RFC 2219: Use of DNS Aliases for Network Services
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
It has become a common practice to use symbolic names (usually CNAMEs) in the Domain Name Service (DNS - [RFC-1034, RFC-1035]) to refer to network services such as anonymous FTP [RFC-959] servers, Gopher [RFC- 1436] servers, and most notably World-Wide Web HTTP [RFC-1945] servers. This is desirable for a number of reasons. It provides a way of moving services from one machine to another transparently, and a mechanism by which people or agents may programmatically discover that an organization runs, say, a World-Wide Web server. Although this approach has been almost universally adopted, there is no standards document or similar specification for these commonly used names. This document seeks to rectify this situation by gathering together the extant 'folklore' on naming conventions, and proposes a mechanism for accommodating new protocols. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC2219
- Published
- October 1997
- Authors
- M. Hamilton; R. Wright
- Status
- BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- app
- Pages
- 8
- Also known as
- BCP17
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 1794DNS Support for Load BalancingCurrent
April 1995
- RFC 1664Using the Internet DNS to Distribute RFC1327 Mail Address Mapping TablesObsoleted
August 1994
- RFC 1612DNS Resolver MIB ExtensionsCurrent
May 1994
- RFC 1611DNS Server MIB ExtensionsCurrent
May 1994
- RFC 1537Common DNS Data File Configuration ErrorsObsoleted
October 1993
- RFC 1536Common DNS Implementation Errors and Suggested FixesUpdated
October 1993
- RFC 2182Selection and Operation of Secondary DNS ServersCurrent
July 1997
- RFC 2181Clarifications to the DNS SpecificationUpdated
July 1997
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?