rfc9476.original   rfc9476.txt 
dnsop W. Kumari Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) W. Kumari
Internet-Draft Google Request for Comments: 9476 Google
Intended status: Standards Track P. Hoffman Category: Standards Track P. Hoffman
Expires: 5 November 2023 ICANN ISSN: 2070-1721 ICANN
4 May 2023 September 2023
The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain The .alt Special-Use Top-Level Domain
draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-25
Abstract Abstract
This document reserves a TLD label, "alt" to be used in non-DNS This document reserves a Top-Level Domain (TLD) label "alt" to be
contexts. It also provides advice and guidance to developers used in non-DNS contexts. It also provides advice and guidance to
developing alternative namespaces. developers creating alternative namespaces.
[ This document is being collaborated on in Github at
<https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld>. The most
recent version of the document, open issues, etc should all be
available here. The authors (gratefully) accept pull requests. ]
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 November 2023. 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/rfc9476.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology
1.2. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Requirements Terminology
2. The alt Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The .alt Namespace
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. IANA Considerations
3.1. Special-Use Domain Name Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Special-Use Domain Name Registry
3.2. Domain Name Reservation Considerations . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Domain Name Reservation Considerations
4. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Privacy Considerations
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. References
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Normative References
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Informative References
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Acknowledgements
Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Many Internet protocols need to name entities. Names that look like Many Internet protocols need to name entities. Names that look like
DNS names (a series of labels separated with dots) have become DNS names (a series of labels separated with dots) have become
common, even in systems that are not part of the global DNS common, even in systems that are not part of the global DNS
administered by IANA. This document reserves the top-level label administered by IANA. This document reserves the top-level label
"alt" (short for "alternative") as a special-use domain name "alt" (short for "alternative") as a special-use domain name
([RFC6761]). This top-level label can be used as the final [RFC6761]. This top-level label can be used as the final (rightmost)
(rightmost) label to signify that the name is not rooted in the label to signify that the name is not rooted in the global DNS and
global DNS, and that it should not be resolved using the DNS that it should not be resolved using the DNS protocol.
protocol.
In Section 3.1, the IANA is requested to add the .alt name to the
"Special-Use Domain Name" registry. IANA sets aside names in that
registry, as described in https://www.iana.org/domains/reserved.
Throughout the rest of this document, the top-level "alt" label is Throughout the rest of this document, the top-level "alt" label is
shown as ".alt" to match the common presentation form of DNS names. shown as ".alt" to match the common presentation form of DNS names.
As detailed in Section 3.1, IANA has added the .alt name to the
"Special-Use Domain Name" registry. IANA sets aside names in that
registry, as described in <https://www.iana.org/domains/reserved>.
The techniques in this document are primarily intended to address The techniques in this document are primarily intended to address
some of the issues discussed in [RFC8244], which contains additional some of the issues discussed in [RFC8244], which contains additional
background on the issues with special use domain names. background on the issues with special-use domain names.
In this document, ".alt" was chosen for the special-use domain name In this document, ".alt" was chosen for the special-use domain name
instead of something like "alt.arpa" so that systems that use the instead of something like "alt.arpa" so that systems that use the
name do not have to worry that a parent of their name would be name do not have to worry that a parent of their name would be
resolved if the name leaked to the Internet. Historically, some resolved if the name leaked to the Internet. Historically, some
systems that want to use non-DNS names wanted the entire name to be systems that want to use non-DNS names wanted the entire name to be
not in the DNS, and reserving ".alt" fulfills that use case. not in the DNS, and reserving ".alt" fulfills that use case.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
This document assumes familiarity with DNS terms; please see This document assumes familiarity with DNS terms; please see
[RFC8499]. Terminology that is specific to this document is: [RFC8499]. Terminology that is specific to this document is:
* DNS name: Domain names that are intended to be used with DNS DNS name: Domain names that are intended to be used with DNS
resolution, either in the global DNS or in some other context. resolution, either in the global DNS or in some other context.
* DNS context: The namespace anchored at the globally-unique DNS DNS context: The namespace anchored at the globally unique DNS root
root, administered by IANA. This is the namespace or context that and administered by IANA. This is the namespace or context that
"normal" DNS uses. "normal" DNS uses.
* non-DNS context: Any other (alternative) namespace. non-DNS context: Any other (alternative) namespace.
* pseudo-TLD: A label that appears in a fully-qualified domain name pseudo-TLD: A label that appears in a fully qualified domain name in
in the position of a TLD, but which is not part of the global DNS. the position of a TLD, which is not part of the global DNS. This
This term is not intended to be pejorative. term is not intended to be pejorative.
* TLD: See the definition in Section 2 of [RFC8499]. TLD: See the definition in Section 2 of [RFC8499].
1.2. Requirements Terminology 1.2. Requirements Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. The alt Namespace 2. The .alt Namespace
This document reserves the .alt label for use as an unmanaged pseudo- This document reserves the .alt label for use as an unmanaged pseudo-
TLD namespace. The .alt label can be used in any domain name as a TLD namespace. The .alt label can be used in any domain name as a
pseudo-TLD to signify that this is an alternative (non-DNS) pseudo-TLD to signify that this is an alternative (non-DNS) namespace
namespace, and should not be looked up in a DNS context. and should not be looked up in a DNS context.
This document uses ".alt" for the pseudo-TLD in the presentation This document uses ".alt" for the pseudo-TLD in the presentation
format for the DNS, corresponding to a 0x03616c7400 suffix in DNS format for the DNS, corresponding to a 0x03616c7400 suffix in DNS
wire format. The on-the-wire formats for non-DNS protocols might be wire format. The on-the-wire formats for non-DNS protocols might be
different. different.
Because names beneath .alt are in an alternative namespace, they have Because names beneath .alt are in an alternative namespace, they have
no significance in the regular DNS context. DNS stub and recursive no significance in the regular DNS context. DNS stub and recursive
resolvers do not need to look them up in the DNS context. resolvers do not need to look them up in the DNS context.
skipping to change at page 4, line 24 skipping to change at line 154
protocol will handle the name. To maximize compatibility with protocol will handle the name. To maximize compatibility with
existing applications, it is suggested, but not required, that non- existing applications, it is suggested, but not required, that non-
DNS protocols using names that end in .alt follow DNS name syntax. DNS protocols using names that end in .alt follow DNS name syntax.
If the non-DNS protocol has a wire format like the DNS wire format, If the non-DNS protocol has a wire format like the DNS wire format,
it might append the null label at the end of the name, but it also it might append the null label at the end of the name, but it also
might not. This document does not make any suggestion for how non- might not. This document does not make any suggestion for how non-
DNS protocols deal with the wire format of their names. DNS protocols deal with the wire format of their names.
Groups wishing to create new alternative namespaces may create their Groups wishing to create new alternative namespaces may create their
alternative namespace under a label that names their namespace under alternative namespace under a label that names their namespace under
the .alt pseudo-TLD. This document defines neither a registry nor the .alt pseudo-TLD. This document defines neither a registry nor a
governance model for the .alt namespace, as it is not managed by the governance model for the .alt namespace, as it is not managed by the
IETF or IANA. There is no guarantee of unambiguous mappings from IETF or IANA. There is no guarantee of unambiguous mappings from
names to name resolution mechanisms. Mitigation or resolution of names to name resolution mechanisms. Mitigation or resolution of
collisions that occur under .alt are outside the scope of this collisions that occur under .alt are outside the scope of this
document and outside the IETF's remit. Users are advised to consider document and outside the IETF's remit. Users are advised to consider
the associated risks when using names under .alt. the associated risks when using names under .alt.
Regardless of the expectations above, names in the .alt pseudo-TLD Regardless of the expectations above, names in the .alt pseudo-TLD
will leak outside the context in which they are valid. Decades of will leak outside the context in which they are valid. Decades of
experience show that such names will appear at recursive resolvers, experience show that such names will appear at recursive resolvers
and will thus also appear at the root servers for the global DNS. and will thus also appear at the root servers for the global DNS.
Sending traffic to the root servers that is known to always elicit an Sending traffic to the root servers that is known to always elicit an
NXDOMAIN response, such as queries for names ending in .alt, wastes NXDOMAIN response, such as queries for names ending in .alt, wastes
resources on both the resolver and the root server. Caching resources on both the resolver and the root server. Caching
resolvers performing aggressive use of DNSSEC-validated caches resolvers performing aggressive use of DNSSEC-validated caches
(described in [RFC8198]) may mitigate this by synthesizing negative (described in [RFC8198]) may mitigate this by synthesizing negative
answers from cached NSEC records for names under .alt. Similarly, answers from cached NSEC records for names under .alt. Similarly,
caching resolvers using QNAME minimisation (described in [RFC9156]) caching resolvers using QNAME minimization (described in [RFC9156])
will cause less of this traffic to the root servers because the will cause less of this traffic to the root servers because the
negative responses will cover all names under .alt. negative responses will cover all names under .alt.
Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs Currently deployed projects and protocols that are using pseudo-TLDs
are recommended to move under the .alt pseudo-TLD, but this is not a are recommended to move under the .alt pseudo-TLD, but this is not a
requirement. Rather, the .alt pseudo-TLD is being reserved so that requirement. Rather, the .alt pseudo-TLD is being reserved so that
current and future projects of a similar nature have a designated current and future projects of a similar nature have a designated
place to create alternative resolution namespaces that will not place to create alternative resolution namespaces that will not
conflict with the regular DNS context. conflict with the regular DNS context.
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
3.1. Special-Use Domain Name Registry 3.1. Special-Use Domain Name Registry
The IANA is requested to add the .alt name to the "Special-Use Domain The IANA has added the .alt name to the "Special-Use Domain Name"
Name" registry ([RFC6761]), and reference this document. registry [RFC6761] with a reference to this RFC.
3.2. Domain Name Reservation Considerations 3.2. Domain Name Reservation Considerations
This section exists to meet the requirements of [RFC6761]. The This section exists to meet the requirements of [RFC6761]. The
questions posed in RFC 6761 were largely written assuming a DNS questions posed in [RFC6761] were largely written assuming a DNS
resolution system, and so some of the questions are not especially resolution system, and so some of the questions are not especially
relevant or well suited. relevant or well suited.
1. Users might or might not recognize that names in the .alt pseudo- 1. Users might or might not recognize that names in the .alt pseudo-
TLD as special. TLD as special.
2. Application software that uses alternative namespaces in the .alt 2. Application software that uses alternative namespaces in the .alt
pseudo-TLD are expected to have their own processing rules for their pseudo-TLD are expected to have their own processing rules for
own names, probably in specialized resolver APIs, libraries, and/or their own names, probably in specialized resolver APIs,
application software. Application software that is not specifically libraries, and/or application software. Application software
designed to use names in the .alt pseudo-TLD are not expected to make that is not specifically designed to use names in the .alt
their software recognize these names as special. pseudo-TLD are not expected to make their software recognize
these names as special.
3. Developers of name resolution APIs and libraries that are 3. Developers of name resolution APIs and libraries that are
specifically designed to implement resolution of an alternative name specifically designed to implement resolution of an alternative
resolution system are expected to recognize names in the .alt pseudo- name resolution system are expected to recognize names in the
TLD as special and thus perform resolution of those names. The exact .alt pseudo-TLD as special and thus perform resolution of those
mechanism used by the name resolution APIs and libraries will names. The exact mechanism used by the name resolution APIs and
obviously depend on the particular alternative resolution system. libraries will obviously depend on the particular alternative
Regular DNS resolution APIs and libraries are not expected to resolution system. Regular DNS resolution APIs and libraries are
recognize or treat names in the .alt pseudo-TLD differently. not expected to recognize or treat names in the .alt pseudo-TLD
differently.
4. Caching DNS servers SHOULD NOT recognize names in the .alt 4. Caching DNS servers SHOULD NOT recognize names in the .alt
pseudo-TLD as special and SHOULD NOT perform any special handling pseudo-TLD as special and SHOULD NOT perform any special handling
with them. with them.
5. Authoritative DNS servers SHOULD NOT recognize names in the .alt 5. Authoritative DNS servers SHOULD NOT recognize names in the .alt
pseudo-TLD as special and SHOULD NOT perform any special handling pseudo-TLD as special and SHOULD NOT perform any special handling
with them. with them.
6. DNS server operators will treat names in the .alt pseudo-TLD as 6. DNS server operators will treat names in the .alt pseudo-TLD as
they would names in any other TLD not in the global DNS. DNS server they would names in any other TLD not in the global DNS. DNS
operators may be aware that queries for names ending in .alt are not server operators may be aware that queries for names ending in
DNS names, and queries for those names were leaked into the DNS .alt are not DNS names and that queries for those names were
context. This information can be useful for support or debugging leaked into the DNS context. This information can be useful for
purposes. support or debugging purposes.
7. It is not possible for DNS registries/registrars to register DNS 7. It is not possible for DNS registries/registrars to register DNS
names in the .alt pseudo-TLD as the .alt will not exist in the global names in the .alt pseudo-TLD as the .alt will not exist in the
DNS root. global DNS root.
4. Privacy Considerations 4. Privacy Considerations
This document reserves .alt to be used to indicate that a name is not This document reserves .alt to be used to indicate that a name is not
a DNS name. Unfortunately, these queries will undoubtedly leak into a DNS name. Unfortunately, these queries will undoubtedly leak into
the global DNS. This is a general problem with alternative the global DNS. This is a general problem with alternative
namespaces and not confined to names ending in .alt. namespaces and not confined to names ending in .alt.
For example, a value such as "example.alt" could easily cause a For example, a value such as "example.alt" could easily cause a
privacy issue for any names in that namespace that are leaked to the privacy issue for any names in that namespace that are leaked to the
Internet. In addition, if a name ending in .alt is sufficiently Internet. In addition, if a name ending in .alt is sufficiently
unique, long-lasting, and frequently leaks into the global DNS, then unique, long-lasting, and frequently leaks into the global DNS, then
regardless of how the value is constructed, that value can act regardless of how the name is constructed, it can act similar to a
similar to a web cookie with all the associated downsides of web cookie with all the associated downsides of identification or re-
(re-)identification. identification.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
Because names in the .alt pseudo-TLD are explicitly outside of the Because names in the .alt pseudo-TLD are explicitly outside of the
DNS context, it is impossible to rely on any DNS-related security DNS context, it is impossible to rely on any DNS-related security
considerations. Care must be taken when mapping the pseudo-TLD into considerations. Care must be taken when mapping the pseudo-TLD into
its corresponding non-DNS name resolution system in order to get its corresponding non-DNS name resolution system in order to get
whatever security is offered by that system. whatever security is offered by that system.
6. Acknowledgements 6. References
We would like to thank Joe Abley, Mark Andrews, Erik Auerswald, Roy
Arends, Ray Bellis, Vittorio Bertola, Marc Blanchet, John Bond,
Stephane Bortzmeyer, David Cake, Vint Cerf, David Conrad, Steve
Crocker, Vladimir Cunat, Brian Dickson, Ralph Droms, Robert Edmonds,
Patrik Faltstrom, Bernd Fix, Christian Grothoff, Olafur Gudmundsson,
Ted Hardie, Bob Harold, Wes Hardaker, Geoff Huston, Joel Jaeggli,
John C Klensin, Eliot Lear, Barry Leiba, Ted Lemon, Edward Lewis,
John Levine, George Michaelson, Ed Pascoe, Libor Peltan, Jim Reid,
Martin Schanzenbach, Ben Schwartz, Arturo Servin, Peter Thomassen,
Paul Vixie, Duane Wessels, Paul Wouters, and Suzanne Woolf for
feedback.
This document was many years in the making, and we would like to
sincerely apologize for anyone who we forgot to credit.
We would also like to thank Rob Wilton for serving as Responsible AD
for this document.
In addition, Andrew Sullivan was an author from adoption (2015)
through version 14 (2021).
7. References
7.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names", [RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names",
RFC 6761, DOI 10.17487/RFC6761, February 2013, RFC 6761, DOI 10.17487/RFC6761, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6761>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6761>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8244] Lemon, T., Droms, R., and W. Kumari, "Special-Use Domain [RFC8244] Lemon, T., Droms, R., and W. Kumari, "Special-Use Domain
Names Problem Statement", RFC 8244, DOI 10.17487/RFC8244, Names Problem Statement", RFC 8244, DOI 10.17487/RFC8244,
October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8244>. October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8244>.
7.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[RFC8198] Fujiwara, K., Kato, A., and W. Kumari, "Aggressive Use of [RFC8198] Fujiwara, K., Kato, A., and W. Kumari, "Aggressive Use of
DNSSEC-Validated Cache", RFC 8198, DOI 10.17487/RFC8198, DNSSEC-Validated Cache", RFC 8198, DOI 10.17487/RFC8198,
July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8198>. July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8198>.
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS [RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>. January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
[RFC9156] Bortzmeyer, S., Dolmans, R., and P. Hoffman, "DNS Query [RFC9156] Bortzmeyer, S., Dolmans, R., and P. Hoffman, "DNS Query
Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy", RFC 9156, Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy", RFC 9156,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9156, November 2021, DOI 10.17487/RFC9156, November 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9156>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9156>.
Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. Acknowledgements
[RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ]
From -24 to -25:
* Capitalized a SHOULD NOT.
From -23 to -24:
* Small changes based on inputs from IESG review.
From -22 to -23:
* Small changes based on inputs from IETF Last Call.
From -21 to -22:
* Addressed issues from AD review -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/
aIkeZUqKDZzzseCPfiIJ9J6zYXc/
* Combined some of the acknowledgements into one paragraph.
From -20 to -21:
* During WGLC review, replaced the descriptive text with the
requirements from RFC 6761 with a list. This in turn required
adding in the BCP 14 boilerplate.
* During WGLC review, made a few more requested changes
From -19 to -20:
* Expanded the privacy considerations
* Clarified benefit of using aggressive NSEC
* Clarified that the .alt namespace is unmanaged and thus comes with
risks.
* Added description of why .alt was chosen instead of alt.arpa
* Removed 2119 language because there are no MUSTs or SHOULDs
From -18 to -19:
* Document was discussed at IETF115
* Changed the intended status to Standards Track at the request of
the responsible AD (Rob Wilton)
* Clarified that this only deals with some of the problems from RFC
8244
* Removed text telling protocol designers that they should
differentiate their names from other designers
* Added a note that .alt names will leak out of the local context
* Reminded resolver operators that there are already ways to reduce
.alt traffic to the root servers
* Moved the paragraph related to 6761 to the IANA Considerations
section
* Strengthened the security considerations
* Added references for QNAME minimization and agressive NSEC caching
From -16 to -18:
* Lots of editorial fix-ups
* Fixed reference to RFC 8499
* Clarified presentation format for .alt
* Clarified that IANA will set aside the name when it goes into the
6761 registry
* Removed the loose registry for names under .alt
* Added back the required discussion for RFC 6761
From -15 to -16:
* Many simplifications to focus the document on the technical bits
as much as possible, based on mailing list feedback.
* Removed unused references.
* Removed the RFC 2119 language because it is no longer used in the
document.
* Added a non-normative IANA registry.
* Added Paul Hoffman as second author to help get the draft moving
in the DNSOP WG again.
From -14 to -15:
* [Pinky]: Gee, Brain. What are we going to do tonight?
* [The Brain]: The same thing we do every 6 months, Pinky. Post a
new version of this document, with only the version number
changed.
From -13 to -14:
* Andrew asked to be removed as co-author, due to potential
perception of CoI.
* Erik Auerswald provided Github issues and comments re: references
and grammar.
From -12 to -13:
* Just bumping versions to prevent expiration.
From -08 to -12:
* Just bumping versions to prevent expiration.
* Updated references (aggressive-nsec is now RFC 8198, draft-ietf-
dnsop-sutld-ps is now 8244).
From -07 to -08:
* Made it clear that this is only for non-DNS.
* As per Interim consensus, removed the "add this to local zones"
text.
* Added a Privacy Considerations section
* Grammar fix -- "alternative" is more correct than "alternate",
replaced.
From -06 to -07:
* Rolled up the GItHub releases in to a full release.
From -07.2 to -07.3 (GitHub point release):
Removed 'sandbox' at Stephane's suggestion - https://www.ietf.org/
mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg18495.html
Suggested (in 4.1 bullet 3) that DNS libraries ignore these -- Bob
Harold - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/
a_ruPf8osSzi_hCzCqOxYLXhYoA
Added some pointers to the SUTLD document.
From -07.1 to -07.2 (Github point release):
* Reverted the <TBD> string (at request of chairs).
* Added an editors note explaining the above.
* Removed some more background, editorializing, etc.
From -06 to -07.1 (https://github.com/wkumari/draft-wkumari-dnsop-
alt-tld/tree/7988fcf06100f7a17f21e6993b781690b5774472):
* Replaced ALT with <TBD> at the suggestions of George.
From -05 to -06:
* Removed a large amount of background - we now have the (adopted)
tldr document for that.
* Made it clear that pseudo-TLD is not intended to be pejorative.
* Tried to make it cleat that this is something people can choose to
use - or not.
From -04 to -05:
* Version bump - we are waiting in the queue for progress on SUN,
bumping this to keep it alive.
From -03 to -04:
* 3 changes - the day, the month and the year (a bump to keep
alive).
From -02 to -03:
* Incorporate suggestions from Stephane and Paul Hoffman.
From -01 to -02:
* Merged a bunch of changes from Paul Hoffman. Thanks for sending a
git pull.
From -00 to 01:
* Removed the "delegated to new style AS112 servers" text -this was
legacy from the omnicient AS112 days. (Joe Abley)
* Removed the "Advice to implemntors" section. This used to
recommend that people used a subdomain of a domain in the DNS. It
was pointed out that this breaks things badly if the domain
expires.
* Added text about why we don't want to adminster a registry for
ALT.
From Individual-06 to DNSOP-00
* Nothing changed, simply renamed draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld to
draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld
From -05 to -06
* Incorporated comments from a number of people, including a number
of suggestion heard at the IETF meeting in Dallas, and the DNSOP
Interim meeting in May, 2015.
* Removed the "Let's have an (optional) IANA registry for people to
(opportinistically) register their string, if they want that
option" stuff. It was, um, optional....
From -04 to -05
* Went through and made sure that I'd captured the feedback
received.
* Comments from Ed Lewis.
* Filled in the "Domain Name Reservation Considerations" section of
RFC6761.
* Removed examples from .Onion.
From -03 to -04
* Incorporated some comments from Paul Hoffman
From -02 to -03
* After discussions with chairs, made this much more generic (not
purely non-DNS), and some cleanup.
From -01 to -02
* Removed some fluffy wording, tightened up the language some. We would like to thank Joe Abley, Mark Andrews, Erik Auerswald, Roy
Arends, Ray Bellis, Vittorio Bertola, Marc Blanchet, John Bond,
Stéphane Bortzmeyer, David Cake, Vint Cerf, David Conrad, Steve
Crocker, Vladimir Cunat, Brian Dickson, Ralph Droms, Robert Edmonds,
Patrik Fältström, Bernd Fix, Christian Grothoff, Olafur Gudmundsson,
Ted Hardie, Bob Harold, Wes Hardaker, Geoff Huston, Joel Jaeggli,
John C Klensin, Eliot Lear, Barry Leiba, Ted Lemon, Edward Lewis,
John Levine, George Michaelson, Ed Pascoe, Libor Peltan, Jim Reid,
Martin Schanzenbach, Ben Schwartz, Arturo Servin, Peter Thomassen,
Paul Vixie, Duane Wessels, Paul Wouters, and Suzanne Woolf for
feedback.
From -00 to -01. This document was many years in the making, and we would like to
sincerely apologize for anyone who we forgot to credit.
* Fixed the abstract. We would also like to thank Rob Wilton for serving as Responsible AD
for this document.
* Recommended that folk root their non-DNS namespace under a DNS In addition, Andrew Sullivan was an author from adoption (2015)
namespace that they control (Joe Abley) through version 14 (2021).
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Warren Kumari Warren Kumari
Google Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA, 94043 Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America United States of America
Email: warren@kumari.net Email: warren@kumari.net
Paul Hoffman Paul Hoffman
ICANN ICANN
Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org
 End of changes. 41 change blocks. 
380 lines changed or deleted 118 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.