The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) DNS Resource Record
draft-faltstrom-uri-08
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7553.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Patrik Fältström , Olaf Kolkman | ||
Last updated | 2014-07-31 (Latest revision 2013-07-05) | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Reviews | |||
Additional resources | |||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7553 (Informational) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | Pete Resnick | ||
Send notices to | kolkman@isoc.org, paf@netnod.se, draft-faltstrom-uri@tools.ietf.org |
draft-faltstrom-uri-08
", RFC 5507, April 2009. Appendix A. The original RRTYPE Allocation Request On February 22, 2011 IANA assigned RRTYPE 256 for the URI resource record based on a request that followed the procedure documented in RFC 6195 [RFC6195]. The DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION form as submitted to IANA at thet time is replicated below for reference. A. Submission Date: May 23, 2009 B. Submission Type: [X] New RRTYPE [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE C. Contact Information for submitter: Name: Patrik Faltstrom Email Address: paf@cisco.com International telephone number: +46-8-6859131 Faltstrom & Kolkman Expires January 04, 2014 [Page 9] Internet-Draft URI Resource Record July 2013 Other contact handles: (Note: This information will be publicly posted.) D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application? There is no easy way to get from a domain name to a URI (or IRI). Some mechanisms exists via use of the NAPTR [RFC3403] resource record. That implies quite complicated rules that are simplified via the S-NAPTR [RFC3958] specification. But, the ability to directly look up a URI still exists. This specification uses a prefix based naming mechanism originated in the definition of the SRV [RFC2782] resource record, and the RDATA is a URI, encoded as one text field. See also above (Section 1). E. Description of the proposed RR type. The format of the URI resource record is as follows: Ownername TTL Class URI Priority Weight Target The URI RR has service information encoded in its ownername. In order to encode the service for a specific owner name one uses service parameters. Valid service parameters used are either Enumservice Registrations registered by IANA, or prefixes used for the SRV resource record. The wire format of the RDATA is as follows: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Priority | Weight | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ / / / Target / / / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need and why are they unsatisfactory? Faltstrom & Kolkman Expires January 04, 2014 [Page 10] Internet-Draft URI Resource Record July 2013 The RRTYPE that come closest is the NAPTR resource record. It is for example used in the DDDS and S-NAPTR algorithms. The main problem with the NAPTR is that selection of what record (or records) one is interested in is based on data stored in the RDATA portion of the NAPTR resource record. This, as explained in RFC 5507 [RFC5507], is not optimal for DNS lookups. Further, most applications using NAPTR resource records uses regular expression based rewrite rules for creation of the URI, and that has shown be complicated to implement. The second closest RRTYPE is the SRV record that given a prefixed based naming just like is suggested for the URI resource record, one get back a port number and domain name. This can also be used for creation of a URI, but, only URIs without path components. G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)? URI H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA Registry or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in DNS Parameters? Yes, partially. One of the mechanisms to select a service is to use the Enumservice Registry managed by IANA. Another is to use services and protocols used for SRV records. I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS servers/ resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])? No J. Comments: None Authors' Addresses Patrik Faltstrom Netnod Email: paf@netnod.se Olaf Kolkman NLnet Labs Email: olaf@NLnetLabs.nl Faltstrom & Kolkman Expires January 04, 2014 [Page 11]