1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485
|
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" version="3" category="std" consensus="true" docName="draft-gellens-lost-validation-09" indexInclude="true" ipr="trust200902" number="8917" prepTime="2020-10-22T13:57:24" scripts="Common,Latin" sortRefs="true" submissionType="IETF" symRefs="true" tocDepth="2" tocInclude="true" updates="5222" xml:lang="en">
<link href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gellens-lost-validation-09" rel="prev"/>
<link href="https://dx.doi.org/10.17487/rfc8917" rel="alternate"/>
<link href="urn:issn:2070-1721" rel="alternate"/>
<front>
<title abbrev="LoST-Validation">The LoST-Validation Straightforward-Naming Authority PoinTeR (S-NAPTR) Application Service Tag</title>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8917" stream="IETF"/>
<author fullname="Randall Gellens" initials="R." surname="Gellens">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true">Core Technology Consulting</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city/>
<region/>
<code/>
<country>United States of America</country>
</postal>
<email>rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com</email>
<uri>http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="B." surname="Rosen" fullname="Brian Rosen">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
<address>
<postal>
<street>470 Conrad Dr.</street>
<city>Mars</city>
<region>PA</region>
<code>16046</code>
<country>United States of America</country>
</postal>
<phone></phone>
<email>br@brianrosen.net</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="10" year="2020"/>
<area>Real-Time Applications and Infrastructure</area>
<keyword>location</keyword>
<keyword>LoST</keyword>
<keyword>emergency</keyword>
<keyword>emergency services</keyword>
<keyword>ecrf</keyword>
<keyword>lvf</keyword>
<keyword>i3</keyword>
<abstract pn="section-abstract">
<t indent="0" pn="section-abstract-1">This document adds the 'LoST-Validation' service tag to the
Straightforward-Naming Authority PoinTeR (S-NAPTR) Application Service
Tag IANA registry. This tag can appear in a Naming Authority Pointer
(NAPTR) Domain Name System (DNS) record to assist clients of the
Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol in identifying LoST
servers designated for location validation. This tag and
the information about its use update RFC 5222, which enables the explicit discovery of a server that supports location validation.</t>
</abstract>
<boilerplate>
<section anchor="status-of-memo" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-boilerplate.1">
<name slugifiedName="name-status-of-this-memo">Status of This Memo</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-1">
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-2">
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by
the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further
information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of
RFC 7841.
</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.1-3">
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<eref target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8917" brackets="none"/>.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="copyright" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-boilerplate.2">
<name slugifiedName="name-copyright-notice">Copyright Notice</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.2-1">
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-boilerplate.2-2">
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<eref target="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info" brackets="none"/>) 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.
</t>
</section>
</boilerplate>
<toc>
<section anchor="toc" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="exclude" pn="section-toc.1">
<name slugifiedName="name-table-of-contents">Table of Contents</name>
<ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1">
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.1">
<t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.1.1"><xref derivedContent="1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-document-scope">Document Scope</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.2">
<t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.2.1"><xref derivedContent="2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-introduction">Introduction</xref></t>
<ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2">
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.1">
<t indent="0" keepWithNext="true" pn="section-toc.1-1.2.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="2.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-2.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-requirements-language">Requirements Language</xref></t>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.3">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.3.1"><xref derivedContent="3" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-3"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-the-lost-validation-applica">The LoST-Validation Application Service Tag</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.4">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.4.1"><xref derivedContent="4" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-4"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-backwards-compatibility">Backwards Compatibility</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.5">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.5.1"><xref derivedContent="5" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-5"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-security-considerations">Security Considerations</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.6">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.6.1"><xref derivedContent="6" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-6"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-iana-considerations">IANA Considerations</xref></t>
<ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2">
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2.1">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.6.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="6.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-6.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-s-naptr-registration">S-NAPTR Registration</xref></t>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.7">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.1"><xref derivedContent="7" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-references">References</xref></t>
<ul bare="true" empty="true" indent="2" spacing="compact" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2">
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.1">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.1.1"><xref derivedContent="7.1" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.1"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-normative-references">Normative References</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.2">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.7.2.2.1"><xref derivedContent="7.2" format="counter" sectionFormat="of" target="section-7.2"/>. <xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-informative-references">Informative References</xref></t>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.8">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.8.1"><xref derivedContent="" format="none" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.a"/><xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-acknowledgements">Acknowledgements</xref></t>
</li>
<li pn="section-toc.1-1.9">
<t indent="0" pn="section-toc.1-1.9.1"><xref derivedContent="" format="none" sectionFormat="of" target="section-appendix.b"/><xref derivedContent="" format="title" sectionFormat="of" target="name-authors-addresses">Authors' Addresses</xref></t>
</li>
</ul>
</section>
</toc>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="scope" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-1">
<name slugifiedName="name-document-scope">Document Scope</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-1-1">This document adds 'LoST-Validation' to the S-NAPTR Application
Service Tag IANA registry and describes how this tag fits in the LoST
server discovery procedure described in <xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/>. This tag is used with Naming Authority Pointer
(NAPTR) Domain Name System (DNS) records so that clients of the
Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol <xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/> can identify servers designated for location validation. This tag and the information on its use is an update to <xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/> that enables the explicit discovery of a server that supports location validation.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="intro" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-2">
<name slugifiedName="name-introduction">Introduction</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-2-1">The LoST Protocol <xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/> defines a mapping service with the
additional ability for a client to request that a civic address be
validated. The LoST protocol allows servers to ignore a request to
perform location validation. The National Emergency Number Association
(NENA) has defined an architecture for all-IP emergency services (known
as "i3" <xref target="NENA-i3" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="NENA-i3"/>), which defines the
mapping (routing) and validation functions as two distinct functional
elements, defined as an Emergency Call Routing Function (ECRF) and a
Location Validation Function (LVF). NENA i3 requires that the mapping
(ECRF) and validation (LVF) functions be separable; an entity
responsible for a LoST server cluster can decide to provide mapping and
validation services using consolidated or separate server clusters
(i.e., using the same or separate boxes). The rationale is that the
mapping service is used in real time during emergency call routing,
while the validation service is used in advance, typically when data is
provisioned; therefore, the mapping service has much higher availability
and response-time requirements than the validation service. An
organization might choose to deploy these services using different
server clusters to make it easier to provide higher levels of service
for the mapping function while shielding it from the potentially bursty
load of validation. Another organization might choose to use the same
sets of servers for both services, configured and deployed to offer the high service level demanded of the mapping service.</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-2-2">In order to permit this separability, any entity querying a LoST
server needs to be able to resolve an Application Unique String (AUS)
into a URL for a LoST server designated for the required service (mapping
or validation). This separability needs to be maintained throughout the
LoST tree structure, from forest guide to leaf node (LoST architecture
is described in <xref target="RFC5582" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5582"/>). Because
LoST referrals return an AUS rather than a URL, either a different
service tag or a DNS name convention (e.g., "ecrf.example.org" and
"lvf.example.org") is needed to differentiate between the services. DNS name conventions are inflexible and fragile, making a different service tag the preferred approach.</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-2-3">Because LoST servers may ignore a request to perform location
validation, a service tag explicitly for location validation also
reduces the likelihood (which has existed since <xref target="RFC5582" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5582"/>) that a client needing location validation will reach servers that are not doing so
(due to configuration and/or conditions).</t>
<section anchor="req" numbered="true" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-2.1">
<name slugifiedName="name-requirements-language">Requirements Language</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-2.1-1">
The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
shown here.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="LoST-Validation" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-3">
<name slugifiedName="name-the-lost-validation-applica">The LoST-Validation Application Service Tag</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-3-1">This document adds 'LoST-Validation' to the "S-NAPTR Application
Service Tags" registry created by <xref target="RFC3958" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3958"/>. The 'LoST-Validation' tag serves as a counterpart
to the 'LoST' tag added by <xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/>:
the 'LoST' tag identifies servers able to perform the core mapping
function, while 'LoST-Validation' identifies servers designated for the validation function.</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-3-2">Because some servers might be configured to provide both mapping and
validation functions, a server identified using the 'LoST' service tag
might also perform the validation function (and resolving the two tags
might result in the same URL). Because the two functions might be
separate, clients seeking a LoST server for location validation can
first try a URI-Enabled NAPTR (U-NAPTR) resolution using the
'LoST-Validation' service tag and can fall back to the 'LoST' service tag if this does not resolve to a usable LoST server.</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-3-3">LoST <xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/> specifies that LoST
servers are located by resolving an AUS using U-NAPTR/DDDS (URI-Enabled
NAPTR / Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service) <xref target="RFC4848" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4848"/> and defines the 'LoST' application service tag. In
order to permit separability of the mapping and validation services
performed using LoST, this document defines the 'LoST-Validation'
service tag. This tag also reduces the likelihood that a client needing
location validation might reach servers that are not performing validation (due to
configuration and/or conditions). NAPTR records for LoST servers available for location validation contain the 'LoST-Validation' service tag. An entity needing to perform location validation using LoST performs the discovery procedure as described in <xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/>, except that the 'LoST-Validation' service tag is used in preference to the 'LoST' service tag. For both service tags, the HTTP and HTTPS URL schemes are used. In the absence of any NAPTR records containing the 'LoST-Validation' service tag, the 'LoST' service tag is used. Fallback to the 'LoST' service tag may follow if the 'LoST-Validation' service tag fails to result in a usable LoST server. The discovery procedure with the 'LoST-Validation' service tag might result in the same URL as the 'LoST' service tag, or it may result in a different URL. When the URLs are different, they could lead to the same physical servers or different servers.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="back" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-4">
<name slugifiedName="name-backwards-compatibility">Backwards Compatibility</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-4-1">The primary use of LoST in general, and the location validation functionality in particular, is within the emergency services area. Within North America, the NENA i3 <xref target="NENA-i3" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="NENA-i3"/> document specifies how protocols including LoST are used. The i3 document is expected to reference the 'LoST-Validation' service tag and specify its use in both server NAPTR DNS records and client resolution of AUS.</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-4-2">LoST allows a server to refuse to perform location validation and
defines the 'locationValidationUnavailable' warning. LoST also allows a
server to refer to another server rather than answering itself. So, in a
deployment where a LoST tree has separate server clusters for mapping
and for validation, mapping servers receiving a request for validation
could either perform the validation as requested or return the
'locationValidationUnavailable' warning and potentially also include a
<redirect> element to redirect to a validation server. However,
the <redirect> element contains an AUS, so
unless the AUSs for validation and mapping are different (e.g.,
'ecrf.example.org' and 'lvf.example.org'), we still need a different
service tag to allow for flexible deployment choices (i.e., not
requiring a DNS name convention).</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-4-3">LoST clients performing emergency services operations in North
America are expected to
comply with the NENA i3 specification and hence support the
'LoST-Validation' service tag when defined. A LoST client implemented
prior to the addition of the 'LoST-Validation' tag would use the 'LoST'
tag to resolve an AUS. Such a client might not be performing location
validation, but if it is, the LoST server it contacts may perform the
service. Even in a deployment where mapping and validation are split,
the data is identical; the split is a load and deployment optimization
strategy. Servers designated for mapping might perform validation when
requested (potentially depending on load or other factors). If an older
client attempts validation using a designated mapping server that
refuses the request, the client will retry later, at which point the
server might provide the function (e.g., if its load or other conditions
have changed). Even
in the case of a designated mapping server that refuses to
perform validation at any time, the server could return a redirect with
a different AUS (e.g., "lvf.example.com") that resolves to a designated
validation server. In the worst case, the client will be
unable to reach a server willing to perform validation and will follow
up (e.g., submit a discrepancy report as specified in NENA i3). The
resolution may be to update the client with the 'LoST-Validation'
service tag, update the AUS returned in a redirect and DNS to use a
different DNS host name, or permit the server to perform validation when
not under stress (or a combination). Note that, because LoST does not
require servers to perform validation, the situation described can exist
regardless of the addition of the 'LoST-Validation' service tag. Use of
the tag improves the likelihood that a client is able to validate a
location when needed.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="security" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-5">
<name slugifiedName="name-security-considerations">Security Considerations</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-5-1">The security considerations described in <xref target="RFC3958" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3958"/>, <xref target="RFC4848" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4848"/>, and <xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/> apply here. No additional security
aspects are foreseen by the addition of an extra tag. Separation of
services might be desired, for example, to be able to allocate different levels of resources (such as server capacity, attack mitigation, bandwidth, etc.) to the mapping and validation services, in which case separate tags are needed to allow LoST clients (which may include other LoST servers) to identify the correct server cluster.</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-5-2"><xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/> descriptively discusses the
use of DNS security <xref target="RFC4033" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC4033"/> to
mitigate the risk of DNS-based attacks. Because DNS security has become
more widely deployed since the publication of <xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/>, such measures <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be used when
performing NAPTR resolution. Note that, while there are valid reasons
to proceed with a LoST mapping query despite security failures while
initiating or processing an emergency call, these concerns generally do
not apply to a LoST validation query done in advance of an emergency
call.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="iana" numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-6">
<name slugifiedName="name-iana-considerations">IANA Considerations</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-6-1">IANA has added 'LoST-Validation' to the "S-NAPTR Application Service
Tags" registry created by <xref target="RFC3958" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3958"/>.
This tag serves as a counterpart to the 'LoST' tag added by <xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/>.</t>
<t indent="0" pn="section-6-2">(Note that IANA and <xref target="RFC3958" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC3958"/> call this registry "S-NAPTR Application Service Tags", while <xref target="RFC5222" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="RFC5222"/> calls it "U-NAPTR application service tag".)</t>
<section numbered="true" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-6.1">
<name slugifiedName="name-s-naptr-registration">S-NAPTR Registration</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-6.1-1">This document registers an S-NAPTR application service tag:</t>
<dl spacing="normal" indent="3" newline="false" pn="section-6.1-2">
<dt pn="section-6.1-2.1">Application Service Tag:</dt>
<dd pn="section-6.1-2.2">LoST-Validation</dd>
<dt pn="section-6.1-2.3">Defining Publication:</dt>
<dd pn="section-6.1-2.4">This document</dd>
</dl>
</section>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references pn="section-7">
<name slugifiedName="name-references">References</name>
<references pn="section-7.1">
<name slugifiedName="name-normative-references">Normative References</name>
<reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC2119">
<front>
<title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="S. Bradner">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<date year="1997" month="March"/>
<abstract>
<t indent="0">In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC3958" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3958" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC3958">
<front>
<title>Domain-Based Application Service Location Using SRV RRs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS)</title>
<author initials="L." surname="Daigle" fullname="L. Daigle">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Newton" fullname="A. Newton">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<date year="2005" month="January"/>
<abstract>
<t indent="0">This memo defines a generalized mechanism for application service naming that allows service location without relying on rigid domain naming conventions (so-called name hacks). The proposal defines a Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Application to map domain name, application service name, and application protocol dynamically to target server and port. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3958"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3958"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4033" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC4033">
<front>
<title>DNS Security Introduction and Requirements</title>
<author initials="R." surname="Arends" fullname="R. Arends">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="R." surname="Austein" fullname="R. Austein">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Larson" fullname="M. Larson">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="D." surname="Massey" fullname="D. Massey">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="S." surname="Rose" fullname="S. Rose">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<date year="2005" month="March"/>
<abstract>
<t indent="0">The Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) add data origin authentication and data integrity to the Domain Name System. This document introduces these extensions and describes their capabilities and limitations. This document also discusses the services that the DNS security extensions do and do not provide. Last, this document describes the interrelationships between the documents that collectively describe DNSSEC. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4033"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4033"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4848" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4848" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC4848">
<front>
<title>Domain-Based Application Service Location Using URIs and the Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS)</title>
<author initials="L." surname="Daigle" fullname="L. Daigle">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<date year="2007" month="April"/>
<abstract>
<t indent="0">The purpose of this document is to define a new, straightforward Dynamic Delegation Discovery Service (DDDS) application to allow mapping of domain names to URIs for particular application services and protocols. Although defined as a new DDDS application, dubbed U-NAPTR, this is effectively an extension of the Straightforward NAPTR (S-NAPTR) DDDS Application. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4848"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4848"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5222" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5222" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC5222">
<front>
<title>LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol</title>
<author initials="T." surname="Hardie" fullname="T. Hardie">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="A." surname="Newton" fullname="A. Newton">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="H." surname="Schulzrinne" fullname="H. Schulzrinne">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<author initials="H." surname="Tschofenig" fullname="H. Tschofenig">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<date year="2008" month="August"/>
<abstract>
<t indent="0">This document describes an XML-based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to service contact URIs. In particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5222"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5222"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC8174">
<front>
<title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
<author initials="B." surname="Leiba" fullname="B. Leiba">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<date year="2017" month="May"/>
<abstract>
<t indent="0">RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
</reference>
</references>
<references pn="section-7.2">
<name slugifiedName="name-informative-references">Informative References</name>
<reference anchor="NENA-i3" target="https://www.nena.org/page/i3_Stage3" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="NENA-i3">
<front>
<title>Detailed Functional and Interface Standards for the NENA i3 Solution</title>
<author fullname="" initials="" surname="National Emergency Number Association (NENA) Interconnection and Security Committee, i3 Architecture Working Group"/>
<date year="2016"/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5582" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5582" quoteTitle="true" derivedAnchor="RFC5582">
<front>
<title>Location-to-URL Mapping Architecture and Framework</title>
<author initials="H." surname="Schulzrinne" fullname="H. Schulzrinne">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
</author>
<date year="2009" month="September"/>
<abstract>
<t indent="0">This document describes an architecture for a global, scalable, resilient, and administratively distributed system for mapping geographic location information to URLs, using the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol. The architecture generalizes well-known approaches found in hierarchical lookup systems such as DNS. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5582"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5582"/>
</reference>
</references>
</references>
<section numbered="false" toc="include" removeInRFC="false" pn="section-appendix.a">
<name slugifiedName="name-acknowledgements">Acknowledgements</name>
<t indent="0" pn="section-appendix.a-1">Many thanks to <contact fullname="Ted Hardie"/>, <contact fullname="Ben Campbell"/>, <contact fullname="Dan Banks"/>, <contact fullname="Pete Resnick"/>, <contact fullname="Shawn Emery"/>, <contact fullname="Robert Wilton"/>, <contact fullname="Roman Danyliw"/>, and <contact fullname="Benjamin Kaduk"/> for their helpful reviews and suggestions and to <contact fullname="Barry Leiba"/> for shepherding the document.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="authors-addresses" numbered="false" removeInRFC="false" toc="include" pn="section-appendix.b">
<name slugifiedName="name-authors-addresses">Authors' Addresses</name>
<author fullname="Randall Gellens" initials="R." surname="Gellens">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true">Core Technology Consulting</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city/>
<region/>
<code/>
<country>United States of America</country>
</postal>
<email>rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com</email>
<uri>http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="B." surname="Rosen" fullname="Brian Rosen">
<organization showOnFrontPage="true"/>
<address>
<postal>
<street>470 Conrad Dr.</street>
<city>Mars</city>
<region>PA</region>
<code>16046</code>
<country>United States of America</country>
</postal>
<phone></phone>
<email>br@brianrosen.net</email>
</address>
</author>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
|