Limited Domains and Internet Protocols
RFC 8799

Document Type RFC - Informational (July 2020; No errata)
Authors Brian Carpenter  , Bing Liu 
Last updated 2020-07-15
Stream ISE
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex
IETF conflict review conflict-review-carpenter-limited-domains
Stream ISE state Published RFC
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd Adrian Farrel
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2019-12-06)
IESG IESG state RFC 8799 (Informational)
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Adrian Farrel <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state No IANA Actions


Independent Submission                                      B. Carpenter
Request for Comments: 8799                             Univ. of Auckland
Category: Informational                                           B. Liu
ISSN: 2070-1721                                      Huawei Technologies
                                                               July 2020

                 Limited Domains and Internet Protocols

Abstract

   There is a noticeable trend towards network behaviors and semantics
   that are specific to a particular set of requirements applied within
   a limited region of the Internet.  Policies, default parameters, the
   options supported, the style of network management, and security
   requirements may vary between such limited regions.  This document
   reviews examples of such limited domains (also known as controlled
   environments), notes emerging solutions, and includes a related
   taxonomy.  It then briefly discusses the standardization of protocols
   for limited domains.  Finally, it shows the need for a precise
   definition of "limited domain membership" and for mechanisms to allow
   nodes to join a domain securely and to find other members, including
   boundary nodes.

   This document is the product of the research of the authors.  It has
   been produced through discussions and consultation within the IETF
   but is not the product of IETF consensus.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
   its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by
   the RFC Editor are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard;
   see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799.

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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Failure Modes in Today's Internet
   3.  Examples of Limited Domain Requirements
   4.  Examples of Limited Domain Solutions
   5.  The Scope of Protocols in Limited Domains
   6.  Functional Requirements of Limited Domains
   7.  Security Considerations
   8.  IANA Considerations
   9.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Taxonomy of Limited Domains
     A.1.  Domain as a Whole
     A.2.  Individual Nodes
     A.3.  Domain Boundary
     A.4.  Topology
     A.5.  Technology
     A.6.  Connection to the Internet
     A.7.  Security, Trust, and Privacy Model
     A.8.  Operations
     A.9.  Making Use of This Taxonomy
   Acknowledgements
   Contributors
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   As the Internet continues to grow and diversify, with a realistic
   prospect of tens of billions of nodes being connected directly and
   indirectly, there is a noticeable trend towards network-specific and
   local requirements, behaviors, and semantics.  The word "local"
   should be understood in a special sense, however.  In some cases, it
   may refer to geographical and physical locality -- all the nodes in a
   single building, on a single campus, or in a given vehicle.  In other
   cases, it may refer to a defined set of users or nodes distributed
   over a much wider area, but drawn together by a single virtual
   network over the Internet, or a single physical network running in
   parallel with the Internet.  We expand on these possibilities below.
   To capture the topic, this document refers to such networks as
   "limited domains".  Of course, a similar situation may arise for a
   network that is completely disconnected from the Internet, but that
   is not our direct concern here.  However, it should not be forgotten
   that interoperability is needed even within a disconnected network.

   Some people have concerns about splintering of the Internet along
   political or linguistic boundaries by mechanisms that block the free
   flow of information.  That is not the topic of this document, which
   does not discuss filtering mechanisms (see [RFC7754]) and does not
   apply to protocols that are designed for use across the whole
   Internet.  It is only concerned with domains that have specific
   technical requirements.

   The word "domain" in this document does not refer to naming domains
   in the DNS, although in some cases, a limited domain might
Show full document text