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]