doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2240.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2240.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..db10a65
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2240.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         O. Vaughan
+Request for Comments: 2240                           Vaughan Enterprises
+Category: Informational                                    November 1997
+
+
+               A Legal Basis for Domain Name Allocation
+
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
+
+   2.   Overview of the domain space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+
+   3.   Possible solutions to name exhaustion  . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+
+   4.   Proposed creation of new SLDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+   4.1   The world is not flat so why should domains be? . . . . . . 4
+   4.2   The case for legal names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+   4.3   Allocation of legal SLDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+   4.4   Allocation of miscellaneous SLDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+   4.5   Identifiers in non-ASCII languages  . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+   5.   Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+
+   6.   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+
+   7.   Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+
+   8.   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The purpose of this memo is to focus discussion on the particular
+   problems with the exhaustion of the top level domain space in the
+   Internet and the possible conflicts that can occur when multiple
+   organisations are vying for the same name. No proposed solutions in
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 1997
+
+
+   this document are intended as standards for the Internet. Rather, it
+   is hoped that a general consensus will emerge as to the appropriate
+   solution to such problems, leading eventually to the adoption of
+   standards.
+
+2.  Overview of the domain space
+
+   Presently the domain space is organised as a heirarchical tree-
+   structured namespace with several top level domains (TLDs), and sub-
+   domains beneath them. The initial TLDs allocated and rationale are
+   documented in [1].
+
+   The TLDs are functionally split up into 'generic' top-level domains
+   (gTLDs) and two-letter ISO 3166 country domains for every country in
+   which Internet connectivity is provided. The allocation of sub-
+   domains under these TLDs is entirely up to the registry for that TLD.
+   The registry may decide to allocate further levels of structure or
+   merely allocate domains in a 'flat' manner.
+
+   Example:
+
+           +-----+         +----+                       +----+
+           | COM |         | UK |                       | FR |
+           +-----+         +----+                       +----+
+              |             |  |                         |  |
+       +---------+     +----+  +----+     +--------------+  +-----+
+       | VAUGHAN |     | AC |  | CO |     | UNIV-AVIGNON |  | AXA |
+       +---------+     +----+  +----+     +--------------+  +-----+
+          |              |        |              |             |
+      +------+    +---------+  +----------+   +-----+      +------+
+      | UNIX |    | NEWPORT |  | CITYDESK |   | SOL |      | MAIL |
+      +------+    +---------+  +----------+   +-----+      +------+
+                       |            |
+                    +----+       +-----+
+                    | NS |       | FTP |
+                    +----+       +-----+
+
+
+    1. Flat gTLD     2. Heirarchical country      3. Flat country
+
+   In the example we see that the gTLDs are inherently flat, as
+   organisations are allocated domain names directly under the TLD.
+   With the country domains however, the domain allocation policy can
+   vary widely from country to country, and it does. Some may choose to
+   implement a functional sub-structure mirroring the gTLDs, some may
+   choose to implement a geographical sub-structure, and some may choose
+   to have no sub-structure at all.
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 1997
+
+
+   In the first case the organisation is clearly a commercial one, as it
+   is allocatged under the "COM" TLD. However, there is no information
+   as to the country the organisation is based in.  In the third case,
+   we know that the organisation is based in France (FR), but without
+   studying the actual organisation name we do not know what type of
+   organisation it is.  In the second case, we know the country that
+   both organisations are based in (UK), and by following the heirarchy,
+   we can deduce that the first is an academic organisation (AC), and
+   the second is commercial (CO).
+
+   While the system is flexible in not enforcing a strict heirarchy, it
+   can lead to exhaustion of domain names in the generic space and lead
+   to conflicts between organisations who may both have a legitimate
+   claim to have a particular name.
+
+3.  Possible solutions to name exhaustion
+
+   With such a flexible system, there are many ways of preventing the
+   name space being exhausted. A solution proposed by [2] is to create
+   more gTLDs to allow organisations with the same name to be registered
+   uniquely under different TLDs (FIRM, STORE, WEB, ARTS, REC, INFO and
+   NOM). However this has several disadvantages as discussed below:
+
+   a) It creates confusion in users mind as to what TLD refers to a
+      particular organisation. For example, MCDONALDS.COM maybe the fast
+      food corporation and MCDONALDS.FIRM maybe a firm of lawyers, but
+      how is the user supposed to know which is which?
+
+   b) To prevent the above confusion, big corporations will simply
+      reserve all the different variations of the name, ie. IBM.COM,
+      IBM.FIRM, IBM.STORE etc. Thus we haven't solved the name
+      exhaustion or conflict problems, in fact we have made it worse.
+
+   c) Names of legitimate trade mark holders or other legally held names
+      can still be acquired by anybody, leading to potential conflicts.
+
+4.  Proposed creation of new SLDs
+
+   With the aforementioned problems in mind, it is not a good idea to
+   create new gTLDs which merely overlap the existing ones. As the
+   domain name system is heirarchical it would seem a good idea to
+   expand on the existing structure rather than creating several
+   duplicate structures.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 1997
+
+
+4.1 The world is not flat so why should domains be?
+
+   With the expansion of the Internet to a truly global medium, the
+   notion that there can only be one commercial entity, one orgnisation,
+   and one network provider etc. with the same name seems impossible.
+   This is the situation that the present system finds itself in.  There
+   is a constantly spiralling number of disputes over who 'owns' or '
+   deserves' a certain name, with an increasing number ending in
+   unnecessary and costly legal action. This is not something that the
+   providers of a domain name service should concern themselves with,
+   but yet with the present system, this seems inevitable.
+
+4.2 The case for legal names
+
+   This proposal allows for country domain names that are related to
+   legally registered names in the country that they are based by
+   creating a functional heirarchy beneath the country TLD.
+
+   This proposal does not seek to do away with gTLDs, but rather that a
+   legal name should be sought first and then, if desired, a generic
+   name could be used alongside it. The organisation would then, in case
+   of any disputes, have a legally-held name which no other organisation
+   could have any claim to.
+
+   This proposal has several advantages:
+
+   a) The process of deciding what names belong to which organisation
+      is no longer a function of the domain name registry, but of the
+      company registration authority in the given country. This means
+      that disputes over names cannot arise as all names are unique
+      within the context of the legal company title.
+
+   b) As all names are unique, there should be no exhaustion
+      (deliberately or otherwise) of 'desirable' names by other
+      concerns, as all the owners of legally-held company names will
+      automatically have the right to the relevant domain name.
+
+4.3 Allocation of legal SLDs
+
+   The second level domain identifiers should be created from the
+   existing company indentifiers within the given country.  For example:
+
+     LTD.UK   for limited companies in the UK
+     PLC.UK   for public companies in the UK
+     INC.US   for incorpated bodies in the US
+     CORP.US  for corporations in the US
+     GMBH.DE  for German companies
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 1997
+
+
+   The registries for the appropriate top-level country domain should
+   create and manage the sub-domains based on the laws for allocating
+   company names in that particular country.  Specifically, ALL spaces
+   should be converted to hyphens '-' and other punctuation either
+   disregarded or also converted into hyphens.
+
+   For holders of international trademarks and other international
+   names, the gTLD "INT" can be used in place of the country identifier.
+   For example:
+
+     TM.INT  } for international trademarks
+     REG.INT }
+
+4.4 Allocation of miscellaneous SLDs
+
+   In countries that do not have existing sub-structure it is strongly
+   recommended that along with the creation of legal SLDs described
+   here, that other SLDs be created for commercial entities,
+   organisations, and academic entities to reduce remaining conflicts
+   from organisations that are not legally-registered companies.
+
+   For example:
+
+                  +------------------+
+                  | ISO 3166 country | . . . . . . . . .
+                  +------------------+        .        .
+                   |       |        |         .        .
+               +-----+  +-----+  +-----+   +-----+  +-----+
+               | AC/ |  | CO/ |  | OR/ |   | LTD |  | INC |
+               | EDU |  | COM |  | ORG |   +-----+  +-----+
+               +-----+  +-----+  +-----+
+
+4.5 Identifiers in non-ASCII languages
+
+   The representation of any domain element is limited to the ASCII
+   character set of alphabetic characters, digits and the hyphen, as
+   described in [3]. The representation of names in languages that use
+   other character sets is limited by that definition or any future
+   update.
+
+5.  Security Considerations
+
+   This memo raises no issues relating to network security.  However
+   when delegating the subdomains, the registries must ensure that the
+   application contains sufficient evidence of the legal rights to a
+   given name.
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 1997
+
+
+6.  References
+
+   [1]  Postel J. and J. Reynolds , "Domain Requirements", RFC 920,
+        October 1984.
+
+   [2]  "Generic Top Level Domains - Memoranding of Understanding"
+        <URL:http://www.gtld-mou.org/>
+
+   [3]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - Implementation and
+        Specification", RFC 1035, November 1987.
+
+7.  Author's Address
+
+   Owain Vaughan
+   Vaughan Enterprises
+   PO Box 155
+   Newport NP9 6YX
+   UK
+
+   Phone: +44 1633 677849/822164
+   Fax:   +44 1633 663706
+   EMail: owain@vaughan.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 1997
+
+
+8.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997).  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 assigns.
+
+   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
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 7]
+