto">, although its pool of names is not explicitly defined.
3. Underscore DNS Registry Function The current definition of a global underscore registry attends only
to the "upper-level" names used for these RRs, that is the "_proto"
names.
3. DNS Global Underscore Scoped Entry Registry Function
This specification creates a registry for DNS nodes names that begin This specification creates a registry for DNS nodes names that begin
with an underscore and are used to define scope of use for specific with an underscore and are used to define scope of use for specific
resource records (RR). A given name defines a specific, constrained resource records. A given name defines a specific, constrained
context for the use of such records. Within this scope, use of other context for the use of such records. Within this scope, use of other
resource records that are not specified is permitted. The purpose of resource records that are not specified is permitted. The purpose of
the Underscore registry is to avoid collisions resulting from the use the Underscore registry is to avoid collisions resulting from the use
of the same underscore-based name, for different applications. of the same underscore-based name, for different applications.
Structurally, the registry is defined as a single, flat table of Structurally, the registry is defined as a single, flat table of
names that begin with underscore. In some cases, such as for SRV, an names that begin with underscore. In some cases, such as for "SRV",
underscore name might be multi-part, as a sequence of underscore an underscore name might be multi-part, as a sequence of underscore
names. Semantically, this is a hierarchical model and it is names. Semantically, that sequence represents a hierarchical model
theoretically reasonable to allow re-use of an underscore name in and it is theoretically reasonable to allow re-use of an underscore
different underscore contexts. That is, a subordinate name is name in different underscore context; a subordinate name is
meaningful only within the scope of the first (parent) underscore meaningful only within the scope of the first (parent) underscore
name. As such, they can be ignored by this global Underscore name. As such, they can be ignored by this DNS Global Underscore
registry. That is, the registry is for the definition of highest- Scoped Entry Registry. That is, the registry is for the definition
level underscore node name used. of highest-level underscore node name used.
+---+
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
| NAME | | NAME |
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
| _service1 | | _service1 |
| ._protoB._service2 | | ._protoB._service2 |
| _protoB._service3 | | _protoB._service3 |
| _protoC._service3 | | _protoC._service3 |
| _useX._protoD._service4 | | _useX._protoD._service4 |
| _protoE._region._authority | | _protoE._region._authority |
+----------------------------+ +----------------------------+
Example of Underscore Names Example of Underscore Names
Only the right-most names are registered in the IANA table. Only the right-most names are registered in the IANA Underscore
Definition and registration of the subordinate names is the table. Definition and registration of the subordinate names is the
responsibility of the specification that creates the highest-level responsibility of the specification that creates the highest-level
(right-most) registry entry. (right-most) registry entry.
4. DNS Underscore Registry Definition 4. DNS Global Underscore Scoped Entry Registry Definition
A registry entry contains: A registry entry contains:
Name: Specifies a textual name for a scoped portion of the DNS. Name: Specifies a textual name for a scoped portion of the DNS.
The name will usually be taken from the specification cited in The name will usually be taken from the specification cited in
the "Purpose" column and is intended for use in discussions the "Purpose" column and is intended for use in discussions
about the entry. about the entry.
DNS Label: Specifies a single underscore name that defines a DNS Label: Specifies a single _underscore name that defines a
name reservation; this name is the "global" entry name for the name reservation; this name is the "global" entry name for the
scoped resource records that are associated with that name. scoped resource records that are associated with that name.
Constraints: Specifies any restrictions on use of the name. Constraints: Specifies any restrictions on use of the name.
RR(s): Lists the RRs that are defined for use within this RR(s): Lists the RRs that are defined for use within this
scope. scope.
References Lists specifications that define the records and their References Lists specifications that define the records and their
use under this Name. use under this Name.
Purpose: Specifies the particular purpose/use for specific Purpose: Specifies the particular purpose/use for specific
RR(s), defined for use within the scope of the registered "RR"(s), defined for use within the scope of the registered
underscore name. underscore name.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
Per [RFC2434], IANA is requested to establish a DNS Underscore Name Per [RFC5226], IANA is requested to establish a DNS Global Underscore
Registry, for DNS node names that begin with the underscore character Scoped Entry Registry, for DNS node names that begin with the
(_) and have been specified in any published RFC, or are documented underscore character (_) and have been specified in any published
by a specification published by another standards organization. The RFC, or are documented by a specification published by another
contents of each entry are defined in Section 4. standards organization. The contents of each entry are defined in
Section 4.
Initial entriess in the registry are: Initial entries in the registry are:
{ Enhancement of this table to include all underscore name { Enhancement of this table to include all underscore name
reservations in effect at the time this document is published is reservations in effect at the time this document is published is
left as an exercise to the readers... /d } left as an exercise to the readers... /d }
+------------+--------------+-------+-----------+-------------------+ +------------+--------------+-------+-----------+-------------------+
| NAME | LABEL | RR | REFERENCE | PURPOSE | | NAME | LABEL | RR | REFERENCE | PURPOSE |
+------------+--------------+-------+-----------+-------------------+ +------------+--------------+-------+-----------+-------------------+
| SRV | _srv | SRV | [RFC2782] | SRV template -- | | "SRV" | _srv | "SRV" | [RFC2782] | "SRV" template -- |
| | | | | pro forma entry, | | | | | | pro forma entry, |
| | | | | not directly | | | | | | not directly |
| | | | | usable | | | | | | usable |
| SRV TCP | _tcp | SRV | [RFC2782] | Use of SRV for a | | "SRV" TCP | _tcp | "SRV" | [RFC2782] | Use of "SRV" for |
| | | | | TCP service | | | | | | a TCP-based |
| SRV UDP | _udp | SRV | [RFC2782] | Use of SRV for a | | | | | | service |
| | | | | UDB service | | "SRV" UDP | _udp | "SRV" | [RFC2782] | Use of "SRV" for |
| LDAP | _ldap | SRV | [RFC2782] | LDAP server | | | | | | a UDP-based |
| | | | | service |
| LDAP | _ldap | "SRV" | [RFC2782] | LDAP server |
| SIP | _sip | NAPTR | [RFC3263] | Locating SIP | | SIP | _sip | NAPTR | [RFC3263] | Locating SIP |
| | | | [RFC6011] | Servers and UA | | | | | [RFC6011] | Servers and UA |
| | | | | configuration | | | | | | configuration |
| SPF | _spf | TXT | [RFC4408] | Authorized IP | | SPF | _spf | "TXT" | [RFC7372] | Authorized IP |
| | | | | addresses for | | | | | | addresses for |
| | | | | sending mail | | | | | | sending mail |
| DKIM | _domainkey | TXT | [RFC4871] | Public key for | | DKIM | _domainkey | "TXT" | [RFC6376] | Public key for |
| | | | | verifying DKIM | | | | | | verifying DKIM |
| | | | | signature. | | | | | | signature. |
| PKI LDAP | _PKIXREP | SRV | [RFC4386] | PKI Repository | | PKI LDAP | _PKIXREP | "SRV" | [RFC4386] | PKI Repository |
| VBR | _vouch | TXT | [RFC5518] | Vouch-by- | | VBR | _vouch | "TXT" | [RFC5518] | Vouch-by- |
| | | | | refererence | | | | | | refererence |
| | | | | domain assertion | | | | | | domain assertion |
| DDDS | --???!-- | SRV | [RFC3404] | Mapping DDDS | | DDDS | --???!-- | "SRV" | [RFC3404] | Mapping DDDS |
| | | | | query to DNS | | | | | | query to DNS |
| | | | | records | | | | | | records |
| SOAP BEEP | _soap-beep | SRV | [RFC4227] | SOAP over BEEP | | SOAP BEEP | _soap-beep | "SRV" | [RFC4227] | SOAP over BEEP |
| | | | | lookup, when no | | | | | | lookup, when no |
| | | | | port specified | | | | | | port specified |
| XMLRPC | _xmlrpc-beep | SRV | [RFC3529] | Resolve url for | | XMLRPC | _xmlrpc-beep | "SRV" | [RFC3529] | Resolve url for |
| BEEP | | | | XML-RPC using | | BEEP | | | | XML-RPC using |
| | | | | BEEP | | | | | | BEEP |
| Diameter | _diameter | SRV | [RFC3588] | Diameter | | Diameter | _diameter | "SRV" | [RFC6733] | Diameter |
| | | | | rendezvous | | | | | | rendezvous |
| Tunnel | _tunnel | SRV | [RFC3620] | Finding the | | Tunnel | _tunnel | "SRV" | [RFC3620] | Finding the |
| | | | | appropriate | | | | | | appropriate |
| | | | | address for | | | | | | address for |
| | | | | tunneling into a | | | | | | tunneling into a |
| | | | | particular domain | | | | | | particular domain |
| SLP | _slpda | SRV | [RFC3832] | Discovering | | SLP | _slpda | "SRV" | [RFC3832] | Discovering |
| | | | | desired services | | | | | | desired services |
| | | | | in given DNS | | | | | | in given DNS |
| | | | | domains | | | | | | domains |
| IM | _im | SRV | [RFC3861] | Instant Messaging | | Msg Track | _mtqp | "SRV" | [RFC3887] | Assist in |
| | | | | address |
| | | | | resolution |
| Pres | _pres | SRV | [RFC3861] | Presence address |
| | | | | resolution |
| Msg Track | _mtqp | SRV | [RFC3887] | Assist in |
| | | | | determining the | | | | | | determining the |
| | | | | path that a | | | | | | path that a |
| | | | | particular | | | | | | particular |
| | | | | message has taken | | | | | | message has taken |
| | | | | through a | | | | | | through a |
| | | | | messaging system | | | | | | messaging system |
| XMPP | _xmpp-client | SRV | [RFC6120] | XMPP client | | XMPP | _xmpp-client | "SRV" | [RFC6120] | XMPP client |
| Client | | | | lookup of server | | Client | | | | lookup of server |
| XMPP | _xmpp-server | SRV | [RFC6120] | XMPP server- | | XMPP | _xmpp-server | "SRV" | [RFC6120] | XMPP server- |
| Server | | | | server lookup | | Server | | | | server lookup |
| DDDS SRV | _??? | SRV | [RFC3958] | Map domain name, | | DDDS "SRV" | _??? | "SRV" | [RFC3958] | Map domain name, |
| | | (and | | application | | | | (and | | application |
| | | NAPTR | | service name, and | | | | NAPTR | | service name, and |
| | | ?) | | application | | | | ?) | | application |
| | | | | protocol | | | | | | protocol |
| | | | | dynamically to | | | | | | dynamically to |
| | | | | target server and | | | | | | target server and |
| | | | | port | | | | | | port |
| Kerberos | _kerberos | SRV | [RFC4120] | purpose | | Kerberos | _kerberos | "SRV" | [RFC4120] | purpose |
| PKI | _pkixrep | SRV | [RFC4386] | Enables | | PKI | _pkixrep | "SRV" | [RFC4386] | Enables |
| | | | | certificate-using | | | | | | certificate-using |
| | | | | systems to locate | | | | | | systems to locate |
| | | | | PKI repositories | | | | | | PKI repositories |
| Certificat | _certificate | SRV | [RFC4387] | Obtain | | Certificat | _certificate | "SRV" | [RFC4387] | Obtain |
| es | s | | | certificates and | | es | s | | | certificates and |
| | | | | certificate | | | | | | certificate |
| | | | | revocation lists | | | | | | revocation lists |
| | | | | (CRLs) from PKI | | | | | | (CRLs) from PKI |
| | | | | repositories | | | | | | repositories |
| PGP Key | pgpkeys | SRV | [RFC4387] | Obtain | | PGP Key | _pgpkeys | "SRV" | [RFC4387] | Obtain |
| Store | | | | certificates and | | Store | | | | certificates and |
| | | | | certificate | | | | | | certificate |
| | | | | revocation lists | | | | | | revocation lists |
| | | | | (CRLs) from PKI | | | | | | (CRLs) from PKI |
| | | | | repositories | | | | | | repositories |
| MSRP Relay | _msrp | SRV | [RFC4976] | purpose | | MSRP Relay | _msrp | "SRV" | [RFC4976] | purpose |
| Locator | | | | | | Locator | | | | |
| Mobile | _mip6 | SRV | [RFC5026] | Bootstrap Mobile | | Mobile | _mip6 | "SRV" | [RFC5026] | Bootstrap Mobile |
| IPv6 | | | [RFC5555] | IPv6 Home Agent | | IPv6 | | | [RFC5555] | IPv6 Home Agent |
| Bootstrap | | | | information from | | Bootstrap | | | | information from |
| | | | | non-topological | | | | | | non-topological |
| | | | | information | | | | | | information |
| Digital | _dvbservdsc | SRV | [RFC5328] | Discover non- | | Digital | _dvbservdsc | "SRV" | [RFC5328] | Discover non- |
| Video Broa | | | | default DVB entry | | Video Broa | | | | default DVB entry |
| dcasting | | | | points addresses | | dcasting | | | | points addresses |
| CAPWAP AC | _capwap- | rrs | [RFC5415] | Discover the | | CAPWAP AC | _capwap- | rrs | [RFC5415] | Discover the |
| | control | | | CAPWAP AC | | | control | | | CAPWAP AC |
| | | | | address(es) | | | | | | address(es) |
| IM | _im | SRV | [RFC5509] | For resolving |
| | | | | Instant Messaging |
| | | | | and Presence |
| | | | | services with SIP |
| Presence | _pres | SRV | [RFC5509] | For resolving |
| | | | | Instant Messaging |
| | | | | and Presence |
| | | | | services with SIP |
| IEEE | _mihis | NAPTR | [RFC5679] | Discovering | | IEEE | _mihis | NAPTR | [RFC5679] | Discovering |
| 802.21 | | , SRV | | servers that | | 802.21 | | , | | servers that |
| Mobility | | | | provide IEEE | | Mobility | | "SRV" | | provide IEEE |
| | | | | 802.21-defined | | | | | | 802.21-defined |
| | | | | Mobility Services | | | | | | Mobility Services |
| STUN Clien | _stun | SRV | [RFC5389] | Find a STUN | | STUN Clien | _stun | "SRV" | [RFC5389] | Find a STUN |
| t/Server | | | | server | | t/Server | | | | server |
| TURN | _turn | SRV | [RFC5766] | Control the | | TURN | _turn | "SRV" | [RFC5766] | Control the |
| | | | [RFC5928] | operation of a | | | | | [RFC5928] | operation of a |
| | | | | relay to bypass | | | | | | relay to bypass |
| | | | | NAT | | | | | | NAT |
| STUN NAT | _stun- | SRV | [RFC5780] | Discover the | | STUN NAT | _stun- | "SRV" | [RFC5780] | Discover the |
| Behavior | behavior | | | presence and | | Behavior | behavior | | | presence and |
| Discovery | | | | current behavior | | Discovery | | | | current behavior |
| | | | | of NATs and | | | | | | of NATs and |
| | | | | firewalls between | | | | | | firewalls between |
| | | | | the STUN client | | | | | | the STUN client |
| | | | | and the STUN | | | | | | and the STUN |
| | | | | server | | | | | | server |
| Sieve | _sieve | SRV | [RFC5804] | Manage Sieve | | Sieve | _sieve | "SRV" | [RFC5804] | Manage Sieve |
| Management | | | | scripts on a | | Management | | | | scripts on a |
| | | | | remote server | | | | | | remote server |
| AFS VLDB | _afs3-vlserv | SRV | [RFC5864] | Locate services | | AFS VLDB | _afs3-vlserv | "SRV" | [RFC5864] | Locate services |
| | er | | | for the AFS | | | er | | | for the AFS |
| | | | | distributed file | | | | | | distributed file |
| | | | | system | | | | | | system |
| AFS PTS | _afs3-prserv | SRV | [RFC5864] | Locate services | | AFS PTS | _afs3-prserv | "SRV" | [RFC5864] | Locate services |
| | er | | | for the AFS | | | er | | | for the AFS |
| | | | | distributed file | | | | | | distributed file |
| | | | | system | | | | | | system |
| Mail MSA | _submission | SRV | [RFC6186] | Locate email | | Mail MSA | _submission | "SRV" | [RFC6186] | Locate email |
| Submission | | | | services | | Submission | | | | services |
| IMAP | _imap | SRV | [RFC6186] | Locate email | | IMAP | _imap | "SRV" | [RFC6186] | Locate email |
| | | | | services | | | | | | services |
| POP | _pop3 | SRV | [RFC6186] | Locate email | | POP | _pop3 | "SRV" | [RFC6186] | Locate email |
| | | | | services | | | | | | services |
| POP TLS | _pop3s | SRV | [RFC6186] | Locate email | | POP TLS | _pop3s | "SRV" | [RFC6186] | Locate email |
| | | | | services | | | | | | services |
+------------+--------------+-------+-----------+-------------------+ +------------+--------------+-------+-----------+-------------------+
Table 1: DNS Underscore SCOPE Name Registry (with initial values)
Table 1: DNS Global Underscore Scoped Entry Registry (with initial
values)
6. Related and Updated Registries 6. Related and Updated Registries
This section needs to contained details specification of the This section needs to contained details specification of the
updates to existing underscore "registries", in order to have updates to existing underscore "registries", in order to have
those specifcations point to this new registry. those specifications point to this new registry.
Numerous specifications have defined their own, independent Numerous specifications have defined their own, independent
registries for use of underscore names. It is likely that adoption registries for use of underscore names. It is likely that adoption
of the proposed, integrated registry should render these piecemeal of the proposed, integrated registry should render these piecemeal
registries obsolete registries obsolete
Registries that are candidates for replacement include: Registries that are candidates for replacement include:
Instant Messaging SRV Protocol Label Registry Instant Messaging "SRV" Protocol Label Registry
Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) Parameters Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) Parameters
Presence SRV Protocol Label Registry Presence "SRV" Protocol Label Registry
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This memo raises no security issues. This memo raises no security issues.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008.
1998.
8.2. References -- Informative 8.2. References -- Informative
[RFC0974] Partridge, C., "Mail routing and the domain system", [RFC0974] Partridge, C., "Mail routing and the domain system",
RFC 974, January 1986. RFC 974, January 1986.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782, specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
February 2000. February 2000.
[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.
[RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation [RFC3263] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June Protocol (SIP): Locating SIP Servers", RFC 3263, June
2002. 2002.
[RFC3404] MMealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) [RFC3404] MMealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)
Resolution Application", RFC 3404, October 2002. Resolution Application", RFC 3404, October 2002.
[RFC3529] Harold, W., "Using Extensible Markup Language-Remote [RFC3529] Harold, W., "Using Extensible Markup Language-Remote
Procedure Calling (XML-RPC) in Blocks Extensible Exchange Procedure Calling (XML-RPC) in Blocks Extensible Exchange
Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 3529, April 2003. Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 3529, April 2003.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", September 2003.
[RFC3620] New, D., "The TUNNEL Profile", RFC 3620, October 2003. [RFC3620] New, D., "The TUNNEL Profile", RFC 3620, October 2003.
[RFC3832] Columbia University, Columbia University, Sun [RFC3832] Columbia University, Columbia University, Sun
Microsystems, IBM, and IBM, "Remote Service Discovery in Microsystems, IBM, and IBM, "Remote Service Discovery in
the Service Location Protocol (SLP) via DNS SRV", July the Service Location Protocol (SLP) via DNS SRV",
2004. RFC 3832, July 2004.
[RFC3861] Peterson, J., "Address Resolution for Instant Messaging
and Presence", RFC 3861, August 2004.
[RFC3887] "Message Tracking Query Protocol", September 2007. [RFC3887] "Message Tracking Query Protocol", RFC 3887, September
2007.
[RFC3958] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application [RFC3958] Daigle, L. and A. Newton, "Domain-Based Application
Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation
Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005. Discovery Service (DDDS)", RFC 3958, January 2005.
[RFC4120] USC-ISI, MIT, MIT, and MIT, "The Kerberos Network [RFC4120] USC-ISI, MIT, MIT, and MIT, "The Kerberos Network
Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120, July 2005. Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120, July 2005.
[RFC4227] O'Tuathail, E. and M. Rose, "Using the Simple Object [RFC4227] O'Tuathail, E. and M. Rose, "Using the Simple Object
Access Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange Access Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange
Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 4227, January 2006. Protocol (BEEP)", RFC 4227, January 2006.
[RFC4386] Boeyen, S. and P. Hallam-Baker, "Internet X.509 Public Key [RFC4386] Boeyen, S. and P. Hallam-Baker, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure: Repository Locator Service", February Infrastructure: Repository Locator Service", RFC 4386,
2006. February 2006.
[RFC4387] Gutmann, P., Ed., "Internet X.509 Public Key [RFC4387] Gutmann, P., Ed., "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Operational Protocols: Certificate Store Infrastructure Operational Protocols: Certificate Store
Access via HTTP", RFC 4387, February 2006. Access via HTTP", RFC 4387, February 2006.
[RFC4408] Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF)
for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1",
RFC 4408, April 2006.
[RFC4871] Allman, E., Callas, J., Delany, M., Libbey, M., Fenton,
J., and M. Thomas, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)
Signatures", RFC 4871, May 2007.
[RFC4976] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and Roach, "Relay Extensions for [RFC4976] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and Roach, "Relay Extensions for
the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4976, the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4976,
September 2007. September 2007.
[RFC5026] Giaretta, G., Ed., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, Ed., [RFC5026] Giaretta, G., Ed., Kempf, J., and V. Devarapalli, Ed.,
"Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026, "Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario", RFC 5026,
October 2007. October 2007.
[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
Oct 2008.
[RFC5328] Adolf, A. and P. MacAvock, "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) [RFC5328] Adolf, A. and P. MacAvock, "A Uniform Resource Name (URN)
Namespace for the Digital Video Broadcasting Project Namespace for the Digital Video Broadcasting Project
(DVB)", RFC 5328, September 2008. (DVB)", RFC 5328, September 2008.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, , Mahy, , Matthews, , and Wing, "Session [RFC5389] Rosenberg, , Mahy, , Matthews, , and Wing, "Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, October Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, October
2008. 2008.
[RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley, [RFC5415] Calhoun, P., Ed., Montemurro, M., Ed., and D. Stanley,
Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points Ed., "Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
(CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009. (CAPWAP) Protocol Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009.
[RFC5507] Faltstrom, P., Ed. and R. Austein, Ed., , RFC 5507, April [RFC5507] Faltstrom, P., Ed. and R. Austein, Ed., "Design Choices
2009. When Expanding the DNS", RFC 5507, April 2009.
[RFC5509] Loreto, S., "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Registration of Instant Messaging and Presence DNS SRV RRs
for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5509,
April 2009.
[RFC5518] Hoffman, P., Levine, J., and A. Hathcock, "Vouch By [RFC5518] Hoffman, P., Levine, J., and A. Hathcock, "Vouch By
Reference", RFC5 5518, April 2009. Reference", RFC 5518, April 2009.
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack [RFC5555] Soliman, H., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack
Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009. Hosts and Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009.
[RFC5679] Bajko, G., "Locating IEEE 802.21 Mobility Services Using [RFC5679] Bajko, G., "Locating IEEE 802.21 Mobility Services Using
DNS", RFC 5679, December 2009. DNS", RFC 5679, December 2009.
[RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using [RFC5766] Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010. Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010.
skipping to change at page 12, line 28 skipping to change at page 12, line 15
[RFC6011] Lawrence, S., Ed. and J. Elwell, "Session Initiation [RFC6011] Lawrence, S., Ed. and J. Elwell, "Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration", RFC 6011, Protocol (SIP) User Agent Configuration", RFC 6011,
October 2010. October 2010.
[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence [RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011. Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.
[RFC6186] Daboo, C., "Use of SRV Records for Locating Email [RFC6186] Daboo, C., "Use of SRV Records for Locating Email
Submission/Access Services", RFC 6186, March 2011. Submission/Access Services", RFC 6186, March 2011.
[RFC6376] Crocker, D., Hansen, T., and M. Kucherawy, "DomainKeys
Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", RFC 6376, Sept 2011.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.
[RFC7372] Kitterman, S., "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for
Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1",
RFC 7372, April 2014.
[RFC7553] Falstrom, P. and O. Kolkman, "The Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record", RFC RFC7553,
ISSN 2070-1721, June 2015.
8.3. URIs 8.3. URIs
[1] mailto:we-need-a-list [1] mailto:dnsop@ietf.org
Appendix A. Acknowledgements Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Thanks go to Bill Fenner, Tony Hansen, Peter Koch, Olaf Kolkman, and Thanks go to Bill Fenner, Tony Hansen, Peter Koch, Olaf Kolkman, and
Andrew Sullivan for diligent review of the earlier drafts. Special Andrew Sullivan for diligent review of the (much) earlier drafts.
thanks to Ray Bellis for nearly 10 years of persistent encouragement For the later enhancements, thanks to: Tim Wicinski, John Levine, Bob
to pursue this document. Harold, Joel Jaeggli, Ond&#345;ej Sury and Paul Wouters. Special
thanks to Ray Bellis for more than 10 years of persistent
encouragement to continue this effort, as well as the suggestion for
an essential simplification to the registration model.
Author's Address Author's Address
Dave Crocker Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking Brandenburg InternetWorking
675 Spruce Dr. 675 Spruce Dr.
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Sunnyvale, CA 94086
USA USA
Phone: +1.408.246.8253 Phone: +1.408.246.8253
Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net
URI: http://bbiw.net/ URI: http://bbiw.net/
 End of changes. 80 change blocks. 
178 lines changed or deleted 178 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/