internet governance

This document reserves a Top-Level Domain (TLD) label "alt" to be used in non-DNS contexts. It also provides advice and guidance to developers creating alternative namespaces.

This document deprecates the use of any "int" domain names that were designated for infrastructure purposes by the IETF, and it identifies them for removal from the "int" top-level domain. Any implementations that involve these domains are now deprecated. This document also changes the status of RFC 1528 and RFC 1706 to Historic.

This document describes the requirements, the architecture, and the interfaces between the ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and Domain Name Registries, as well as between the ICANN TMCH and Domain Name Registrars for the provisioning and management of domain names during Sunrise and Trademark Claims Periods.

This document defines extensions to the vCard data format for representing and exchanging contact information used to implement the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) operational profile for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP). The property and parameter defined here are used to add values to RDAP responses that are consistent with ICANN policies.

This document describes an approach to validating the content of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) certificate tree, as it is implemented in the RIPE NCC RPKI Validator. This approach is independent of a particular object retrieval mechanism, which allows it to be used with repositories available over the rsync protocol, the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP), and repositories that use a mix of both.

This document improves the security of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) in two ways. First, it specifies how to establish a strong association between a domain name and an XML stream, using the concept of "prooftypes". Second, it describes how to securely delegate a service domain name (e.g., example.com) to a target server hostname (e.g., hosting.example.net); this is especially important in multi-tenanted environments where the same target server hosts a large number of domains.

In this document we provide a basic description of ICMP's role in the IP stack and some guidelines for future use.

This document is motivated by concerns about lack of clarity concerning when to add new Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) types and/or codes. These concerns have highlighted a need to describe policies for when adding new features to ICMP is desirable and when it is not.

Recent statements from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Security and Stability Advisory Committee have focused on the problems that the DNS is likely to experience with top-level domains (TLDs) that contain address records (so-called "dotless domains"). In order to help researchers determine the extent of the issues with dotless domains, this document lists the current dotless TLDs and gives a script for finding them. This document lists data about dotless TLDs but does not address the policy and technology issues other than to point to the statements of others.

Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA) provides a method to map a subset of names written in Unicode into the DNS. Because of Unicode decisions, appearance, language and writing system conventions, and historical reasons, it often has been asserted that there is more than one way to write what competent readers and writers think of as the same host name; these different ways of writing are often called "variants". (The authors note that there are many conflicting definitions for the term "variant" in the IDNA community.) This document surveys the approaches that top-level domains have taken to the registration and provisioning of domain names that have variants. This document is not a product of the IETF, does not propose any method to make variants work "correctly", and is not an introduction to internationalization or IDNA.

This document is a guideline for registries and registrars on registering internationalized domain names (IDNs) based on (in alphabetical order) Bosnian, Bulgarian, Byelorussian, Kildin Sami, Macedonian, Montenegrin, Russian, Serbian, and Ukrainian languages in a DNS zone. It describes appropriate characters for registration and variant considerations for characters from Greek and Latin scripts with similar appearances and/or derivations. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.

This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) extension mapping for the provisioning and management of Domain Name System security (DNSSEC) extensions for domain names stored in a shared central repository. Specified in XML, this mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide additional features required for the provisioning of DNS security extensions. This document obsoletes RFC 4310. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

This document presents some observations on "simple best-effort traffic", defined loosely for the purposes of this document as Internet traffic that is not covered by Quality of Service (QOS) mechanisms, congestion-based pricing, cost-based fairness, admissions control, or the like. One observation is that simple best-effort traffic serves a useful role in the Internet, and is worth keeping. While differential treatment of traffic can clearly be useful, we believe such mechanisms are useful as *adjuncts* to simple best- effort traffic, not as *replacements* of simple best-effort traffic. A second observation is that for simple best-effort traffic, some form of rough flow-rate fairness is a useful goal for resource allocation, where "flow-rate fairness" is defined by the goal of equal flow rates for different flows over the same path. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

Achieving internationalized access to domain names raises many complex issues. These are associated not only with basic protocol design, such as how names are represented on the network, compared, and converted to appropriate forms, but also with issues and options for deployment, transition, registration, and administration. The IETF Standards for Internationalized Domain Names, known as "IDNA", focuses on access to domain names in a range of scripts that is broader in scope than the original ASCII. The development process made it clear that use of characters with similar appearances and/or interpretations created potential for confusion, as well as difficulties in deployment and transition. The conclusion was that, while those issues were important, they could best be addressed administratively rather than through restrictions embedded in the protocols. This document defines a set of guidelines for applying restrictions of that type for Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK) scripts and the zones that use them and, perhaps, the beginning of a framework for thinking about other zones, languages, and scripts. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

Many Internet applications have been designed to deduce top-level domains (or other domain name labels) from partial information. The introduction of new top-level domains, especially non-country-code ones, has exposed flaws in some of the methods used by these applications. These flaws make it more difficult, or impossible, for users of the applications to access the full Internet. This memo discusses some of the techniques that have been used and gives some guidance for minimizing their negative impact as the domain name environment evolves. This document draws summaries of the applicable rules together in one place and supplies references to the actual standards. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

This document expresses the Internet Society's ideology that the Internet really is for everyone. However, it will only be such if we make it so. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

This document presents the proposal for a stronger authentication method of the updates of the RIPE database based on digital signatures. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

These are the articles of incorporation of the Internet Society. They are published for the information of the IETF community at the request of the poisson working group. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

These are the by-laws of the Internet Society, as amended, as of June 1996. They are published for the information of the IETF community at the request of the poisson working group. Please refer to the ISOC web page (www.isoc.org) for the current version of the by-laws. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

The AM Domain is an official Internet top-level domain of Armenia. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

This RFC describes the policy for the registration of second level domains under the ".MIL" domain. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

This RFC is an official public record of an agreement between SUN Microsystems and the Internet Society. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

This document is an update to the original `ripe-81' proposal for representing and storing routing polices within the RIPE database. It incorporates several extensions proposed by Merit Inc. and gives details of a generalized IP routing policy representation to be used by all Internet routing registries. It acts as both tutorial and provides details of database objects and attributes that use and make up a routing registry. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

This memo introduces the IEPG to the Internet Community. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

This memo provides some information on the structure of the names in the Domain Name System (DNS), specifically the top-level domain names; and on the administration of domains. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

The Internet community needs to be asking what the most important policy issues facing the network are. And given agreement on any particular set of policy issues, the next thing we should be asking is, what would be some of the political choices that would follow for Congress to make? This memo is a shortened version of the suggested policy draft. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This document describes plans for support of route aggregation, as specified in the descriptions of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) [1] and the BGP-4 protocol [2], by the NSFNET Backbone Network Service. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

The purpose of this RFC is to focus discussion on particular challenges in large service networks in general, and the International IP Internet in particular. No solution discussed in this document is intended as a standard. Rather, it is hoped that a general consensus will emerge as to the appropriate solutions, leading eventually to the adoption of standards. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This document proposes a set of technical services that each Internet mid-level network can offer within the mid-level network itself and and to its peer networks. This RFC provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This memo discusses the background and importance of NREN. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This RFC suggests improvements in the NSFNET routing architecture to accommodate a more flexible interface to the Backbone clients. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This report complements a shorter printed version which appeared in a summary report of all the committees which met in Brussels and Washington last July, 1990. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This memo is based on a workshop held by the Science, Technology and Public Policy Program of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, March 1-3, 1990. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify any standard.

This RFC describes the Terms of Reference of RIPE (Reseaux IP Europeens), the cooperation of European IP networks. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify any standard.

This informational RFC represents the official view of the Internet Activities Board (IAB), after coordination with the Federal Networking Council (FNC). This RFC does not specify a standard.

The memo provides a brief outline of a National Research and Education Network (NREN). This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify any standard. It is not a statement of IAB policy or recommendations.

This document is a case study of the implementation of routing between the NSFNET and the DDN components (the MILNET and the ARPANET). We hope that it can be used to expand towards interconnection of other Administrative Domains. We would welcome discussion and suggestions about the methods employed for the interconnections. No standards are specified in this memo.

This memo discusses implementation decisions for routing issues in the NSFNET, especially in the NSFNET Backbone. Of special concern is the restriction of routing information to advertize the best route as established by a policy decision.

This document describes the routing architecture for the NSFNET centered around the new NSFNET Backbone, with specific emphasis on the interface between the backbone and its attached networks.

This memo is a statement of policy by the Internet Activities Board (IAB) concerning the proper use of the resources of the Internet.

This memo presents the results of a working group on High Bandwidth Networking. This RFC is for your information and you are encouraged to comment on the issues presented.

This RFC is an implementation description of the standard ANSI IS-IS and ISO ES-IS routing protocols within the NSFNET backbone network.

This RFC reproduces a memorandum issued on 2-JUL-87 from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASDC31) to the Director of the Defense Communications Agency (DCA). This memo is distributed for information only.

This RFC identifies the requirements on communication networks for supporting scientific research. It proposes some specific areas for near term work, as well as some long term goals. This is an "idea" paper and discussion is strongly encouraged.

This RFC proposes an Interagency Research Internet as the natural outgrowth of the current Internet. This is an "idea paper" and discussion is strongly encouraged.

The purpose of this RFC is to provide helpful information on the Military Standard Internet Protocol (MIL-STD-1777) so that one can obtain a reliable implementation of this protocol. This paper points out several problems in this specification. This note also proposes solutions to these problems.

The purpose of this RFC is to provide helpful information on the Military Standard Transmission Control Protocol (MIL-STD-1778) so that one can obtain a reliable implementation of this protocol standard. This note points out three errors with this specification. This note also proposes solutions to these problems.

The purpose of this memo is to explain how protocol standards are adopted for the ARPA-Internet and the DARPA research community. There are three important aspects to be discussed: the process, the authority, and the complex relationship between the DARPA community and the DDN community. This memo is a policy statement on how protocols become official standards for the ARPA-Internet and the DARPA research community. This is an official policy statement of the ICCB and the DARPA.