As per Relevance of the word copyright, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group Internet Architecture
Request for Comments: 2826 May 2000
Category:
IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS
Status of this
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
memo is unlimited
Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved
To remain a global network, the Internet requires the existence of
globally unique public name space. The DNS name space is
hierarchical name space derived from a single, globally unique root
This is a technical constraint inherent in the design of the DNS
Therefore it is not technically feasible for there to be more
one root in the public DNS. That one root must be supported by a
of coordinated root servers administered by a unique
authority
Put simply, deploying multiple public DNS roots would raise a
strong possibility that users of different ISPs who click on the
link on a web page could end up at different destinations,
the will of the web page designers
This does not preclude private networks from operating their
private name spaces, but if they wish to make use of names
defined for the global Internet, they have to fetch that
from the global DNS naming hierarchy, and in particular from
coordinated root servers of the global DNS naming hierarchy
1. Detailed
There are several distinct reasons why the DNS requires a single
in order to operate properly
1.1. Maintenance of a Common Symbol
Effective communications between two parties requires two
preconditions
IAB Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000
- The existence of a common symbol set,
- The existence of a common semantic interpretation of
symbols
Failure to meet the first condition implies a failure to
at all, while failure to meet the second implies that the meaning
the communication is lost
In the case of a public communications system this condition of
common symbol set with a common semantic interpretation must
further strengthened to that of a unique symbol set with a
semantic interpretation. This condition of uniqueness allows
party to initiate a communication that can be received and
by any other party. Such a condition rules out the ability to
a symbol within some bounded context. In such a case, once
communication moves out of the context of interpretation in which
was defined, the meaning of the symbol becomes lost
Within public digital communications networks such as the
this requirement for a uniquely defined symbol set with a
defined meaning exists at many levels, commencing with the
encoding scheme, extending to packet headers and payload formats
the protocol that an application uses to interact. In each case
variation of the symbol set or a difference of interpretation of
symbols being used within the interaction causes a protocol failure
and the communication fails. The property of uniqueness allows
symbol to be used unambiguously in any context, allowing the
to be passed on, referred to, and reused, while still preserving
meaning of the original use
The DNS fulfills an essential role within the Internet
environment, allowing network locations to be referred to using
label other than a protocol address. As with any other such
set, DNS names are designed to be globally unique, that is, for
one DNS name at any one time there must be a single set of
records uniquely describing protocol addresses, network resources
services associated with that DNS name. All of the
deployed on the Internet which use the DNS assume this, and
users expect such behavior from DNS names. Names are then
symbols, whose interpretation does not specifically require
of the context of any individual party. A DNS name can be
from one party to another without altering the semantic intent of
name
Since the DNS is hierarchically structured into domains,
uniqueness requirement for DNS names in their entirety implies
each of the names (sub-domains) defined within a domain has a
IAB Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000
meaning (i.e., set of DNS records) within that domain. This is
true for the root domain as for any other DNS domain.
requirement for uniqueness within a domain further implies that
be some mechanism to prevent name conflicts within a domain. In
this is accomplished by assigning a single owner or maintainer
every domain, including the root domain, who is responsible
ensuring that each sub-domain of that domain has the proper
associated with it. This is a technical requirement, not a
choice
1.2. Coordination of
Both the design and implementations of the DNS protocol are
based on the assumption that there is a single owner or
for every domain, and that any set of resources records
with a domain is modified in a single-copy serializable fashion
That is, even assuming that a single domain could somehow be "shared
by uncooperating parties, there is no means within the DNS
by which a user or client could discover, and choose between
conflicting definitions of a DNS name made by different parties.
client will simply return the first set of resource records that
finds that matches the requested domain, and assume that these
valid. This protocol is embedded in the operating software
hundreds of millions of computer systems, and is not easily
to support a shared domain scenario
Moreover, even supposing that some other means of
conflicting definitions could be provided in the future, it
have to be based on objective rules established in advance.
example, zone A.B could declare that naming authority Y had
delegated all subdomains of A.B with an odd number of characters,
that naming authority Z had been delegated authority to
subdomains of A.B with an even number of characters. Thus, a
set of rules would have to be agreed to prevent Y and Z from
conflicting assignments, and with this train of actions a
unique space has been created in any case. Even this would not
multiple non-cooperating authorities to assign arbitrary sub-
within a single domain
It seems that a degree of cooperation and agreed technical rules
required in order to guarantee the uniqueness of names. In the DNS
these rules are established independently for each part of the
hierarchy, and the root domain is no exception. Thus, there must
a generally agreed single set of rules for the root
IAB Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000
1.3. Difficulty of Relocating the Root
There is one specific technical respect in which the root
differs from all other DNS zones: the addresses of the name
for the root zone come primarily from out-of-band information.
out-of-band information is often poorly maintained and, unlike
other data in the DNS, the out-of-band information has no
timeout mechanism. It is not uncommon for this information to
years out of date at many sites
Like any other zone, the root zone contains a set of "name server
resource records listing its servers, but a resolver with no
addresses for the current set of root servers will never be able
obtain these records. More insidiously, a resolver that has a
set of partially valid and partially stale out-of-band
information will not be able to tell which are the "real"
servers if it gets back conflicting answers; thus, it is
difficult to revoke the status of a malicious root server, or even
route around a buggy root server
In effect, every full-service resolver in the world "delegates"
root of the public tree to the public root server(s) of its choice
As a direct consequence, any change to the list of IP addresses
specify the public root zone is significantly more difficult
changing any other aspect of the DNS delegation chain. Thus
stability of the system calls for extremely conservative and
management of the public root zone: the frequency of updates to
root zone must be kept low, and the servers for the root zone must
closely coordinated
These problems can be ameliorated to some extent by the DNS
Extensions [DNSSEC], but a similar out-of-band configuration
exists for the cryptographic signature key to the root zone, so
root zone still requires tight coupling and coordinated
even in the presence of DNSSEC
2.
The DNS type of unique naming and name-mapping system may not
ideal for a number of purposes for which it was never designed,
a locating information when the user doesn't precisely know
correct names. As the Internet continues to expand, we would
directory systems to evolve which can assist the user in dealing
vague or ambiguous references. To preserve the many
features of the DNS and its multiple record types -- including
Internet's equivalent of telephone number portability -- we
expect the result of directory lookups and identification of
IAB Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000
correct names for a particular purpose to be unique DNS names
are then resolved normally, rather than having directory
"replace" the DNS
There is no getting away from the unique root of the public DNS
3. Security
This memo does not introduce any new security issues, but it
attempt to identify some of the problems inherent in a family
recurring technically naive proposals
4. IANA
This memo is not intended to create any new issues for IANA
5.
[DNS-CONCEPTS] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts
Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[DNS-IMPLEMENTATION] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names -
and Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035,
1987.
[DNSSEC] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System
Extensions", RFC 2535, March 1999.
6. Author's
Internet Architecture
EMail: iab@iab.
IAB Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2826 IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root May 2000
7. Full Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
included on all such copies and derivative works. However,
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other
English
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by
Internet Society
IAB Informational [Page 6]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
