RFC 8222: Selecting Labels for Use with Conventional DNS and Other Resolution Systems in DNS-Based Service Discovery
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Despite its name, DNS-Based Service Discovery (DNS-SD) can use naming systems other than DNS when looking for services. Moreover, when it uses DNS, DNS-SD uses the full capability of DNS, rather than using a subset of available octets. This is of particular relevance where some environments use DNS labels that conform to Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA), and other environments use labels containing Unicode characters (such as containing octets corresponding to characters encoded as UTF-8). In order for DNS-SD to be used effectively in environments where multiple different name systems and conventions for their operation are in use, it is important to attend to differences in the underlying technology and operational environment. This memo presents an outline of the requirements for the selection of labels for conventional DNS and other resolution systems when they are expected to interoperate in this manner.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC8222
- Published
- September 2017
- Authors
- A. Sullivan
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- int
- Pages
- 11
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 8310Usage Profiles for DNS over TLS and DNS over DTLSCurrent
March 2018
- RFC 8005Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) ExtensionCurrent
October 2016
- RFC 7830The EDNS(0) Padding OptionCurrent
May 2016
- RFC 8765DNS Push NotificationsCurrent
June 2020
- RFC 8882DNS-Based Service Discovery (DNS-SD) Privacy and Security RequirementsCurrent
September 2020
- RFC 8932Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service OperatorsCurrent
October 2020
- RFC 9076DNS Privacy ConsiderationsCurrent
July 2021
- RFC 9103DNS Zone Transfer over TLSCurrent
August 2021
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?