<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>

  <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [ ]>
  
  <?rfc compact="yes" ?>
  <?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
  <?rfc toc="yes" ?>
  <?rfc tocindent="yes" ?>
  <?rfc tocdepth="2" ?>
  <?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
  <?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
  <?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
  <?rfc strict="no" ?>

<rfc category="bcp" number="8552" ipr="trust200902"
     submissionType="IETF" consensus="yes" seriesNo="222">



   <front>
      <title abbrev="DNS AttrLeaf">Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute Leaves</title>

      <author fullname="Dave Crocker" initials="D." surname="Crocker">
         <organization>Brandenburg InternetWorking</organization>
         <address>
            <postal>
               <street>675 Spruce Dr.</street>
               <city>Sunnyvale</city>
               <region>CA</region>
               <code>94086</code>
               <country>United States of America</country>
            </postal>
            <phone>+1.408.246.8253</phone>
            <email>dcrocker@bbiw.net</email>
            <uri>http://bbiw.net/</uri>
         </address>
      </author>
      <date month="March" year="2019"/>

      <workgroup>dnsop</workgroup>
      <keyword>DNS</keyword>
      <keyword>Domain Name System></keyword>
      <abstract>
         <t> Formally, any DNS Resource Record (RR) may occur under any domain name.
            However, some services use an operational convention for defining
            specific interpretations of an RRset by locating the records in a
            DNS branch under the parent domain to which the RRset actually
            applies. The top of this subordinate branch is defined by a naming
            convention that uses a reserved node name, which begins with 
            the underscore character (e.g., "_name"). The underscored naming construct defines a semantic
            scope for DNS record types that are associated with the parent
            domain above the underscored branch. This specification explores
            the nature of this DNS usage and defines the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry with IANA. The purpose of this
            registry is to avoid collisions resulting from the use of the same
            underscored name for different services.</t>
      </abstract>
   </front>

   <middle>

      <section title="Introduction">

         <t>The core Domain Name System (DNS) technical specifications  (<xref target="RFC1035"/> and <xref target="RFC2181"/>) assign no
            semantics to domain names or their parts, and no constraints upon
            which resource record (RR) types are permitted to be stored under
            particular names <xref target="RFC1035"/> <xref target="RFC2181"/>.
            Over time, some leaf node names, such as
            <spanx style="verb">www</spanx> and <spanx style="verb">ftp</spanx>,
            have come to imply support for particular services, but this is a
            matter of operational convention rather than defined protocol
            semantics.

            This freedom in the basic technology has permitted a wide range of
            administrative and semantic policies to be used -- in parallel. DNS
            data semantics have been limited to the specification of particular
            resource record types on the expectation that new resource record
            types would be added as needed. Unfortunately, the addition of new resource record types has proven
extremely challenging, with significant adoption and use barriers
occurring over the life of the DNS.
	 </t>

         <section title="Underscore-Based Scoping">
            <t>As an alternative to defining a new RR TYPE, some DNS service
               enhancements call for using an existing resource record type but
               specifying a restricted scope for its occurrence. Scope is meant as
               a static property, not one dependent on the nature of the query.
               It is an artifact of the DNS name. That scope is a leaf node
               containing the specific resource record sets that are formally
               defined and constrained.  Specifically:

	       <list>
                  <t>The leaf occurs in a branch having a distinguished naming
                     convention: there is a parent domain name to which the
                     scoped data applies. The branch is under this name. The
                     sub-branch is indicated by a sequence of one or more
                     reserved DNS node names; at least the first (highest) of
                     these names begins with an underscore (e.g., "_name").</t>
               </list> Because the DNS rules for a &quot;host&quot; (host name)
               do not allow use of the underscore character, 
               the underscored name is distinguishable from all legal host names <xref
                  target="RFC0952"/>. Effectively, this convention for naming leaf nodes
               creates a space for the listing of "attributes" -- in the
               form of resource record types -- that are associated with the
               parent domain above the underscored sub-branch. </t>

            <t>The scoping feature is particularly useful when generalized
               resource record types are used -- notably
               <spanx style="verb">TXT</spanx>, <spanx style="verb">SRV</spanx>,
               and <spanx style="verb">URI</spanx>
               <xref target="RFC1035"/> <xref target="RFC2782"/> <xref
                  target="RFC6335"/> <xref target="RFC7553"/>. It provides
               efficient separation of one use of them from others. Absent this
               separation, an undifferentiated mass of these RRsets is returned
               to the DNS client, which then must parse through the internals of
               the records in the hope of finding ones that are relevant. Worse,
               in some cases, the results are ambiguous because a record type
               might not adequately self-identify its specific purpose. With
               underscore-based scoping, only the relevant RRsets are
               returned.</t>

            <t>A simple example is <xref target="RFC6376">DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)</xref>, which
               uses <spanx style="verb">_domainkey</spanx> to define a place
               to hold a TXT record containing signing information for the
            parent domain.</t>


            <t> This specification formally defines how underscored names are
               used as "attribute" enhancements for their parent domain names.
               For example, the domain name "_domainkey.example." acts as an
               attribute of the parent domain name "example.". To avoid
               collisions resulting from the use of the same underscored
               names for different applications using the same resource record
               type, this document establishes the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry with IANA.    Use of such node names, which begin with an underscore character,
   is reserved when they are the underscored name closest to the DNS
   root; as in that case, they are considered "global".   Underscored names that are farther down the hierarchy are
               handled within the scope of the global underscored node name. 
            </t>

            <t>        
    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
    NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
    "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
    described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> 
    when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
        </t>


         </section>

         <section title="Scaling Benefits">
            <t>Some resource record types are used in a fashion that can create
               scaling problems if an entire RRset associated with a domain
               name is aggregated in the leaf node for that name. An
               increasingly popular approach, with excellent scaling properties,
               places the RRset under a specially named branch, which is in turn
               under the node name that would otherwise contain the RRset. The
               rules for naming that branch define the context for interpreting
               the RRset. That is, rather than: <figure>
                  <artwork align="center">domain-name.example
  /
 RRset
</artwork>
               </figure> the arrangement is: <figure>
                  <artwork align="center">_branch.domain-name.example
  /
 RRset
</artwork>
               </figure> A direct lookup to the subordinate leaf node produces
               only the desired record types, at no greater cost than a typical
               DNS lookup.</t>


         </section>

         <section title="Global Underscored Node Names">

            <t> As defined in <xref target="RFC1034"/>, the DNS uses names
               organized in a tree-structured or hierarchical fashion. A domain
               name might have multiple node names that begin with
               the underscore character (e.g., "_name"). A global underscored node name is the one that is
               closest to the root of the DNS hierarchy, also called the
               highest level or topmost. In the presentation convention
               described in Section 3.1 of <xref target="RFC1034"/>, this is the
               rightmost name beginning with an underscore. In other
               presentation environments, it might be positioned differently. To
               avoid concern for the presentation variations, the qualifier
               "global" is used here.</t>
         </section>

         <section title="Interaction with DNS Wildcards">
            <t>DNS wildcards interact poorly with underscored names in two ways:</t><t>
               Since wildcards are only interpreted as leaf names, one cannot
               create the equivalent of a wildcard name for prefixed names. A
               name such as label.*.example.com is not a wildcard. </t>
            <t>Conversely, a wildcard such as *.example.com can match any name
               including an underscored name. So, a wildcard might match an
               underscored name, returning a record that is the type controlled
               by the underscored name but is not intended to be used in the
               underscored context and does not conform to its rules. </t>
         </section>

         <section anchor="history" title="History">
            <t> Originally, different uses of underscored node names
               developed largely without coordination. For TXT records, there is
               no consistent, internal syntax that permits distinguishing among
               the different uses. In the case of the SRV RR and URI RR,
               distinguishing among different types of use was part of the
               design (see <xref target="RFC2782"/> and <xref target="RFC7553"/>). The
               SRV and URI specifications serve as templates, defining RRs that
               might only be used for specific applications when there is an
               additional specification. The template definition included
               reference to two levels of tables of names from which
               underscored names should be drawn. The lower-level (local scope)
               set of <spanx style="verb">_service</spanx> names is defined in
               terms of other IANA tables, namely any table with symbolic names.
               The upper-level (global scope) SRV naming field is
               <spanx style="verb">_proto</spanx>, although its pool of names is
               not explicitly defined. </t>

            <t>The aggregate effect of these independent efforts was a long list
               of underscored names that were reserved without
               coordination, which invites an eventual name-assignment
               collision. The remedy is this base document and a companion document (<xref target="RFC8553"/>), which define a
               registry for these names and attempt to register all those
               already in use as well as to direct changes to the
               pre-registry specifications that used global underscored
               node names. </t>
         </section>

      </section>


      <section anchor="underfun"
         title="&quot;Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names&quot; Registry">
         <t>A registry for global DNS node names that begin with an underscore
         is defined here. The purpose of the 
	 "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry is to
            avoid collisions resulting from the use of the same underscored
            name for different applications. <list style="empty">
               <t>If a public specification calls for use of an
                  underscored node name, the global underscored
                  node name -- the underscored name that is closest to the DNS root
                  -- MUST be entered into this registry.</t>
            </list></t>

         <t>An underscored name defines the scope of use for specific resource
            record types, which are associated with the domain name that is the
            "parent" to the branch defined by the underscored name. A given name
            defines a specific, constrained context for one or more RR TYPEs,
            where use of such record types conforms to the defined constraints.
               <list style="symbols">
               <t>Within a leaf that is underscore scoped, other RRsets that are not
                  specified as part of the scope MAY be used.</t>
            </list></t>




         <t>Structurally, the registry is defined as a single, flat table of RR
            TYPEs, under node names beginning with underscore. In some cases,
            such as for use of an SRV record, the full scoping name might be
            multi-part, as a sequence of underscored names. Semantically, that
            sequence represents a hierarchical model, and it is theoretically
            reasonable to allow reuse of a subordinate underscored name in a
            different, global underscored context; that is, a subordinate name
            is meaningful only within the scope of the global underscored node name.
            Therefore, they are ignored by this "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry. This registry is for the definition of highest-level
            -- that is, global -- underscored node name used.</t>

         <texttable align="center" title="Examples of Underscored Names"
            anchor="Examples">
            <ttcol align="right">NAME</ttcol>
            <c>_service1</c>
            <c>_protoB._service2</c>
            <c>_protoB._service3</c>
            <c>_protoC._service3</c>
            <c>_useX._protoD._service4</c>
            <c>_protoE._region._authority</c>
         </texttable>

         <t>Only global underscored node names are registered in the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry.   From the example above, that would mean _service1, _service2, _service3, _service 4, and _authority would be listed in the IANA registry.
               <list style="symbols">
               <t>The use of underscored node names is specific to each RR TYPE
                  that is being scoped. Each name defines a place but does not
                  define the rules for what appears underneath that place,
                  either as additional underscored naming or as a leaf node with
                  resource records. Details for those rules are provided by
                  specifications for individual RR TYPEs. The sections below
                  describe the way that existing underscored names are used with
                  the RR TYPEs that they name.</t>
               <t>Definition and registration of subordinate underscored node
                  names are the responsibility of the specification that creates
                  the global underscored node name registry entry.</t>
         </list></t>

         <t>That is, if a scheme using a global underscored node name has one or
            more subordinate levels of underscored node naming, the namespaces
            from which names for those lower levels are chosen are controlled by
            the parent underscored node name. Each registered global underscored
            node name owns a distinct, subordinate namespace.</t>

      </section>

      <section title="Guidance for Registering RRset Use">
         <t>  This section provides guidance for specification writers, with a basic template they can use, to register new entries in the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names"
  registry. The text can be added to specifications using
            RR TYPE / _NODE NAME combinations that have not already been
            registered:</t>

            <t><list>

               <t>Per RFC 8552, please add the following entry to the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry:</t>
            </list></t>

         <texttable align="center" anchor="srventry"
            title="Template for Entries in the &quot;Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names&quot; Registry">
            <ttcol>RR Type</ttcol>
            <ttcol>_NODE NAME </ttcol>
            <ttcol>Reference</ttcol>
            <!---->

            <c>{RR TYPE}</c>
            <c>_{DNS global node name}</c>
            <c> {citation for the document making the addition.}</c>
            <!---->
         </texttable>

      </section>


      <section title="IANA Considerations">
         <t>IANA has established the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry.  This section describes the registry, the definitions, the initial entries, the use of_ta and _example, and the use of <xref target="RFC8126"/> as guidance for expert review. IANA has also updated the "Enumservices Registrations" registry with a pointer to this document.</t>

         <section title="&quot;Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names&quot; Registry">
            <t>The "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry includes any DNS node
               name that begins with the underscore character ("_",
               ASCII 0x5F) and is the underscored node name closest to the root;
               that is, it defines the highest level of a DNS branch under a
               "parent" domain name. <list style="symbols">
                  <t>This registry operates under the IANA rules for
                     "Expert Review" registration; see <xref target="ExRev"
                     />.</t>
                  <t>The contents of each entry in the registry are
                     defined in <xref target="globalregdef"/>.</t>
                  <t>Each entry in the registry MUST contain values for all of
                     the fields specified in <xref target="globalregdef"/>.</t>
                  <t>Within the registry, the combination of RR Type and _NODE
                     NAME MUST be unique.</t>
                  <t>The table is to be maintained with entries sorted by the
                     first column (RR Type) and, within that, the second column
                     (_NODE NAME).</t>
                  <t>The required Reference for an entry MUST have a stable
                     resolution to the organization controlling that registry
                     entry.</t>
               </list>
            </t>
    

         <section anchor="globalregdef"
            title="Contents of an Entry in the &quot;Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names&quot; Registry">

            <t>A registry entry contains: <list>
                  <t><list hangIndent="12" style="hanging">

                        <t hangText="RR Type:">Lists an RR TYPE that is
                           defined for use within this scope.</t>
                        <t hangText="_NODE NAME:">Specifies a single,
                           underscored name that defines a reserved name; this
                           name is the global entry name for the scoped
                           resource record types that are associated with that
                           name. For characters in the name that have an
                           uppercase form and a lowercase form, the character
                           MUST be recorded as lowercase to simplify name
                           comparisons. </t>
                        <t hangText="Reference:">Lists the specification that
                           defines a record type and its use under this _Node
                           Name. The organization producing the specification
                           retains control over the registry entry for the _Node
                           Name.</t>
                     </list></t>
               </list> Each RR TYPE that is to be used with a _Node Name MUST
               have a separate registry entry. </t>
         </section>


         <section title="Initial Node Names">
            <t>The initial entries in the registry are as follows:</t>



            <texttable align="center" anchor="globalunderscore"
               title="Initial Contents of the &quot;Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names&quot; Registry">
               <ttcol>RR Type</ttcol>
               <ttcol>_NODE NAME </ttcol>
               <ttcol>Reference</ttcol>
               <!---->

               <c>*</c>
               <c>_example</c>
               <c><xref target="_example"/></c>

               <c>NULL</c>
               <c>_ta-* {<xref target="_ta"/>}</c>
               <c><xref target="RFC8145"/></c>

               <c>OPENPGPKEY</c>
               <c>_openpgpkey</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC7929"/>
               </c>
               <!---->

               <c>SMIMEA </c>
               <c>_smimecert</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC8162"/>
               </c>
               <c>SRV</c>
               <c>_dccp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC2782"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>SRV</c>
               <c>_http</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC4386"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>SRV</c>
               <c>_ipv6</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC5026"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>SRV</c>
               <c>_ldap</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC4386"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>SRV</c>
               <c>_ocsp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC4386"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>SRV</c>
               <c>_sctp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC2782"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>SRV</c>
               <c>_sip</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC5509"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>SRV</c>
               <c>_tcp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC2782"/></c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>SRV</c>
               <c>_udp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC2782"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>SRV</c>
               <c>_xmpp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC3921"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>TLSA</c>
               <c>_dane</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC7671"/>
               </c>
               <!---->

               <c>TLSA</c>
               <c>_sctp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6698"/>
               </c>
               <!---->

               <c>TLSA</c>
               <c>_tcp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6698"/>
               </c>
               <!---->

               <c>TLSA</c>
               <c>_udp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6698"/>
               </c>
               <!---->

               <c>TXT</c>
               <c>_acme-challenge</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC8555"/>
               </c>
               <!---->

               <c>TXT</c>
               <c>_dmarc</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC7489"/>
               </c>
               <!---->

               <c>TXT</c>
               <c>_domainkey</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6376"/>
               </c>
               <!---->

               <c>TXT</c>
               <c>_mta-sts</c>
               <c><xref target="RFC8461"/></c>
               <!---->

               <c>TXT</c>
               <c>_spf</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC7208"/>
               </c>
               <!---->
	       <c>TXT</c>
               <c>_sztp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="ZEROTOUCH"/>
               </c>
               <!---->

               <c>TXT</c>
               <c>_tcp</c>
               <c><xref target="RFC6763"/></c>
               <!---->

               <c>TXT</c>
               <c>_udp</c>
               <c><xref target="RFC6763"/></c>
               <!---->



               <c>TXT</c>
               <c>_vouch</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC5518"/>
               </c>
               <!-- -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_acct</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_dccp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC7566"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_email</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_ems</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_fax</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_ft</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_h323</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_iax</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_ical-access</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_ical-sched</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->


               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_ifax</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_im</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_mms</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_pres</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_pstn</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_sctp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_sip</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_sms</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_tcp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/></c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_udp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_unifmsg</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_vcard</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_videomsg</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_voice</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_voicemsg</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_vpim</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_web</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
               <!--  -->

               <c>URI</c>
               <c>_xmpp</c>
               <c>
                  <xref target="RFC6118"/>
               </c>
    

            </texttable>


         </section>

         <section title="_ta" anchor="_ta">
            <t>Under the NULL RR Type, the entry <spanx style="verb">_ta-*</spanx>
               denotes all node names beginning with the string
               <spanx style="verb">_ta-*</spanx>. It does NOT refer to a DNS
            wildcard specification.</t>


         </section>

         <section title="_example" anchor="_example">
            <t>The node name <spanx style="verb">_example</spanx> is reserved
               across all RRsets.</t>
         </section>

	       <section anchor="ExRev" title="Guidance for Expert Review">
         <t>This section provides guidance for expert review of registration
            requests in the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry.</t>
         <t>
            <list>
               <t>This review is solely to determine adequacy of a requested
                  entry in this registry, and it does not include review of other
                  aspects of the document specifying that entry. For example,
                  such a document might also contain a definition of the
                  resource record type that is referenced by the requested
                  entry. Any required review of that definition is separate from
                  the expert review required here.</t>
            </list>
         </t>
         <t> The review is for the purposes of ensuring that:<list
               style="symbols">
               <t>The details for creating the registry entry are sufficiently
                  clear, precise, and complete</t>
               <t>The combination of the underscored name, under which the
                  listed resource record type is used, and the resource record
                  type is unique in the table</t>
            </list></t>
         <t>For the purposes of this expert review, other matters of the
            specification's technical quality, adequacy, or the like are outside
            of scope. </t>
      </section>
       </section>
         <section title="Enumservices Registrations Registry">
            <t>The following note has been added to the "Enumservice Registrations" registry:<list>
                  <t>When adding an entry to this registry, strong
                     consideration should be given to also adding an entry to
                  the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry.</t>



               </list>
            </t>
         </section>


    </section>

      <section title="Security Considerations">
         <t>This memo raises no security issues.</t>


      </section>
   </middle>


   <back>
     <references title="Normative References">


<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8461"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.0952"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.1034"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.1035"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2181"?>  
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8126"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2782"?>  
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3921"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4386"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5026"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5509"?>  
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.5518"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6118"?>    
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6335"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6376"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6698"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.6763"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7208"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7489"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7553"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7566"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7671"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.7929"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8145"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8162"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.8555"?>



	 

      </references>
      <references title="Informative References">


	

<reference anchor='RFC8553' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8553'>
<front>
<title>DNS Attrleaf Changes: Fixing Specifications That Use Underscored Node Names</title>

<author initials='D' surname='Crocker' fullname='Dave Crocker'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='March' year='2019' />

<abstract><t>Original uses of an underscore character as a domain node name prefix, which creates a space for constrained interpretation of resource records, were specified without the benefit of an IANA registry.  This produced an entirely uncoordinated set of name- creation activities, all drawing from the same namespace.  A registry now has been defined.  However the existing specifications that use underscore naming need to be modified, to be in line with the new registry.  This document specifies those changes.  The changes preserve existing software and operational practice, while adapting the specifications for those practices to the newer underscore registry model.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8553' />
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8553"/>
</reference>



<reference anchor='ZEROTOUCH'>
<front>
<title>Secure Zero Touch Provisioning (SZTP)</title>

<author initials='K' surname='Watsen' fullname='Kent Watsen'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='M' surname='Abrahamsson' fullname='Mikael Abrahamsson'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='I' surname='Farrer' fullname='Ian Farrer'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='January' day='15' year='2019' />

<abstract><t>This draft presents a technique to securely provision a networking device when it is booting in a factory-default state.  Variations in the solution enables it to be used on both public and private networks.  The provisioning steps are able to update the boot image, commit an initial configuration, and execute arbitrary scripts to address auxiliary needs.  The updated device is subsequently able to establish secure connections with other systems.  For instance, a device may establish NETCONF (RFC 6241) and/or RESTCONF (RFC 8040) connections with deployment-specific network management systems.</t></abstract>

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Work in Progress,' value='draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch-29' />

</reference>


	
   

      </references>


      <section title="Acknowledgements" numbered="no">
         <t>Thanks go to Bill Fenner, Dick Franks, Tony Hansen, Martin Hoffmann,
            Paul Hoffman, Peter Koch, Olaf Kolkman, Murray Kucherawy, John
            Levine, Benno Overeinder, and Andrew Sullivan for diligent review of
            the (much) earlier draft versions. For the later enhancements, thanks to
            Stephane Bortzmeyer, Alissa Cooper, Bob Harold, Joel Jaeggli, Benjamin Kaduk,
            Mirja Kuehlewind, Warren Kumari, John Levine, Benno
            Overeinder, Eric Rescorla, Adam Roach, Petr Spacek,
            Ondrej Sury, Paul Vixie, Tim Wicinski, and Paul Wouters.</t>
         <t> Special thanks to Ray Bellis for his persistent encouragement to
            continue this effort, as well as the suggestion for an essential
         simplification to the registration model.</t>
	 





       
      </section>
   </back>
</rfc>
