Internet DRAFT - draft-hallambaker-mesh-name-service
draft-hallambaker-mesh-name-service
Network Working Group P. M. Hallam-Baker
Internet-Draft ThresholdSecrets.com
Intended status: Informational 21 September 2020
Expires: 25 March 2021
Mathematical Mesh 3.0 Part XIV: Mesh Name Service
draft-hallambaker-mesh-name-service-00
Abstract
A naming service for the Mathematical Mesh is described.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mathmesh/
(http://whatever)Discussion of this draft should take place on the
MathMesh mailing list (mathmesh@ietf.org), which is archived at .
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
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
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 March 2021.
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.
Hallam-Baker Expires 25 March 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Mesh Name Service September 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Defined Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Related Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Name Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Name Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Name syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Name Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Business Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Names do not expire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The Mesh Name Service allows Mesh users to change Mesh Service
Providers without the switching costs associated with usual naming
schemes.
The Mesh Name System is distinct from the DNS in several important
respects:
* Mesh Names are intended to be the personal property of the
assignee and use of the name MUST NOT require payment of ongoing
rents, fees etc. of any kind.
* The DNS combines the functions of name delegation and discovery of
services provided under those names into a single protocol. The
MNS only supports name delegation.
The limitation on scope allows MNS to provide all the functionality
of a traditional DNS TLD with almost none of the costs. While the
DNS functionality exposed by a DNS TLD is limited to information that
changes very rarely (i.e. discovery of the IP addresses of the
authoritative DNS servers), the protocol used to deliver that
functionality is designed to support real time publication of service
configurations.
Hallam-Baker Expires 25 March 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Mesh Name Service September 2020
Another costly aspect of the DNS design is that there is no mechanism
for invalidation of cached data. Instead every record has a
predetermined expiry time and TLDs advise relying parties of updates
to DNS records by publishing a new record. As a result, the vast
bulk of (valid) TLD traffic consists of requests to check if the
information has changed since the last time the party making the
request checked. This approach makes the DNS infrastructure
vulnerable to Denial of Service attack. If the DNS were ever to
suffer a prolonged outage, the cached records would expire and the
Internet would cease functioning.
The MNS Name Registry is an append only log containing a complete
history of every change made. Every registry update is authenticated
by means of a Merkle Tree, the apex of which is signed once a minute.
The Name Registry does not respond to name queries. Instead, every
Mesh Service Provider is required to maintain a 'reasonably current'
copy of the MNS Name Registry log and use this to respond to queries
from the community it serves. This approach eliminates the almost
all the costs associated with a DNS TLD registry and provides a 'fail
safe' approach to design. Should the Name Service cease functioning
for days or even weeks, only the ability to publish updates to
existing configurations would be lost.
Requirements for Mesh Names, should meet the expectations of the
user.
Unambiguous The signifier should unambiguously identify the
referent.
Consistent The binding between the signifier and the signified
should be consistent with the reasonable expectations of the user.
Freehold There MUST be no ongoing costs associated with the
continued use of an existing name under an existing configuration.
Charges for publishing changes to configurations should be
strictly limited to cost recovery.
2. Definitions
This section presents the related specifications and standard, the
terms that are used as terms of art within the documents and the
terms used as requirements language.
Hallam-Baker Expires 25 March 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Mesh Name Service September 2020
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2.2. Defined Terms
2.3. Related Specifications
2.4. Implementation Status
The implementation status of the reference code base is described in
the companion document [draft-hallambaker-mesh-developer].
3. Architecture
3.1. Name Registry
The name registry is implemented as a Mesh Catalog.
3.1.1. Name Entries
A name entry consists of the following information:
Name The unique identifier the entry describes.
Profile Identifier The UDF fingerprint of the profile to which the
name is bound.
Assignment Type Describes the means by which the name is assigned.
Mesh Service Provider DNS or Mesh name of the Mesh Service Provider
servicing the associated account.
DNS Resolver Addresses (Optional) IP addresses of the authoritative
name servers for a DNS server servicing the Mesh name.
Bindings (Optional) A list of signed assertions binding additional
names and/or logographical representations to the profile
specified by the name.
3.2. Name syntax
A Mesh name consists of a sequence of Unicode characters.
Hallam-Baker Expires 25 March 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Mesh Name Service September 2020
To prevent homograph type attacks, only characters from selected
Unicode alphabet are permitted and mixing of characters from
different alphabet s is prohibited with the exception of special
characters that are permitted in any name.
The only special characters currently permitted are the digits 0-9,
underscore (_) and dash(-).
The only alphabet currently supported is Extended Latin.
Canonicalization rules are applied within an alphabet to avoid
ambiguity. For the Extended Latin alphabet, canonicalization causes
case to be ignored, and ligatures to be mapped according to the
prevailing rules applied in circumstances where accented characters
are unavailable.
3.3. Name Assignment
The first time a name is assigned, the assignment type is 'Initial'.
4. Business Model
4.1. Names do not expire
5. Security Considerations
6. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA actions.
7. Acknowledgements
8. 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/rfc/rfc2119>.
9. Informative References
[draft-hallambaker-mesh-developer]
Hallam-Baker, P., "Mathematical Mesh: Reference
Implementation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
hallambaker-mesh-developer-10, 27 July 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-mesh-
developer-10>.
Hallam-Baker Expires 25 March 2021 [Page 5]
