Please review 'text/dns' and 'application/dns'
Simon Josefsson
jas at extundo.com
Mon Mar 1 18:36:38 CET 2004
I missed the cut-off date, but meanwhile it is available from:
http://josefsson.org/draft-josefsson-mime-dns.txt
The forms where part of earlier versions of draft-josefsson-dns-url,
and there has been two versions of draft-josefsson-mime-dns published
at IETF before, so the types may have been discussed here before; I
don't recall. Still, this version has been improved in many ways, so
I'd appreciate more review.
Thanks,
Simon
-------------- next part --------------
Network Working Group S. Josefsson
Internet-Draft October 26, 2003
Expires: April 25, 2004
Domain Name System Uniform Resource Identifiers
draft-josefsson-dns-url-09
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document define Uniform Resource Identifiers for Domain Name
System resources.
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. DNS URI Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Revision Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.1 Changes since -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.2 Changes since -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.3 Changes since -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 12
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
1. Introduction and Background
The Domain Name System (DNS) [1][2] is a widely deployed system used
to, among other things, translate host names into IP addresses.
Recent work has added support for storing certificates and
certificate revocation lists in the DNS [10].
The primary motivation behind defining a Uniform Resource Identifier
(URI) for DNS resources, instead of using another non-URI syntax that
embed the domain, type value and class value, is that applications
that stores or retrieve certificates today uses URIs for this
purpose. Thus, defining a URI scheme for DNS resources allows these
existing protocols to be used with certificates in the DNS without
having to add DNS specific modifications to said protocols. In order
to not introduce interoperability or security considerations,
protocols that uses these URIs naturally must have been written to
allow for future, as of writing yet undefined, URIs to be used.
A few examples of protocols that may utilize DNS URIs:
o The OpenPGP Message Format [8], where an end-user may indicate the
location of a copy of any updates to her key, using the "preferred
key server" field.
o The X.509 Online Certificate Status Protocol [11], where the OCSP
responder can indicate where a CRL is found, using the
id-pkix-ocsp-crl extension.
The DNS URI scheme defined here can, of course, be used to reference
any DNS data, and is not limited to only certificates. The purpose
of this specification is to define a generic DNS URI, not a specific
DNS solution for certificates stored in the DNS. Browsers may
implement support for DNS URIs by forming DNS queries and render DNS
responses using HTML [14], similar to what is done for the FTP [5].
The core part of this document is the URI Registration Template
according to [13].
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 [6].
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
2. DNS URI Registration
URL scheme name: "dns".
URL scheme syntax: A DNS URI designates a DNS resource record set
that can be referenced by domain name, type, class and optionally the
authority. The DNS URI follows the generic syntax from RFC 2396 [4],
and is described using ABNF [3]. Strings are not case sensitive and
free insertion of linear-white-space is not permitted.
dnsurl = "dns:" [ "//" dnsauthority "/" ] dnsname ["?" dnsquery]
dnsauthority = hostport
; See RFC 2396 for "hostport" definition.
dnsname = *pchar
; See RFC 2396 for "pchar" definition.
; NB! Can be empty.
dnsquery = dnsqueryelement [";" dnsquery]
; First matching element MUST be used.
; E.g., dns:host.example.org?TYPE=A;TYPE=TXT
; means type A.
dnsqueryelement = ( "CLASS=" dnsclassval ) / ( "TYPE=" dnstypeval ) /
( 1*alphanum "=" 1*alphanum )
dnsclassval = 1*digit / "IN" / "CH" / ...
; Any IANA registered DNS class expressed as
; mnemonic or as decimal integer.
dnstypeval = 1*digit / "A" / "NS" / "MD" / ...
; Any IANA registered DNS type expressed as
; mnemonic or as decimal integer.
The digit representation of types and classes MAY be used when a
mnemonic for the corresponding value is not well known (e.g., for
newly introduced types or classes), but SHOULD NOT be used for the
types or classes defined in the DNS specification [2]. All
implementations MUST recognize the mnemonics defined in [2].
Unless specified in the URI, the authority ("dnsauthority") is
assumed to be locally known, "dnsclassval" to be the Internet class
("IN"), and "dnstypeval" to be the Address type ("A").
To resolve a DNS URI using the DNS protocol [2] a query is formed by
using the dnsname, dnsclassval and dnstypeval from the URI string (or
the previously mentioned default values if some value missing from
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
the string). If authority ("dnsauthority") is given in the URI
string, this indicate the server that should receive the DNS query,
otherwise the default DNS server should receive it. (Note that DNS
URIs could be resolved by other protocols than the DNS protocol. DNS
URIs does not require the use of the DNS protocol, although it is
expected to be the typical usage. This paragraph only illustrate how
DNS URIs are resolved using the DNS protocol.)
A client MAY want to check that it understands the dnsclassval and
dnstypeval before sending a query, so that it is able to correctly
parse the answer. A typical example of a client that would not need
to check dnsclassval and dnstypeval would be a proxy that just treat
the answer as opaque data.
Character encoding considerations: The characters are encoded as per
the "URI Generic Syntax" RFC [4]. The DNS protocol do not consider
character sets, it simply transports opaque data. In particular, the
"dnsname" field of the DNS URI is to be considered an
internationalized domain name (IDN) unaware domain name slot, in the
terminology of [16]. (The reason for this is that making these fields
be IDN aware by, e.g., specifying that they are UTF-8 [7] strings,
would require further encoding mechanisms to be able to express all
valid DNS domain names. This is because the DNS allows all octet
sequences to be used as domain labels, so UTF-8 strings do not cover
all possibilities. Instead of defining further encoding mechanisms,
we point applications with internationalization needs at the ASCII
encoding described in [16] which should be satisfactory.) The
considerations for "hostport" are discussed in [4]
To encode a "." that is part of a DNS label the "escaped" encoding
MUST be used, and a label delimiter MUST be encoded as ".". That is,
the only way to encode a label delimiter is ".", and the only way to
encode a "." as part of label is "%2e". This approach was chosen to
minimize the modifications users will have to do when manually
translating a domain name string into the URI form.
This URI specification allows all possible domain names to be encoded
(of course following the encoding rules of [4]), however certain
applications may restrict the set of valid characters and care should
be taken so that invalid characters in these contexts does not cause
harm. In particular, host names in the DNS have certain
restrictions. It is up to these application to limit this subset,
this URI scheme places no restrictions.
Intended usage: Whenever DNS resources are useful to reference by
protocol independent identifiers, often when the data is more
important than the access method. Since software in general has
coped without this so far, it is not anticipated to be implemented
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
widely, nor migrated to by existing systems, but specific solutions
(especially security related) may find this appropriate.
Applications and/or protocols which use this scheme: Security related
software. It may be of interest to auxilliary DNS related software
too.
Interoperability considerations: The data referenced by this URI
scheme might be transferred by protocols that are not URI aware (such
as the DNS protocol). This is not anticipated to have any serious
interoperability impact though.
Interoperability problems may occur if one entity understands a new
DNS type or class mnemonic but another entity do not understand it.
This is an interoperability problem for DNS software in general,
although it is not a major practical problem as the DNS types and
classes are fairly static. To guarantee interoperability
implementations could use integers for all mnemonics not defined in
[2].
Interaction with Binary Labels [12], or other extended label types,
has not been analyzed. However, they appear to be infrequently used
in practice.
Security considerations: See below.
Contact: simon at josefsson.org
Author/Change Controller: simon at josefsson.org
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
3. Examples
A DNS URI is of the following general form. This is intended to
illustrate, not define, the scheme.
dns:[//authority/]domain[?type=TYPE;class=CLASS]
The following illustrate a URI for a resource with the name
"www.example.org", the Internet (IN) class and the Address (A) type:
dns:www.example.org?class=IN;type=A
Since the default class is IN, and the default type is A, the same
resource can be identified by a shorter URI:
dns:www.example.org
The following illustrate a URI for a resource with the name
"simon.example.org", for the CERT type, in the Internet (IN) class:
dns:simon.example.org?type=CERT
The following illustrate a URI for a resource with the name
"ftp.example.org", in the Internet (IN) class and the address (A)
type, but from the DNS authority 192.168.1.1 instead of the default
authority (i.e., when DNS is used, the query is sent to that server):
dns://192.168.1.1/ftp.example.org?type=A
The following illustrate a strange, albeit valid, DNS resource. Note
the encoding of "." and 0x00, and the use of a named dnsauthority:
dns://internal-dns.example.org/*.%3f%20%00%2e%25+?type=TXT
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
4. Security Considerations
If a DNS URI references domains in the Internet DNS environment, both
the URI itself and the information referenced by the URI is public
information. If a DNS URI is used within an "internal" DNS
environment, both the DNS URI and the data is referenced should be
handled using the same considerations that apply to DNS data in the
environment.
If information referenced by DNS URIs are used to make security
decisions (examples of such data include, but is not limited to,
certificates stored in the DNS), implementations may need to employ
security techniques such as Secure DNS [9], or even CMS [15] or
OpenPGP [8], to protect the data during transport. How to implement
this will depend on the usage scenario, and it is not up to this URI
scheme to define how the data referenced by DNS URIs should be
protected.
If applications accept unknown dnsqueryelement values (e.g., accepts
the URI "dns:www.example.org?secret=value" without knowing what the
"secret=value" dnsqueryelement means), a covert channel used to
"leak" information may be enabled. The implications of covert
channels should be understood by applications that accepts unknown
dnsqueryelement values.
This draft does not modify the security considerations related to the
DNS or URIs in general.
5. IANA Considerations
The IANA is asked to register the DNS URI scheme, using the template
in section 2, in accordance with RFC 2717 [13].
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Stuart Cheshire, Donald Eastlake, Pasi Eronen, Ted Hardie,
Peter Koch, Andrew Main, Larry Masinter, Michael Mealling, Steve
Mattson, and Paul Vixie for comments and suggestions. The author
acknowledges the RSA Laboratories for supporting the work that led to
this document.
Normative References
[1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD
13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[3] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[4] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998.
Informative References
[5] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9,
RFC 959, October 1985.
[6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[7] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", RFC
2279, January 1998.
[8] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H. and R. Thayer, "OpenPGP
Message Format", RFC 2440, November 1998.
[9] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
2535, March 1999.
[10] Eastlake, D. and O. Gudmundsson, "Storing Certificates in the
Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2538, March 1999.
[11] Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S. and C. Adams,
"X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate
Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999.
[12] Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", RFC
2673, August 1999.
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
[13] Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme
Names", BCP 35, RFC 2717, November 1999.
[14] Connolly, D. and L. Masinter, "The 'text/html' Media Type", RFC
2854, June 2000.
[15] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 3369,
August 2002.
[16] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P. and A. Costello, "Internationalizing
Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.
Author's Address
Simon Josefsson
EMail: simon at josefsson.org
Appendix A. Revision Changes
Note to RFC editor: This appendix is to be removed on publication.
A.1 Changes since -06
The MIME registration templates for text/dns and application/dns was
removed, and will be defined in separate documents.
Improved discussion related to which mnemonics that must be
supported. The interoperability problem that provoked the
clarification is also mentioned.
Security consideration improvements.
A.2 Changes since -07
Author/Change Controller changed to author of this document, not
IESG. Terminology section collapsed into introduction. The second
paragraph of the introduction rewritten and gives explicit examples.
Intended usage and applications fields fixed. Moved this revision
tracking information to an appendix. Mention IDN in charset section.
All previous thanks to suggestions by Larry Masinter.
A.3 Changes since -08
Modifications derived from Last-Call comments: Made more clear that
DNS URIs does not imply use of the DNS protocol, but the issue is not
stressed because of the apparent inflamatory state of affairs. Added
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
informative references to HTML and FTP. Clarified that dnsname can
be empty. Clarified that first dnsqueryelement "win" in case of
ambiguity. Clarified security consideration with respect to unknown
dnsqueryelements. Use "authority" instead of "server". Say "IANA
registered" instead of "standard". Interoperability note about binary
DNS labels. Typos.
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DNS URI October 2003
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Josefsson Expires April 25, 2004 [Page 13]
More information about the Ietf-types
mailing list