One document matched: draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds-12.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII" ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/authoring/rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc1034 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1034.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc1035 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1035.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc1122 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1122.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc1123 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1123.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc1591 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1591.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc2606 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2606.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc2860 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2860.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc2965 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2965.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc3490 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3490.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc3696 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3696.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc3849 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3849.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc3927 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3927.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc4085 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4085.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc4291 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4291.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc4343 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4343.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc4367 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4367.xml'>
<!ENTITY rfc5226 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5226.xml'>
<!ENTITY bis3330 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.iana-rfc3330bis.xml'>
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- no I-D - >
<?rfc private="Creative Commons License: Attributions + ShareAlike" ?>
<?rfc header="Interim draft" ?>
<?rfc footer="draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds-12" ?>
<! - no I-D -->
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc colonspace="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc rfcprocack="yes" ?>
<rfc docName="draft-ellermann-idnabis-test-tlds-12" obsoletes="2606"
category="bcp" ipr="full3978" xml:lang="en-GB-oed"><front>
<title> Reserved Top Level DNS Names </title>
<author initials="F." surname="Ellermann" fullname="Frank Ellermann">
<organization>xyzzy</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<city>Hamburg</city>
<region>Germany</region>
</postal>
<email>hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com</email>
<uri>http://purl.net/xyzzy/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="D." surname="Eastlake" fullname="Donald E. Eastlake 3rd">
<organization> Eastlake Enterprises </organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street> 155 Beaver Street </street>
<city> Milford </city><code> 01757 </code>
<region> MA </region><country> USA </country>
</postal>
<phone> +1-508-634-2066 </phone>
<email> d3e3e3@gmail.com </email>
</address>
</author>
<date />
<abstract><t>
To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a few top level
domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as examples in
documentation, and the like. In addition, a few second level domain
names reserved for use as examples are documented. This memo
replaces RFC 2606 reserving 21 additional TLDs.
</t></abstract>
<note title="Editorial note"><t>
This note and <xref target="history" /> should be removed before
publication. The draft can be discussed on the IETF Discussion
<ietf.ietf.org> mailing list.
</t></note>
</front><middle>
<section title="Introduction" anchor="intro"><t>
The global Internet Domain Name System is documented in
<xref target="RFC1034" />,
<xref target="RFC1035" />,
<xref target="RFC1123" />,
<xref target="RFC1591" />,
<xref target="RFC3696" />,
and numerous additional Requests for Comments. It defines a tree
of names starting with root, ".", immediately below which are
top level domain names such as ".com" and ".us". Below top level
domain names there are normally additional levels of names.
</t><t>
IPv4 addresses used for tests and in examples are specified in
<xref target="I-D.iana-rfc3330bis" />, IPv6 addresses used in
examples are described in <xref target="RFC3849" />; see also
<xref target="RFC4085" />.
</t><t>
Fully Qualified Domain Names used in many Internet Protocols
allow only LDH (letter, digit, hyphen) domain labels as described
in <xref target="RFC1123" />, <xref target="RFC3696" />, and
<xref target="RFC4343" />. The letters are ASCII letters;
certain LDH-labels are also known as A-labels in the context of
IDN (Internationalization of Domain Names) and
<xref target="IDNAbis" />.
</t><t>
The key words "MAY", "RECOMMENDED", and "SHOULD" in this memo
are to be interpreted as described in <xref target="RFC2119" />.
</t></section>
<section title="TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples"><t>
There is a need for top level domain (TLD) names that can be used for
creating names which, without fear of conflicts with current or
future actual TLD names in the global DNS, can be used for private
testing of existing DNS related code, examples in documentation, DNS
related experimentation, invalid DNS names, or other similar uses.
</t><t>
For example, without guidance, a site might set up some local
additional unused top level domains for testing of its local DNS code
and configuration. Later, these TLDs might come into actual use on
the global Internet. As a result, local attempts to reference the
real data in these zones could be thwarted by the local test
versions. Or test or example code might be written that accesses a
TLD that is in use with the thought that the test code would only be
run in a restricted testbed net or the example never actually run.
Later, the test code could escape from the testbed or the example be
actually coded and run on the Internet. Depending on the nature of
the test or example, it might be best for it to be referencing a TLD
permanently reserved for such purposes.
</t><t>
To safely satisfy these needs, five domain names are reserved as
listed and described below. See also <xref target="i18n" />.
</t><section title='".example", ".tld"' anchor="example"><t>
".example", ".tld", and the example TLDs in <xref target="i18n" />
are RECOMMENDED for use in documentation or as examples.
</t></section><section title='".invalid"'><t>
".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
names that are sure to be invalid, and for which it is obvious at
a glance that they are invalid.
</t><t>
Applications MAY treat ".invalid" as what the name says. For this
technical reason reserving internationalized ".invalid" TLDs would
be unwise.
</t></section><section title='".localhost"' anchor="loop"><t>
The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in
host DNS implementations as having an address record pointing to
the loop back IP address and is reserved for such use. Any other
use would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this
use.
</t><t>
See <xref target="RFC1122" /> for IPv4 and
<xref target="RFC4291" /> for IPv6 loop back addresses.
</t></section><section title='".test"' anchor="test"><t>
".test" and the new test TLDs in <xref target="i18n" />
are RECOMMENDED for use in testing of current or new DNS
related code. Applications SHOULD treat these test TLDs like any
other TLD; a special handling could defeat the purpose of a test.
</t></section></section>
<section title="Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names"><t>
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) also reserves the
three second level domain names ".example.com", ".example.net",
and ".example.org", which can be used in examples as explained
in <xref target="example" />.
</t><t>
When TLDs offer further second level domains for examples, the
TLD administrators are encouraged to publish the relevant policies
in their TLD as an informational RFC.
</t><t>
The second level domain names "nic", "whois", and "www" are often
reserved or used for administrative purposes of the TLD, e.g.,
"whois.example" for the fully qualified domain name of a host with
a whois server. As with second level domains for examples this
can be an issue in the case of a TLD redelegation.
</t><t>
Please note that there are no globally reserved LDH DNS labels
below the top level; see <xref target="RFC4367" />.
</t></section>
<section title="Internationalization Considerations" anchor="i18n"><t>
In 2007 IANA created eleven IDN test TLDs together with
corresponding IDN example labels.
The A-labels, corresponding languages, and IDN
U-labels are listed below; see <xref target="RFC3490" /> or its
<xref target="IDNAbis" /> successor for details about IDN.
Applications SHOULD treat the IDN test TLDs as explained in
<xref target="test" />.
</t><figure><artwork>
TLD A-label Language Test U-label (hex. code points)
".xn--0zwm56d" Chinese (simplified) 6d4b 8bd5
".xn--11b5bs3a9aj6g" Hindi 92a 930 940 915 94d 937 93e
".xn--80akhbyknj4f" Russian 438 441 43f 44b 442 430 43d 438 435
".xn--9t4b11yi5a" Korean d14c c2a4 d2b8
".xn--deba0ad" Yiddish 5d8 5e2 5e1 5d8
".xn--g6w251d" Chinese (traditional) 6e2c 8a66
".xn--hgbk6aj7f53bba" Persian 622 632 645 627 6cc 634 6cc
".xn--hlcj6aya9esc7a" Tamil baa bb0 bbf b9f bcd b9a bc8
".xn--jxalpdlp" Greek 3b4 3bf 3ba 3b9 3bc 3ae
".xn--kgbechtv" Arabic 625 62e 62a 628 627 631
".xn--zckzah" Japanese 30c6 30b9 30c8
</artwork></figure><t>
The corresponding IDN example labels shown below are reserved as
TLDs for examples; compare <xref target="example" />.
Additional IDN example TLDs,
notably the final list of IDN example labels after the IDN test,
can be reserved later as specified in <xref target="iana" />.
</t><figure><artwork>
TLD A-label Language Example U-label (hex. code points)
".xn--9n2bp8q" Korean c2e4 b840
".xn--e1afmkfd" Russian 43f 440 438 43c 435 440
".xn--fdbk5d8ap9b8a8d" Yiddish 5d1 5f2 5b7 5e9 5e4 5bc 5d9 5dc
".xn--fsqu00a" Chinese (simplified) 4f8b 5b50
".xn--fsqu00a" Chinese (traditional) 4f8b 5b50
".xn--hxajbheg2az3al" Greek 3c0 3b1 3c1 3ac 3b4 3b5 3b9 3b3 3bc 3b1
".xn--mgbh0fb" Arabic 645 62b 627 644
".xn--mgbh0fb" Persian 645 62b 627 644
".xn--p1b6ci4b4b3a" Hindi 909 926 93e 939 930 923
".xn--r8jz45g" Japanese 4f8b 3048
".xn--zkc6cc5bi7f6e" Tamil b89 ba4 bbe bb0 ba3 bae bcd
</artwork></figure></section>
<!-- ...10....5...20....5...30....5...40....5...50....5...60....5...70 -->
<section title="IANA Considerations" anchor="iana"><t>
IANA reserves the TLDs ".example", ".invalid", ".localhost", ".test",
".tld",
eleven IDN test TLDs, and nine IDN example TLDs as noted above. IANA
reserves the second level domains ".example.com", ".example.net", and
".example.org".
</t><t>
IANA creates a registry of reserved TLDs; this can be done alongside
existing IANA TLD registries at the discretion of IANA. The registry
should contain references to the relevant specifications, for the
25 reserved TLDs specified here references to this memo will do.
</t><t>
Additional reserved TLDs require IETF review as defined in
<xref target="RFC5226" /> section 4.1 in conjunction with
clause 4.3 in <xref target="RFC2860" />.
</t><t>
The <spanx style="strong">technical</spanx> purpose of a reserved TLD
has to be stated in its specification.
</t><t>
Proposals to reserve TLD labels not permitted for ordinary TLDs, as
specified in <xref target="RFC1123" /> among others, e.g., labels not
starting with a letter, or not following known LDH- and
<xref target="IDNAbis" /> rules, are not expected to survive an IETF
review without compelling reasons.
</t></section>
<section title="Security Considerations"><t>
Confusion and conflict can be caused by the use of a current or
future top level domain name in experimentation or testing, as an
example in documentation, to indicate invalid names, or as a synonym
for the loop back address. Test and experimental software can escape
and end up being run against the global operational DNS. Even
examples used "only" in documentation can end up being coded and
released or cause conflicts due to later real use and the possible
acquisition of intellectual property rights in such "example" names.
</t><t>
The reservation of several top level domain names for these purposes
minimizes such confusion and conflict.
</t><t>
<xref target="RFC4367" /> discusses various false assumptions based
on domain labels, however this doesn't affect the reserved TLDs in
this memo.
</t><t>
Readers need to be aware that the IANA registry of reserved TLDs in
<xref target="iana" /> won't list all reserved TLDs for specific
applications and protocols. The registry can only list reserved TLDs
if somebody bothered to propose it, typically in an Internet-Draft,
and the proposal was accepted in an IETF review.
</t></section>
<section title="Acknowledgments"><t>
This memo contains major parts of <xref target="RFC2606" /> written
by Donald E. Eastlake and Aliza R. Panitz.
</t><t>
Thanks to
Alfred Hönes,
Bill McQuillan,
Brian Carpenter,
Dave Cridland,
David Conrad,
Debbie Garside,
Doug Otis,
Joe Abley,
John Klensin,
John Levine,
Lyman Chapin,
Marcel Parodi,
Mark Andrews,
Marshall Eubanks,
Michael Dillon,
Ole Jacobsen,
Paul Hoffman,
Peter Saint-Andre,
Philip Guenther,
Philip Hallam-Baker,
SM,
Spencer Dawkins,
Steve Crocker,
Sumit Pandya,
Thomas Narten,
Tina Dam,
Tony Finch, and
Tony Hansen for their feedback, contributions, or encouragement.
</t></section>
</middle><back>
<references title="Normative References">
&rfc2119;
&rfc5226;
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
&rfc1034;
&rfc1035;
&rfc1122;
&rfc1123;
&rfc1591;
&rfc2606;
&rfc2860;
&rfc2965;
&rfc3490;
&rfc3696;
&rfc3849;
&rfc3927;
&rfc4085;
&rfc4291;
&rfc4343;
&rfc4367;
&bis3330;
<reference anchor='IDNAbis' target='http://tools.ietf.org/wg/idnabis'>
<front>
<title>Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (Revised)</title>
<author><organization> IETF </organization></author>
<date month="April" year='2008' />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<section title="Educational Info" anchor="info"><t>
This informative appendix tries to answer three frequently
asked questions:
<list style="numbers"><t>
As of 2008 IANA is the registrant of ".example.edu";
TLD ".edu" has no contract with ICANN; its administration is
based on a five years contract with the US DoC renewed in
2006; see
<eref target="http://net.educause.edu/edudomain/policy.asp" />.
Under amendment 6 of their current policy generic names cannot
be registered. This is not exactly the same situation as
for say ".example.org", where IANA is the registrant
<spanx style="strong">and</spanx> registrar.
</t><t>
As of 2008 IANA is the registrant of ".example.info";
TLD ".info" was created by ICANN in 2001. The ".info" registry
agreement lists reserved DNS labels including "example"; see
<eref target="http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/" />
appendix 6 (2006) and K (2001), respectively. This is not
exactly the same situation as for say ".example.org", where
IANA is the registrant
<spanx style="strong">and</spanx> registrar.
</t><t>
Ignoring <xref target="RFC2965" /> the TLD ".local" issue was
discussed in a bunch of Internet-Drafts related to AS112,
zeroconf, and <xref target="RFC3927" />. Presumably TLD ".local"
should be registered as reserved for technical reasons, but
deserves its own document with the fine print.
</t></list></t></section>
<section title="Document History" anchor="history"><t>
<!-- Changes in version 12:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Backup for Donald, the published version is still 12.
</t></list>
</t><t> -->
Changes in version 12:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Version 12 adjusts white space introduced in version 10
that should have been removed for version 11. Version 11
attracted no further feedback.
</t><t>
An informal last call on the IDNAbis list for version 10
resulted in one change for version 11 as noted below.
Unsurprisingly the IDNAbis WG did not adopt this draft
as work item. The WG also did not tackle the issue of
IDNA <toplabel>s so far, and this memo is not the
place to update <xref target="RFC1123" /> section 2.1.
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 11:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Added nine IDN example labels corresponding to the IDN
test labels as reserved TLDs after long discussions with
two contributors confirming the stability and desirability
of this approach.
</t><t>
Noted that the list of IDN example TLDs might be extended,
and a final list can be reserved as specified here after
the conclusion of the IDN test.
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 10:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Noted that only certain LDH-labels are or might be A-labels
based on feedback. The details are or will be specified in
<xref target="IDNAbis" />.
</t><t>
Moved <xref target="RFC2860" /> back to informative. Folks
<spanx style="strong">apparently</spanx> disagree what it
should be, more feedback needed to justify a downref.
</t><t>
Added <xref target="RFC3696" /> again, its description of a
<toplabel> covers the eleven IDN test TLDs.
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 09:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Fixed <xref target="RFC2860" /> link, clause 4.3 is a
section of the MoU, not a section of the RFC containing
this MoU.
</t><t>
Added ".tld" as reserved TLD for examples following a
proposal by Bill McQuillan supported by some others.
</t><t>
Arguably ".bad" ideas
".bar", ".bat", ".baz", ".foo", and ".lit" not yet added
for different reasons, they would need stronger support.
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 08:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Moved <xref target="RFC2860" /> to normative, inspired by
feedback and the precedence in another BCP.
Added the relevant sections in <xref target="RFC2860" />
and <xref target="RFC5226" /> to <xref target="iana" />.
</t><t>
Added a long blurb that the purpose of reserved TLDs has
to be noted in their specifications, and that reserving
TLDs not permitted as ordinary TLDs need very good reasons
to survive the required IETF review.
</t><t>
<xref target="IDNAbis" /> hopefully fixes the <toplabel>
problem in <xref target="RFC1123" />. This memo isn't the
place to do this, as the issue is not limited to reserved
TLDs, tests, and examples.
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 07:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Kept "nic", "whois", and "www" as known examples why
there are no globally reserved LDH labels for whatever
purpose below the top level.
</t><t>
Proposals to add ".internal", ".local", ".localdomain", and
".uucp" not adopted. This memo covers known test and example
TLDs, as well as two other TLDs and three example SLDs
inherited from <xref target="RFC2606" />. Reserved TLDs for
other purposes deserve separate documents.
</t><t>
Added a note that internationalizations of ".invalid" are a
non-starter, as this TLD is expected to be hardwired in
some applications. For ".localhost" that should be obvious.
</t><t>
Review requests sent at different times to the APPS, general,
<xref target="IDNAbis" />, INT, and OPS mailing lists.
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 06:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Explanations of the terms LDH, A-label, and IDN added in
<xref target="intro" />. Just in case added a reference
to <xref target="RFC4343" />.
</t><t>
Downgraded <xref target="RFC3696" /> to <xref target="RFC1123" />;
for some months the best documentation of a <toplabel>
was available in an erratum.
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 05:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Donald offered to co-author this memo.
</t><t>
Clarified that there are now additional TLDs recommended for
tests, not only the original ".test" in <xref target="test" />.
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 04:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
In the "Public Suffix List" debate SM quoted
<xref target="RFC4085" />, added to <xref target="intro" />.
</t><t>
Replaced "A record" by "address record" with references to
<xref target="RFC1122" /> and <xref target="RFC4291" /> in
<xref target="loop" />.
</t><t>
Added IDN test U-labels (in a crude hex. format due to RFC
layout limitations) with the help of
<eref target="http://josefsson.org/idn.php/" /> and
<eref target="http://www.imc.org/idna/" />.
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 03:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Swapped IANA and security considerations based on feedback,
since version 01 the order anyway did not more follow
<eref target="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08#section-4" />.
</t><t>
Dave Cridland proposed another <xref target="RFC4367" />
caveat, there are no globally reserved LDH labels below the
top level. LDH excludes special cases such as the empty label
reserved for the root, and leaf labels starting with an
underscore.
</t><t>
The informative <xref target="info" /> hopefully answers
frequently asked questions about
".example.edu", ".example.info", and ".local".
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 02:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Added the related <xref target="RFC3849" /> and
<xref target="I-D.iana-rfc3330bis" /> references.
Added an <xref target="RFC4367" /> reference to the security
considerations, as this explains one of many issues with any
"well-known" label below the top level.
</t><t>
Improved the IANA Considerations <xref target="iana" /> based
on feedback. The registry of reserved TLDs needs references
to the relevant specifications.
</t><t>
Added a caveat that the IANA registry of reserved TLDs cannot
list all obscure ideas of specific applications and protocols;
somebody has to trigger an IETF review for new registrations.
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 01:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
Various editorial issues found by Tony Hansen fixed.
</t><t>
Added an <xref target="IDNAbis" /> reference. The authors believe
that the IETF is not entitled to decree that ".example.edu"
belongs to the set of three example-SLDs reserved by IANA.
</t></list>
</t><t>
Changes in version 00:
</t><t>
<list style="symbols"><t>
John Klensin suggested clarifying the guidelines for
examples in <xref target="RFC2606" />, referenced by
<eref target="http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html" />.
Documenting the eleven new IDN test TLDs was anyway
desirable.
</t></list>
</t></section>
</back></rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2024 | 2024-05-19 20:31:34 |