[Note that this file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]
Network Working Group M. Mealling
Request for Comments: 3405 VeriSign
BCP: 65 October 2002
Category: Best Current Practice
Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Five: URI.ARPA
Assignment Procedures
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document is fifth in a series that is completely specified in
"Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The
Comprehensive DDDS" (RFC 3401). 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
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 . . . . 3
3.1.4 Registration or Changes after Scheme Registration . . . . . 3
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Submission Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1 Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2 Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3 Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Example Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Mealling Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 3405 DDDS URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures October 2002
8. The URN Registration in the URI.ARPA zone . . . . . . . . . 7
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
13. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
14. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
This document defines the policies and procedures for inserting
Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) records into the 'URI.ARPA' and
'URN.ARPA' zones for the purpose of resolving Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URIs) according to "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System
(DDDS) Part Four: The URI Resolution Application" (RFC 3402) [2],
which is an Application that uses the Domain Name System (DNS) based
DDDS Database. All of these concepts are defined in RFC 3401 [1].
It is very important to note that it is impossible to correctly
understand this document without reading RFC 3401 and the documents
it specifies.
RFC 3403 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.
2. URI Resolution vs URN Resolution
RFC 3402 [2] defines how both URI [7] resolution and URN [6]
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 [6] 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 [4].
Mealling Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 3405 DDDS URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures October 2002
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)
[10]. URN namespace ids follow "URN Namespace Definition Mechanisms"
(RFC 2611) (or updates thereto) [9].
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 [10].
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 [10]. 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 [10]), 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.
Mealling Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 3405 DDDS URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures October 2002
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 [9]. 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 [9]), 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 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.
Mealling Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 3405 DDDS URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures October 2002
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' URI scheme adheres to a particular syntax that
specifies that the host to ask is specified in the URI 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 URI 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 [8] 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
'
[email protected]'.
Mealling Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 3405 DDDS URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures October 2002
o Registrations for the 'URN.ARPA' zone are sent to
'
[email protected]'.
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 URI 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 URI 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 URI 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 URI 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 [9] or URI
scheme registration [10] 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 RFC 3404 [4].
7. Example Template
To:
[email protected]
From:
[email protected]
Key: foo
Authority: Foo Technology, Inc as specified in RFCFOO
Record: foo IN NAPTR 100 100 "" "" "" urn.foo.com.
Mealling Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 3405 DDDS URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures October 2002
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:
[email protected]
From: The IETF URN Working Group
Key: urn
Authority: RFC2141
Record: urn IN NAPTR 0 0 "" "" "/^urn:([^:]+)/\\2/i" .
9. IANA Considerations
The IANA has created 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 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.
The IANA has also created two discussion lists,
[email protected] and
[email protected], for the purposes described in this document. The
IANA will 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.
Mealling Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 3405 DDDS URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures October 2002
12. References
[1] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, October 2002.
[2] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Two: The Algorithm", RFC 3402, October 2002.
[3] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) Database", RFC 3403,
October 2002.
[4] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI) Resolution
Application", RFC 3404, October 2002.
[5] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part
Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures", RFC 3405, October 2002.
[6] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, November 1998.
[7] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August
1998.
[8] Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", BCP
13, RFC 2048, November 1996.
[9] Faltstrom, P., Iannella, R., Daigle, L. and D. van Gulik, "URN
Namespace Definition Mechanisms", BCP 33, RFC 2611, October
1998.
[10] Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme
Names", BCP 35, RFC 2717, January 1999.
Mealling Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 3405 DDDS URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures October 2002
13. Author's Address
Michael Mealling
VeriSign
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Sterling, VA 20166
US
EMail:
[email protected]
URI:
http://www.verisignlabs.com
Mealling Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 3405 DDDS URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures October 2002
14. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (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.
Mealling Best Current Practice [Page 10]
=========================================================================
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Hardie
Request for Comments: 8958 December 2020
BCP: 65
Updates: 3405
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
Updated Registration Rules for URI.ARPA
Abstract
This document updates RFC 3405 by removing references to the IETF
tree from the procedures for requesting that a URI scheme be inserted
into the URI.ARPA zone.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8958.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language
2. Updated Requirements
3. IANA Considerations
4. Security Considerations
5. References
5.1. Normative References
5.2. Informative References
Author's Address
1. Introduction
Part Five of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) [RFC3405]
describes the registration procedures for assignments in URI.ARPA.
The document requires that registrations be in the "IETF tree" of URI
registrations. The use of URI scheme name trees was defined in RFC
2717 [RFC2717] but discontinued by RFC 4395 [RFC4395] and its
successors. Since the use of trees was discontinued, there is no way
in the current process set out in BCP 35 [RFC7595] to meet the
requirement to register within that tree.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Updated Requirements
This document removes the normative requirement from RFC 3405
[RFC3405] for registrations in URI.ARPA to be from the IETF URI tree.
All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST now be for schemes that are
permanent registrations, as described in BCP 35.
3. IANA Considerations
This entire document is updated instructions to IANA.
4. Security Considerations
This update does not change the security considerations in RFC 3405
[RFC3405].
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3405] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures", BCP 65,
RFC 3405, DOI 10.17487/RFC3405, October 2002,
<
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3405>.
[RFC7595] Thaler, D., Ed., Hansen, T., and T. Hardie, "Guidelines
and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", BCP 35,
RFC 7595, DOI 10.17487/RFC7595, June 2015,
<
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC2717] Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL
Scheme Names", RFC 2717, DOI 10.17487/RFC2717, November
1999, <
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2717>.
[RFC4395] Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", RFC 4395,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4395, February 2006,
<
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4395>.
Author's Address
Ted Hardie
Email:
[email protected]
