Internet DRAFT - draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed
draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed
Internet Engineering Task Force G. Michaelson
Internet-Draft APNIC P/L
Obsoletes: 6761 (if approved) February 22, 2016
Intended status: Informational
Expires: August 25, 2016
RFC6761 is now closed
draft-michaelson-dnsop-rfc6761-is-closed-01
Abstract
In hindsight, RFC6761 was a mistake. This document formally closes
this process.
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 http://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 August 25, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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.
Michaelson Expires August 25, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title February 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
RFC 6761 [RFC6761] specified mechanisms for reserving a top level
name in the DNS.
This reversed a prior decision documented by RFC 2860 [RFC2860] to
close off mechanisms for name assignment in the IETF, the function
being recognized as vesting with ICANN.
There is explicit language in RFC2860 which reserved a technical
function role in domain names:
4.3. Two particular assigned spaces present policy issues in
addition to the technical considerations specified by the IETF:
the assignment of domain names, and the assignment of IP address
blocks. These policy issues are outside the scope of this MOU.
Note that (a) assignments of domain names for technical uses (such
as domain names for inverse DNS lookup), (b) assignments of
specialised address blocks (such as multicast or anycast blocks),
and (c) experimental assignments are not considered to be policy
issues, and shall remain subject to the provisions of this
Section 4.
In hindsight, re-opening a registry for special cases of technical
merit inside IETF process has turned out to be a mistake, and
introduces procedural issues which cannot be adequately addressed
solely inside a technical process, instead instantiating mechanisms
which bypass ICANN process.
The apparent absence of an appropriate technology driven admission
process inside ICANN methods to assign top level domain names is
regrettable, but the solution does not lie in vesting the IETF with
an admissions process. This has invited (and led to) domain
squatting, spurious technical arguments, and has destroyed any
functional vision of an architecture, replacing it with unrelated
Michaelson Expires August 25, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title February 2016
competing requests for more and more names. This is simply not
appropriate use of the IETF process.
Accordingly, this document formally closes the RFC6761 process. No
more requests will be entertained in this process and all existing
names are grandfathered in, but will be relinquished gracefully
should the technical requirement be demonstrated not to apply any
more at scale.
1.1. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Acknowledgements
This document was written hurredly. But the intent should be clear.
3. IANA Considerations
The IANA is directed to close the Special Use Domain Name registry,
and MUST NOT admit any further entries in this registry.
4. Security Considerations
No new security considerations are introduced by this document. All
existing security considerations from prior names in the special-use
names registry are assumed to continue to exist.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[RFC6761] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Special-Use Domain Names",
RFC 6761, DOI 10.17487/RFC6761, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6761>.
Michaelson Expires August 25, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title February 2016
5.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Author's Address
George Michaelson
APNIC P/L
6 Cordelia Street
Brisbane, Queensland 4101
Australia
Phone: +61 3858 3100
Email: ggm@apnic.net
Michaelson Expires August 25, 2016 [Page 4]