rfc9726v1.txt | rfc9726.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
skipping to change at line 70 ¶ | skipping to change at line 70 ¶ | |||
4.3. Use of a Too Generic DNS Name | 4.3. Use of a Too Generic DNS Name | |||
5. DNS Privacy and Outsourcing versus MUD Controllers | 5. DNS Privacy and Outsourcing versus MUD Controllers | |||
6. Recommendations to IoT Device Manufacturers on MUD and DNS | 6. Recommendations to IoT Device Manufacturers on MUD and DNS | |||
Usage | Usage | |||
6.1. Consistently Use DNS | 6.1. Consistently Use DNS | |||
6.2. Use Primary DNS Names Controlled by the Manufacturer | 6.2. Use Primary DNS Names Controlled by the Manufacturer | |||
6.3. Use a Content Distribution Network with Stable DNS Names | 6.3. Use a Content Distribution Network with Stable DNS Names | |||
6.4. Do Not Use Tailored Responses to Answer DNS Names | 6.4. Do Not Use Tailored Responses to Answer DNS Names | |||
6.5. Prefer DNS Servers Learned from DHCP/Router Advertisements | 6.5. Prefer DNS Servers Learned from DHCP/Router Advertisements | |||
7. Interactions with mDNS and DNS-SD | 7. Interactions with mDNS and DNS-SD | |||
8. Privacy Considerations | 8. IANA Considerations | |||
9. Security Considerations | 9. Privacy Considerations | |||
10. References | 10. Security Considerations | |||
10.1. Normative References | 11. References | |||
10.2. Informative References | 11.1. Normative References | |||
11.2. Informative References | ||||
Appendix A. A Failing Strategy: Anti-Patterns | Appendix A. A Failing Strategy: Anti-Patterns | |||
A.1. Too Slow | A.1. Too Slow | |||
A.2. Reveals Patterns of Usage | A.2. Reveals Patterns of Usage | |||
A.3. Mappings Are Often Incomplete | A.3. Mappings Are Often Incomplete | |||
A.4. Forward DNS Names Can Have Wildcards | A.4. Forward DNS Names Can Have Wildcards | |||
Contributors | Contributors | |||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
[RFC8520] provides a standardized way to describe how a specific | [RFC8520] provides a standardized way to describe how a device with a | |||
purpose device makes use of Internet resources. Access Control Lists | specific purpose makes use of Internet resources. Access Control | |||
(ACLs) can be defined in a Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) file | Lists (ACLs) can be defined in a Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD) | |||
[RFC8520] that permits a device to access Internet resources by their | file [RFC8520] that permits a device to access Internet resources by | |||
DNS names or IP addresses. | their DNS names or IP addresses. | |||
The use of a DNS name rather than an IP address in an ACL has many | The use of a DNS name rather than an IP address in an ACL has many | |||
advantages: Not only does the layer of indirection permit the mapping | advantages: Not only does the layer of indirection permit the mapping | |||
of a name to IP addresses to be changed over time, but it also | of a name to IP addresses to be changed over time, but it also | |||
generalizes automatically to IPv4 and IPv6 addresses as well as | generalizes automatically to IPv4 and IPv6 addresses as well as | |||
permits a variety of load-balancing strategies, including multi-CDN | permits a variety of load-balancing strategies, including multi-CDN | |||
deployments wherein load-balancing can account for geography and | deployments wherein load-balancing can account for geography and | |||
load. | load. | |||
However, the use of DNS names has implications on how ACLs are | However, the use of DNS names has implications on how ACLs are | |||
skipping to change at line 128 ¶ | skipping to change at line 129 ¶ | |||
There are some ways of using DNS that will present problems for MUD | There are some ways of using DNS that will present problems for MUD | |||
controllers, which Section 4 explains. | controllers, which Section 4 explains. | |||
Section 5 details how current trends in DNS resolution such as public | Section 5 details how current trends in DNS resolution such as public | |||
DNS servers, DNS over TLS (DoT) [RFC7858], DNS over HTTPS (DoH) | DNS servers, DNS over TLS (DoT) [RFC7858], DNS over HTTPS (DoH) | |||
[RFC8484], or DNS over QUIC (DoQ) [RFC9250] can cause problems with | [RFC8484], or DNS over QUIC (DoQ) [RFC9250] can cause problems with | |||
the strategies employed. | the strategies employed. | |||
The core of this document is Section 6, which makes a series of | The core of this document is Section 6, which makes a series of | |||
recommendations ("best current practices") for manufacturers on how | recommendations ("best current practices") for manufacturers on how | |||
to use DNS and IP addresses with MUD supporting IoT devices. | to use DNS and IP addresses with IoT devices described by MUD. | |||
Section 8 discusses a set of privacy issues that encrypted DNS (for | Section 9 discusses a set of privacy issues that encrypted DNS (for | |||
example, DoT and DoH) are frequently used to deal with. How these | example, DoT and DoH) are frequently used to deal with. How these | |||
concerns apply to IoT devices located within a residence or | concerns apply to IoT devices located within a residence or | |||
enterprise is a key concern. | enterprise is a key concern. | |||
Section 9 also covers some of the negative outcomes should MUD/ | Section 10 also covers some of the negative outcomes should MUD/ | |||
firewall managers and IoT manufacturers choose not to cooperate. | firewall managers and IoT manufacturers choose not to cooperate. | |||
2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
This document makes use of terms defined in [RFC8520] and [RFC9499]. | This document makes use of terms defined in [RFC8520] and [RFC9499]. | |||
The term "anti-pattern" comes from agile software design literature, | The term "anti-pattern" comes from agile software design literature, | |||
as per [antipattern]. | as per [antipattern]. | |||
"CDNs" refers to Content Distribution Networks, such as those | "CDNs" refers to Content Distribution Networks, such as those | |||
described in [RFC6707], Section 1.1. | described in [RFC6707], Section 1.1. | |||
3. A Model for MUD Controller Mapping of DNS Names to Addresses | 3. A Model for MUD Controller Mapping of DNS Names to Addresses | |||
This section details a strategy that a MUD controller could take. | This section details a strategy that a MUD controller could take. | |||
Within the limits of the DNS use detailed in Section 6, this process | Within the limits of the DNS use detailed in Section 6, this process | |||
could work. The methods detailed in Appendix A just will not work. | could work. The methods detailed in Appendix A just will not work. | |||
The simplest successful strategy for translating DNS names for a MUD | The simplest successful strategy for a MUD controller to translate | |||
controller to take is to do a DNS lookup on the name (a forward | DNS names is to do a DNS lookup on the name (a forward lookup) and | |||
lookup) and then use the resulting IP addresses to populate the | then use the resulting IP addresses to populate the actual ACLs. | |||
actual ACLs. | ||||
There are a number of possible failures, and the goal of this section | There are a number of possible failures, and the goal of this section | |||
is to explain how some common DNS usages may fail. | is to explain how some common DNS usages may fail. | |||
3.1. Non-Deterministic Mappings | 3.1. Non-Deterministic Mappings | |||
Most importantly, the mapping of the DNS names to IP addresses should | Most importantly, the mapping of the DNS names to IP addresses could | |||
be non-deterministic. | be non-deterministic. | |||
[RFC1794] describes the very common mechanism that returns DNS A (or | [RFC1794] describes the very common mechanism that returns DNS A (or | |||
reasonably AAAA) records in a permuted order. This is known as | reasonably AAAA) records in a permuted order. This is known as | |||
"round-robin DNS" and has been used for many decades. The historical | "round-robin DNS" and has been used for many decades. The historical | |||
intent is that the requestor will tend to use the first IP address | intent is that the requestor will tend to use the first IP address | |||
that is returned. As each query results in addresses being in a | that is returned. As each query results in addresses being in a | |||
different order, the effect is to split the load among many servers. | different order, the effect is to split the load among many servers. | |||
This situation does not result in failures as long as all possible A/ | This situation does not result in failures as long as all possible A/ | |||
skipping to change at line 306 ¶ | skipping to change at line 306 ¶ | |||
The first is that the update service server must decide whether to | The first is that the update service server must decide whether to | |||
provide an IPv4 or an IPv6 literal, assuming that only one URL can be | provide an IPv4 or an IPv6 literal, assuming that only one URL can be | |||
provided. A DNS name can contain both kinds of addresses and can | provided. A DNS name can contain both kinds of addresses and can | |||
also contain many different IP addresses of each kind. An update | also contain many different IP addresses of each kind. An update | |||
server might believe that if the connection were on IPv4, then an | server might believe that if the connection were on IPv4, then an | |||
IPv4 literal would be acceptable. However, due to NAT64 [RFC6146], a | IPv4 literal would be acceptable. However, due to NAT64 [RFC6146], a | |||
device with only IPv6 connectivity will often be able to reach an | device with only IPv6 connectivity will often be able to reach an | |||
IPv4 firmware update server by name (through DNS64 [RFC6147]) but not | IPv4 firmware update server by name (through DNS64 [RFC6147]) but not | |||
be able to reach an arbitrary IPv4 address. | be able to reach an arbitrary IPv4 address. | |||
A MUD file definition for this access would need to resolve to the | A MUD file for this access would need to resolve to the set of IP | |||
set of IP addresses that might be returned by the update server. | addresses that might be returned by the update server. This can be | |||
This can be done with IP address literals in the MUD file, but this | done with IP address literals in the MUD file, but this may require | |||
may require continuing updates to the MUD file if the addresses | continuing updates to the MUD file if the addresses change | |||
change frequently. A DNS name in the MUD could resolve to the set of | frequently. A DNS name in the MUD could resolve to the set of all | |||
all possible IPv4 and IPv6 addresses that would be used, with DNS | possible IPv4 and IPv6 addresses that would be used, with DNS | |||
providing a level of indirection that obviates the need to update the | providing a level of indirection that obviates the need to update the | |||
MUD file itself. | MUD file itself. | |||
A third problem involves the use of HTTPS. It is often more | A third problem involves the use of HTTPS. It is often more | |||
difficult to get TLS certificates for an IP address, and so it is | difficult to get TLS certificates for an IP address, and so it is | |||
less likely that the firmware download will be protected by TLS. An | less likely that the firmware download will be protected by TLS. | |||
IP address literal in the TLS ServerNameIndicator [RFC6066] might not | Even if an IP address literal was placedin the TLS | |||
provide enough context for a web server to distinguish which of the | ServerNameIndicator [RFC6066], against the advice of that document, | |||
(potentially many) tenants the client wishes to reach. This drives | it still would not provide enough context for a web server to | |||
the use of an IP address per tenant, and for IPv4 (at least), this is | distinguish which of the (potentially many) tenants the client wishes | |||
no longer a sustainable use of IP addresses. | to reach. This drives the use of an IP address per tenant, and for | |||
IPv4 (at least), this is no longer a sustainable use of IP addresses. | ||||
Finally, it is common in some CDNs to use multiple layers of DNS | Finally, it is common in some CDNs to use multiple layers of DNS | |||
CNAMEs in order to isolate the content owner's naming system from | CNAMEs in order to isolate the content owner's naming system from | |||
changes in how the distribution network is organized. | changes in how the distribution network is organized. | |||
When a name or address is returned within an update protocol for | When a name or address is returned within an update protocol for | |||
which a MUD rule cannot be written, then the MUD controller is unable | which a MUD rule cannot be written, then the MUD controller is unable | |||
to authorize the connection. In order for the connection to be | to authorize the connection. In order for the connection to be | |||
authorized, the set of names returned within the update protocol | authorized, the set of names returned within the update protocol | |||
needs to be known ahead of time and must be from a finite set of | needs to be known ahead of time and must be from a finite set of | |||
skipping to change at line 364 ¶ | skipping to change at line 365 ¶ | |||
Even if the CDN provider's chosen DNS names are deterministic, they | Even if the CDN provider's chosen DNS names are deterministic, they | |||
may change at a rate much faster than MUD files can be updated. | may change at a rate much faster than MUD files can be updated. | |||
This situation applies to firmware updates but also applies to many | This situation applies to firmware updates but also applies to many | |||
other kinds of content: video content, in-game content, etc. | other kinds of content: video content, in-game content, etc. | |||
A solution may be to use a deterministic DNS name within the control | A solution may be to use a deterministic DNS name within the control | |||
of the device manufacturer. The device manufacturer is asked to | of the device manufacturer. The device manufacturer is asked to | |||
point a CNAME to the CDN, to a name that might look like | point a CNAME to the CDN, to a name that might look like | |||
"g7.a.example", with the expectation that the CDN vendor's DNS will | "g7.a.example", with the expectation that the CDN provider's DNS will | |||
do all the appropriate work to geolocate the transfer. This can be | do all the appropriate work to geolocate the transfer. This can be | |||
fine for a MUD file, as the MUD controller, if located in the same | fine for a MUD file, as the MUD controller, if located in the same | |||
geography as the IoT device, can follow the CNAME and collect the set | geography as the IoT device, can follow the CNAME and collect the set | |||
of resulting IP addresses along with the TTL for each. Then, the MUD | of resulting IP addresses along with the TTL for each. Then, the MUD | |||
controller can take charge of refreshing that mapping at intervals | controller can take charge of refreshing that mapping at intervals | |||
driven by the TTL. | driven by the TTL. | |||
In some cases, a complete set of geographically distributed servers | In some cases, a complete set of geographically distributed servers | |||
may be known ahead of time (or that it changes very slowly), and the | may be known ahead of time (or that it changes very slowly), and the | |||
device manufacturer can list all those IP addresses in the DNS for | device manufacturer can list all those IP addresses in the DNS for | |||
skipping to change at line 435 ¶ | skipping to change at line 436 ¶ | |||
6. Recommendations to IoT Device Manufacturers on MUD and DNS Usage | 6. Recommendations to IoT Device Manufacturers on MUD and DNS Usage | |||
Inclusion of a MUD file with IoT devices is operationally quite | Inclusion of a MUD file with IoT devices is operationally quite | |||
simple. It requires only a few small changes to the DHCP client code | simple. It requires only a few small changes to the DHCP client code | |||
to express the MUD URL. It can even be done without code changes via | to express the MUD URL. It can even be done without code changes via | |||
the use of a QR code affixed to the packaging (see [RFC9238]). | the use of a QR code affixed to the packaging (see [RFC9238]). | |||
The difficult part is determining what to put into the MUD file | The difficult part is determining what to put into the MUD file | |||
itself. There are currently tools that help with the definition and | itself. There are currently tools that help with the definition and | |||
analysis of MUD files; see [mudmaker]. The remaining difficulty is | analysis of MUD files; see [mudmaker]. The remaining difficulty is | |||
now the actual list of expected connections to put in the MUD file. | the actual list of expected connections to put in the MUD file. An | |||
An IoT manufacturer must now spend some time reviewing the network | IoT manufacturer must spend some time reviewing the network | |||
communications by their device. | communications by their device. | |||
This document discusses a number of challenges that occur relating to | This document discusses a number of challenges that occur relating to | |||
how DNS requests are made and resolved, and the goal of this section | how DNS requests are made and resolved, and the goal of this section | |||
is to make recommendations on how to modify IoT systems to work well | is to make recommendations on how to modify IoT systems to work well | |||
with MUD. | with MUD. | |||
6.1. Consistently Use DNS | 6.1. Consistently Use DNS | |||
For the reasons explained in Section 4.1, the most important | For the reasons explained in Section 4.1, the most important | |||
skipping to change at line 494 ¶ | skipping to change at line 495 ¶ | |||
receives an answer that is based upon the same topological decision | receives an answer that is based upon the same topological decision | |||
as when the IoT device makes its query. | as when the IoT device makes its query. | |||
There are probably ways in which the MUD controller could use the | There are probably ways in which the MUD controller could use the | |||
edns-client-subnet option to make a query that would get the same | edns-client-subnet option to make a query that would get the same | |||
treatment as when the IoT device makes its query. If this worked, | treatment as when the IoT device makes its query. If this worked, | |||
then it would receive the same answer as the IoT device. | then it would receive the same answer as the IoT device. | |||
In practice it could be quite difficult if the IoT device uses a | In practice it could be quite difficult if the IoT device uses a | |||
different Internet connection, a different firewall, or a different | different Internet connection, a different firewall, or a different | |||
recursive DNS server. The edns-client-server might be ignored or | recursive DNS server. The edns-client-subnet option might be ignored | |||
overridden by any of the DNS infrastructure. | or overridden by any of the DNS infrastructure. | |||
Some tailored responses might only reorder the replies so that the | Some tailored responses might only reorder the replies so that the | |||
most preferred address is first. Such a system would be acceptable | most preferred address is first. Such a system would be acceptable | |||
if the MUD controller had a way to know that the list was complete. | if the MUD controller had a way to know that the list was complete. | |||
But, due to the above problems, a strong recommendation is to avoid | But, due to the above problems, a strong recommendation is to avoid | |||
using tailored responses as part of the DNS names in the MUD file. | using tailored responses as part of the DNS names in the MUD file. | |||
6.5. Prefer DNS Servers Learned from DHCP/Router Advertisements | 6.5. Prefer DNS Servers Learned from DHCP/Router Advertisements | |||
skipping to change at line 528 ¶ | skipping to change at line 529 ¶ | |||
resolver to mitigate against local misconfiguration. There are a | resolver to mitigate against local misconfiguration. There are a | |||
number of reasons to avoid this, detailed in Section 6.4. The public | number of reasons to avoid this, detailed in Section 6.4. The public | |||
resolver might not return the same tailored names that the MUD | resolver might not return the same tailored names that the MUD | |||
controller would get. | controller would get. | |||
It is recommended that non-local resolvers are only used when the | It is recommended that non-local resolvers are only used when the | |||
locally provided resolvers provide no answers to any queries at all | locally provided resolvers provide no answers to any queries at all | |||
and do so repeatedly. The status of the operator-provided resolvers | and do so repeatedly. The status of the operator-provided resolvers | |||
needs to be re-evaluated on a periodic basis. | needs to be re-evaluated on a periodic basis. | |||
Finally, if a device will ever attempt to use a non-local resolver, | Finally, if a device will ever attempt to use non-local resolvers, | |||
then the address of that resolver needs to be listed in the MUD file | then the addresses of those resolvers need to be listed in the MUD | |||
as a destination that is to be permitted. This needs to include the | file as destinations that are to be permitted. This needs to include | |||
port numbers (i.e., 53, 853 for DoT, 443 for DoH) that will be used | the port numbers (i.e., 53, 853 for DoT, 443 for DoH) that will be | |||
as well. | used as well. | |||
7. Interactions with mDNS and DNS-SD | 7. Interactions with mDNS and DNS-SD | |||
Unicast DNS requests are not the only way to map names to IP | Unicast DNS requests are not the only way to map names to IP | |||
addresses. IoT devices might also use Multicast DNS (mDNS) | addresses. IoT devices might also use Multicast DNS (mDNS) | |||
[RFC6762], both to be discovered by other devices and also to | [RFC6762], both to be discovered by other devices and also to | |||
discover other devices. | discover other devices. | |||
mDNS replies include A and AAAA records, and it is conceivable that | mDNS replies include A and AAAA records, and it is conceivable that | |||
these replies contain addresses that are not local to the link on | these replies contain addresses that are not local to the link on | |||
skipping to change at line 573 ¶ | skipping to change at line 574 ¶ | |||
enforcement point (an intra-department firewall) and could very well | enforcement point (an intra-department firewall) and could very well | |||
be rejected because the MUD controller did not know about that | be rejected because the MUD controller did not know about that | |||
interaction. | interaction. | |||
[RFC8250] includes a number of provisions for controlling internal | [RFC8250] includes a number of provisions for controlling internal | |||
communications, including complex communications like same | communications, including complex communications like same | |||
manufacturer ACLs. To date, this aspect of MUD has been difficult to | manufacturer ACLs. To date, this aspect of MUD has been difficult to | |||
describe. This document does not consider internal communications to | describe. This document does not consider internal communications to | |||
be in scope. | be in scope. | |||
8. Privacy Considerations | 8. IANA Considerations | |||
This document has no IANA actions. | ||||
9. Privacy Considerations | ||||
The use of non-local DNS servers exposes the list of DNS names | The use of non-local DNS servers exposes the list of DNS names | |||
resolved to a third party, including passive eavesdroppers. | resolved to a third party, including passive eavesdroppers. | |||
The use of DoT and DoH eliminates the threat from passive | The use of DoT and DoH eliminates the threat from passive | |||
eavesdropping but still exposes the list to the operator of the DoT | eavesdropping but still exposes the list to the operator of the DoT | |||
or DoH server. There are additional methods to help preserve | or DoH server. There are additional methods to help preserve | |||
privacy, such as that described by [RFC9230]. | privacy, such as that described by [RFC9230]. | |||
The use of unencrypted (Do53) requests to a local DNS server exposes | The use of unencrypted (Do53) requests to a local DNS server exposes | |||
skipping to change at line 620 ¶ | skipping to change at line 625 ¶ | |||
notification in a private fashion. This is particularly powerful if | notification in a private fashion. This is particularly powerful if | |||
a local recursive DoT server is used, which then communicates using | a local recursive DoT server is used, which then communicates using | |||
DoT over the Internet. | DoT over the Internet. | |||
The more complex case of Section 4.1 postulates that the version | The more complex case of Section 4.1 postulates that the version | |||
number needs to be provided to an intelligent agent that can decide | number needs to be provided to an intelligent agent that can decide | |||
the correct route to do upgrades. [RFC9019] provides a wide variety | the correct route to do upgrades. [RFC9019] provides a wide variety | |||
of ways to accomplish the same thing without having to divulge the | of ways to accomplish the same thing without having to divulge the | |||
current version number. | current version number. | |||
9. Security Considerations | 10. Security Considerations | |||
This document deals with conflicting security requirements: | This document deals with conflicting security requirements: | |||
* devices that an operator wants to manage using [RFC8520] | * devices that an operator wants to manage using [RFC8520] | |||
* requirements for the devices to get access to network resources | * requirements for the devices to get access to network resources | |||
that may be critical to their continued safe operation | that may be critical to their continued safe operation | |||
This document takes the view that the two requirements do not need to | This document takes the view that the two requirements do not need to | |||
be in conflict, but resolving the conflict requires careful planning | be in conflict, but resolving the conflict requires careful planning | |||
skipping to change at line 658 ¶ | skipping to change at line 663 ¶ | |||
IoT device can be described by a MUD file. This level of informed | IoT device can be described by a MUD file. This level of informed | |||
cooperation within the IoT device vendor and with MUD controller | cooperation within the IoT device vendor and with MUD controller | |||
manufacturers is key to getting significant return on investment from | manufacturers is key to getting significant return on investment from | |||
MUD. | MUD. | |||
Manufacturers are encouraged to write MUD files that are good enough | Manufacturers are encouraged to write MUD files that are good enough | |||
rather than perfect. If in doubt, they should write MUD files that | rather than perfect. If in doubt, they should write MUD files that | |||
are somewhat more permissive if the files result in no spurious | are somewhat more permissive if the files result in no spurious | |||
alerts. | alerts. | |||
10. References | 11. References | |||
10.1. Normative References | 11.1. Normative References | |||
[RFC1794] Brisco, T., "DNS Support for Load Balancing", RFC 1794, | [RFC1794] Brisco, T., "DNS Support for Load Balancing", RFC 1794, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC1794, April 1995, | DOI 10.17487/RFC1794, April 1995, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1794>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1794>. | |||
[RFC8094] Reddy, T., Wing, D., and P. Patil, "DNS over Datagram | [RFC8094] Reddy, T., Wing, D., and P. Patil, "DNS over Datagram | |||
Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 8094, | Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 8094, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC8094, February 2017, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8094, February 2017, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8094>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8094>. | |||
skipping to change at line 690 ¶ | skipping to change at line 695 ¶ | |||
[RFC9019] Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., Brown, D., and M. Meriac, "A | [RFC9019] Moran, B., Tschofenig, H., Brown, D., and M. Meriac, "A | |||
Firmware Update Architecture for Internet of Things", | Firmware Update Architecture for Internet of Things", | |||
RFC 9019, DOI 10.17487/RFC9019, April 2021, | RFC 9019, DOI 10.17487/RFC9019, April 2021, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9019>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9019>. | |||
[RFC9499] Hoffman, P. and K. Fujiwara, "DNS Terminology", BCP 219, | [RFC9499] Hoffman, P. and K. Fujiwara, "DNS Terminology", BCP 219, | |||
RFC 9499, DOI 10.17487/RFC9499, March 2024, | RFC 9499, DOI 10.17487/RFC9499, March 2024, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9499>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9499>. | |||
10.2. Informative References | 11.2. Informative References | |||
[Akamai] Wikipedia, "Akamai Technologies", 26 February 2025, | [Akamai] Wikipedia, "Akamai Technologies", 26 February 2025, | |||
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ | <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ | |||
index.php?title=Akamai_Technologies&oldid=1277665363>. | index.php?title=Akamai_Technologies&oldid=1277665363>. | |||
[AmazonS3] Wikipedia, "Amazon S3", 14 March 2025, | [AmazonS3] Wikipedia, "Amazon S3", 14 March 2025, | |||
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ | <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ | |||
index.php?title=Amazon_S3&oldid=1280379498>. | index.php?title=Amazon_S3&oldid=1280379498>. | |||
[antipattern] | [antipattern] | |||
End of changes. 18 change blocks. | ||||
45 lines changed or deleted | 50 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. |