RFC 3405: Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document is fifth in a series that is completely specified in "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS" (RFC 3401). It is very important to note that it is impossible to read and understand any document in this series without reading the others. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3405
- Published
- October 2002
- Authors
- M. Mealling
- Status
- BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- app
- Pages
- 10
- Also known as
- BCP65
- Updated by:
- RFC 8958
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 2557MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)Current
March 1999
- RFC 3841Caller Preferences for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Current
August 2004
- RFC 4088Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Scheme for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)Current
June 2005
- RFC 3404Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Four: The Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI)Current
October 2002
- RFC 3406Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition MechanismsObsoleted
October 2002
- RFC 3403Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Three: The Domain Name System (DNS) DatabaseCurrent
October 2002
- RFC 3402Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part Two: The AlgorithmCurrent
October 2002
- RFC 3401Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDSCurrent
October 2002
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?