Dismiss
InnovationQ will be updated on Sunday, Oct. 22, from 10am ET - noon. You may experience brief service interruptions during that time.
Browse Prior Art Database

Application Techniques for Checking and Transformation of Names (RFC3696)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000022135D
Original Publication Date: 2004-Feb-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2004-Feb-26
Document File: 17 page(s) / 39K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

J. Klensin: AUTHOR

Abstract

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 text was extracted from an ASCII text file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 9% of the total text.

Network Working Group J. Klensin

Request for Comments: 3696 February 2004

Category: Informational

Application Techniques for Checking and Transformation of 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 (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

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.

Klensin Informational [Page 1]

RFC 3696 Checking and Transformation of Names February 2004

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Restrictions on domain (DNS) names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Restrictions on email addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. URLs and URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4.1. URI syntax definitions and issues . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4.2. The HTTP URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4.3. The MAILTO URL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.4. Guessing domain names in web contexts . . . . . . . . . 11

5. Implications of internationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

10. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

11. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1. Introduction

Designers of user interfaces to Internet applications have often

found it useful to examine user-provided values for validity before

passing them to the Internet tools themselves. This type of test,

most commonly involving syntax checks or application of other rules

to domain names, email addresses, or "web addresses" (URLs or,

occasionally, extended URI forms (see Section 4)) may enable better-

quality diagnostics for the user than might be available from the

protocol itself. Local validity tests on values are also thought to

improve the efficiency of back-office processing programs and to

reduce the load on the protocols th...