Limited Domains and Internet Protocols
RFC 8799
Document | Type |
RFC - Informational
(July 2020; No errata)
Was draft-carpenter-limited-domains (individual)
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Brian Carpenter , Bing Liu | ||
Last updated | 2020-07-15 | ||
Stream | Independent Submission | ||
Formats | plain text html xml pdf htmlized (tools) 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 mightShow full document text