doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 451 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2352.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2352.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a3ee9d8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2352.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         O. Vaughan
+Request for Comments: 2352                           Vaughan Enterprises
+Obsoletes: 2240                                                 May 1998
+Category: Informational
+
+
+           A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names
+
+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 (1998).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+RFC Editor's Note
+
+   This RFC is an independent submission that discusses a possible
+   convention for allocating domain names based on corporate and other
+   names as registered by law.
+
+   It appears to depend on corporations changing their domain names from
+   their present form to more cumbersome handles, such as changing
+   cisco.com to cisco-systems.co.ca.us or ibm.com to international-
+   business-machines.co.ny.us, without giving them an incentive to do
+   so, such as deprecating the .com and .net gTLDs.  It also appears to
+   legislate the structure each national registry applies to its name
+   space, something which the document itself asserts is within national
+   purview and not for global standardization.
+
+   It may not be politically feasible to implement as described.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 1998
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+
+   2.   Overview of the domain space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+
+   3.   Possible solutions to name exhaustion  . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+
+   4.   Proposed solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+   4.1   The world is not flat so why should domains be? . . . . . . 4
+   4.2   The case for legal names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+   4.3   Allocation of legal sub-domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+   4.4   Allocation of miscellaneous sub-domains . . . . . . . . . . 6
+   4.5   Identifiers in non-ASCII languages  . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+   4.6   Non-textual identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+   5.   Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+
+   6.   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+
+   7.   Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+
+   8.   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+
+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. The proposed solutions in
+   this document are intended as a framework for development, such that
+   a general consensus will emerge as to the appropriate solution to the
+   problems in each case, 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 RFC 920 [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.
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 1998
+
+
+   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.
+
+   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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 1998
+
+
+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.
+
+   Another set of possible solutions are discussed by The World
+   Intellectual Property Organisation [4] but this only addresses
+   dispute resolution when trademarks are used as domain names under
+   gTLDs, and not in the full legal context of their origin of
+   registration.
+
+4.  Proposed solution
+
+   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.
+
+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.
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 1998
+
+
+4.2 The case for legal names
+
+   This proposal allows for country-code-based domain names that are
+   related to legally registered names in the country (or locality,
+   state or province within that country) that they are based in, by
+   creating a functional heirarchy beneath the country TLD.
+
+   This proposal does not seek to do away with gTLDs, but rather
+   suggests 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 name or trade mark registration authority in the given
+      locality. This means that disputes over names cannot arise as all
+      names are unique within the context of the legal name.
+
+   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 names will
+      automatically have the right to the relevant domain name.
+
+4.3 Allocation of legal sub-domains
+
+      The sub-domain identifiers should be created from the existing
+      indentifiers for company names and trade marks within the given
+      locality, state, province or country.
+
+      The general form of such a sub-domain is:
+
+      <legal-token>.<locality-identifier(s)>.<iso3166-country>
+
+      For example:
+
+      LTD.UK           for limited companies in the UK
+      PLC.UK           for public limited companies in the UK
+      TM.FR            for trademarks in France
+      INC.<state>.US   }
+      LTD.<state>.US   } for incorpated bodies in the US
+      CO.<state>.US    } (each is equivalent)
+      CORP.<state>.US  }
+      LLC.<state>.US   for limited liability companies in the US
+      GMBH.DE          for German companies
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 1998
+
+
+   The registry for the appropriate upper level country, state, province
+   or locality domain should create entries in these sub-domains based
+   on the laws for allocating such legal names in that particular
+   country, state, province or locality.  Specifically, the full legal
+   name should be used, but omitting the legal token (eg. Ltd, Corp,
+   etc.) as this will be determined by the choice of upper level domain.
+   ALL spaces within the name 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 sub-domains
+
+   In countries that do not have existing sub-structure it is strongly
+   recommended that along with the creation of legal sub-domains
+   described here, that other sub-domains be created for commercial
+   entities, organisations, and academic entities to reduce remaining
+   conflicts from organisations that are not legally-registered.
+
+   For example:
+                     +------------------+
+                  | ISO 3166 country | . . . . . . / / . .
+                  +------------------+        .           .
+                   |       |        |         .           .
+               +-----+  +-----+  +-----+   +-----+    +-------+
+               | AC/ |  | CO/ |  | OR/ |   | LTD |    | state |
+               | EDU |  | COM |  | ORG |   +-----+    +-------+
+               +-----+  +-----+  +-----+                  |
+                                                       +-----+
+                                                       | INC |
+                                                       +-----+
+
+
+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 RFC 1035 [3]. The representation of names in languages
+   that use other character sets is limited by that definition or any
+   future update.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 1998
+
+
+4.6 Non-textual identifiers
+
+   The registration of non-textual trade marks such as logos or three
+   dimensional shapes under this scheme is beyond the scope of this
+   document. It is unlikely that these marks will need to be used in the
+   way that domain names are used presently, but their use is not
+   explicitly prohibited.
+
+5.  Security Considerations
+
+   This memo raises no issues relating to network security.  However,
+   when delegating entries in sub-domains, the registries must ensure
+   that the application contains sufficient evidence of the legal rights
+   to a given name.
+
+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", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
+
+   [4]  "Trademarks and Internet Domain Names",
+        <URL:http://www.wipo.int/eng/internet/domains/>
+
+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 7]
+
+RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 1998
+
+
+8.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  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 8]
+