<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.39 (Ruby 3.4.10) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-08" category="info" submissionType="independent" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.32.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="MCP DNS Discovery">Discovery of Model Context Protocol Servers via DNS TXT Records</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-08"/>
    <author fullname="Blake Morrison">
      <organization>Alter Meridian Pty Ltd</organization>
      <address>
        <email>blake@truealter.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2026" month="October" day="9"/>
    <abstract>
      

<t>This document defines a DNS-based mechanism for discovering Model
Context Protocol (MCP) servers, the identity of the organisations
that operate them, and a cryptographic identity envelope bound to an
individual Sovereign-tier <tt>~handle</tt> published under the same zone.</t>
      <t>Three TXT records are defined.  <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> advertises an MCP
server's endpoint URL, agent protocol family, transport binding,
cryptographic identity, and capability profile.
<tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> advertises the operator's canonical
organisational identity, including its legal entity, registry
identifier, regions of operation, and any regulatory framework under
which it must refuse external automated access.  <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>
publishes an Ed25519-signed envelope binding a <tt>~handle</tt> to a public
key, an IdentityLog root reference, and a revocation commitment.
DNSSEC validation is <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> for the envelope record, and a DANE
TLSA pin on the MCP endpoint is <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> where resolving an envelope
and opening an MCP session are one recognition transaction.</t>
      <t>The mechanism complements HTTPS-based discovery, and follows the
precedent set by DKIM, SPF, DMARC, and MTA-STS.  A companion
<tt>alter:</tt> URI scheme is provisionally registered with IANA.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>Model Context Protocol (MCP) <xref target="MCP"/> is an open protocol for
structured interaction between AI agents and tool-providing servers.
A complete agent-to-organisation-to-individual interaction chain has
three distinct discovery requirements:</t>
      <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
          <t><strong>Service discovery.</strong>  Where is the MCP server endpoint?  What
transport does it speak?  What cryptographic key authenticates
it?  The <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record answers this.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t><strong>Organisational identity bootstrap.</strong>  Who is the organisation
operating the server?  What is its legal entity?  Where is it
registered?  Under what regulatory frameworks does it operate,
and which automated access pathways must it refuse to participate
in?  The <tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record answers this.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t><strong>Individual identity recognition.</strong>  Who is the Sovereign-tier
person bound to a <tt>~handle</tt> hosted under the domain?  What public
key signs their statements?  What append-only log anchors the
lifecycle of their identity?  How may their envelope be revoked?
The <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record answers this.</t>
        </li>
      </ol>
      <t>The three questions are distinct.  An MCP client may need to
discover an endpoint without caring about the operator's identity
or any individual handle.  An onboarding wizard installing an
org-alter instance may need to read the operator's identity without
caring (yet) about the MCP endpoint.  A recognition verifier
(resolving an <tt>alter:~alice</tt> URI) needs the individual envelope
without necessarily invoking an MCP session.  Conflating any two of
these into a single TXT record would force every consumer to parse
fields it does not need and would crowd the 255-octet
character-string limit.  Splitting them across three
underscore-prefixed labels mirrors the pattern established by DKIM
<xref target="RFC6376"/> (<tt>&lt;selector&gt;._domainkey.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>) and DMARC <xref target="RFC9989"/>
(<tt>_dmarc.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>), where each record serves a single semantic
purpose.  SPF <xref target="RFC7208"/> and MTA-STS <xref target="RFC8461"/> set the same
precedent for carrying policy in a TXT record under a reserved
label.</t>
      <t>This revision is fully backward-compatible with revisions 01 and 02.
Implementations that consume only the <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record
continue to work unchanged.  Implementations that wish to bootstrap
an org-alter identity may additionally query <tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>.
Implementations that wish to recognise an individual <tt>~handle</tt> may
additionally query <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>.</t>
      <t>This document stands alone.  All three record formats (<xref target="mcp-record"/>, <xref target="orgalter-record"/>,
<xref target="alter-record"/>), all three procedures (<xref target="mcp-discovery"/>,
<xref target="orgalter-bootstrap"/>, <xref target="recognition"/>), the signing input
(<xref target="signing-input"/>) and the caching rules (<xref target="caching"/>) are given
here in full.  An implementer needs no other document in this
series.  Revisions 01 and 02 are cited where this document records
what they said, and are cited informatively, because nothing here
depends on fetching them.</t>
      <t>The envelope published at <tt>_alter.&lt;zone&gt;</tt> is the
handle-holder's own declaration, signed by their Ed25519 key and
verifiable by any client with access to a DNSSEC-validating recursive
resolver.  It also carries a reference to an IdentityLog root, and
<xref target="identitylog"/> sets out what that reference does and does not
establish.</t>
      <section anchor="requirements-language">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
        

</section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="terminology">
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <dl>
        <dt>Envelope</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>An Ed25519-signed JSON object binding a <tt>~handle</tt> to a public
key, an IdentityLog root reference, an inception timestamp, a
revocation hash commitment, a signature algorithm tag, a detached
signature, and a caveats array.  The TXT grammar
that carries the seven required envelope fields across DNS, and
the signing input over which they are verified, are specified in
<xref target="alter-record"/> of this document.</t>
        </dd>
        <dt>~handle</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>A Sovereign-tier identifier, leading tilde mandatory (e.g.
<tt>~alice</tt>).  Bot-tier handles carry a <tt>.bot</tt> suffix (e.g.
<tt>~example-bot.bot</tt>); Instrument-tier handles use the prefix
<tt>~cc-</tt> (e.g. <tt>~cc-example-model</tt>).  An Instrument-tier handle
identifies an instrument whose acts are attributed to the Sovereign
that operates it; it is not an independent handle (Section 8.5 of
<xref target="MORRISON-IFT"/>).  After the tilde, a handle begins with a letter
and continues with letters, digits, "-" and "."; it never contains
"_".  An organisation's handle may therefore be dotted, as in
<tt>~example.com</tt>.  The grammar is the <tt>handle-name</tt> of
<xref target="ALTER-URI"/>, restated in <xref target="alter-abnf"/>, and the tier is read from
the lexical form alone.  A dotted handle is not a domain name, and
the Handle-Domain Confusion consideration of <xref target="ALTER-URI"/> applies.</t>
        </dd>
        <dt>IdentityLog</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>An append-only transparency log recording envelope lifecycle
events (mint, caveat-add, revocation, key-rotation), whose root
the <tt>ilr=</tt> field of <xref target="alter-record"/> references.  The log's
cadence, its witness protocol, and the client profile for
checking it are NOT specified by this document and are not yet
specified anywhere a reader can fetch.  <xref target="identitylog"/> states what a
resolver may and may not conclude from <tt>ilr=</tt> in the meantime.</t>
        </dd>
        <dt>Recognition</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>The act of a resolver observing and verifying an envelope on
cryptographic merit.  A published record is an assertion the
resolver may verify or reject.</t>
        </dd>
        <dt>DNSSEC Validation</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>The act of an authenticating DNS resolver verifying the RRSIG
chain from the root trust anchor to the TXT RRset, per <xref target="RFC4033"/>,
<xref target="RFC4034"/>, and <xref target="RFC4035"/>, and setting the AD bit on the response
delivered to the stub client.</t>
        </dd>
        <dt>DANE TLSA Pin</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>A DNS TLSA resource record <xref target="RFC6698"/> binding a server's leaf TLS
certificate (or the public key therein) to the zone that hosts
the envelope.  In this document, the pin applies to the MCP
endpoint at <tt>mcp.&lt;zone&gt;</tt>.</t>
        </dd>
        <dt><tt>alter:</tt> URI</dt>
        <dd>
          <t>A URI scheme for dispatchable <tt>~handle</tt> references, specified in <xref target="ALTER-URI"/> and provisionally registered with IANA on 5 October 2026 per <xref target="RFC7595"/> Section 4.  Handler guidance is given in <xref target="alter-uri"/> of this document.  Where this document names a <tt>~handle</tt> in prose as a reference, it is written as an <tt>alter:</tt> URI, for example <tt>alter:~alice</tt>.  The <tt>h</tt> field of <xref target="field-h"/> carries the bare form its grammar defines, and the value <tt>~alice</tt> corresponds to the URI <tt>alter:~alice</tt>.</t>
        </dd>
      </dl>
      <t>The terms Org-Identity Record, Identity Bootstrap, Canonical Entity Identifier and Regulatory Refusal Marker carry the meanings given by <xref target="orgalter-record"/> and <xref target="orgalter-bootstrap"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="related-work">
      <name>Related Work</name>
      <t>Several drafts now publish agent discovery data in DNS, with
overlapping vocabularies.</t>
      <t>Two of them are called AID and they are different documents.
<xref target="AGENT-AID"/> is "Agent Identity and Discovery", and <xref target="DNS-AID"/> is
"DNS for AI Discovery".</t>
      <t><xref target="AGENT-AID"/> is the closest neighbour to the service-discovery record
of this document, and it came first.  It publishes a TXT record at
<tt>_agent.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> carrying a leading <tt>v=aid2</tt> version tag and
semicolon-delimited <tt>key=value</tt> pairs, which give the endpoint URI
(<tt>u</tt>), a protocol token (<tt>p</tt>), an authentication hint (<tt>a</tt>), and
optionally an Ed25519 public key for endpoint proof (<tt>k</tt>), carried as
an unpadded base64url JWK <tt>x</tt> value whose JWK thumbprint <xref target="RFC7638"/> is
the HTTP Message Signature <xref target="RFC9421"/> <tt>keyid</tt>.  The earlier <tt>v=aid1</tt> format, with its
<tt>i</tt> rotation identifier, stays valid through <xref target="AGENT-AID"/>'s
compatibility window.  The <tt>_mcp</tt> record of <xref target="mcp-record"/>
reaches the same three facts, an endpoint, a protocol, and a key, in
an underscore-prefixed TXT record with a leading version tag and
semicolon-delimited pairs.  The <tt>_mcp</tt> record derives its pattern from
DKIM <xref target="RFC6376"/>.  <xref target="AGENT-AID"/> published its record first, in March 2026.</t>
      <t>The two can be published together.  <xref target="AGENT-AID"/> gives where an
agent is and which protocol to speak to it.  The <tt>_mcp</tt> record gives
an MCP endpoint's transport, authentication, capability scope and key
epoch, and the <tt>_org-alter</tt> record of <xref target="orgalter-record"/> gives the
legal entity behind the endpoint, its registry identifier, operating
regions and regulatory refusal markers.  A client that learns <tt>p=mcp</tt>
from <tt>_agent.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> may also look up <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>.</t>
      <t>The keys bind different things, so publishing both is not a
duplication.  The <tt>k</tt> of <xref target="AGENT-AID"/> binds a key to an endpoint, and
proves control of the server that answers.  The <tt>_alter</tt> and
<tt>_org-alter</tt> records bind a key to a <tt>~handle</tt> or to a legal entity,
with a log root and a revocation commitment.</t>
      <t><xref target="DNS-AID"/> specifies discovery of AI agents through DNS.  It carries
connectivity in SVCB records with TXT as a fallback, an <tt>alpn</tt>
parameter that may hold the transport, an application-layer agent
protocol, or both (<tt>alpn=mcp,h2,h3</tt>), and an optional <tt>bap</tt>
parameter for the agent protocol alone, so that consumers can match
on the agent protocol without parsing transports out of <tt>alpn</tt>.  It
predates this document's treatment of the same question.  Both operate
over unicast DNS.  DNS-AID addresses agent discovery generally, while
this document addresses one protocol family and adds the identity
records that carry a signed envelope.</t>
      <t><xref target="MDNS-AGENT"/> specifies zero-configuration discovery over mDNS and
DNS-SD.  Its <tt>proto</tt> parameter names the agent protocol family, and
it defines exactly one value for it, <tt>proto=a2a</tt>, saying that A2A is
the only instantiation included in that document and leaving other
agent protocols to future work.  It defines no registry for the key.
This document uses <tt>proto</tt> with the same meaning.  The owner names and
service types of the two documents differ, so no record is shared
between them.</t>
      <t><xref target="MDNS-ARCHITECT"/> publishes registered agents through standard A,
SVCB, and SRV records at a registry, with a worked SVCB example that
puts the agent protocol and the transport side by side
(<tt>SVCB 0 mcp ... alpn=h2</tt>).</t>
      <t><xref target="SAIP"/> is a neighbour to the identity records of this document
rather than to its service-discovery record.  It publishes an
agent's Ed25519 public key in an underscore-prefixed TXT record at
<tt>_saip.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>, with a leading <tt>v=</tt> version tag, deriving its
pattern, as this document does, from DKIM <xref target="RFC6376"/> and SPF
<xref target="RFC7208"/>.  Its Section 10, "Trust and Attestation Discovery",
specifies that publication and the discovery of the key from it.  The
bindings differ.  The <tt>_saip</tt> record binds a key to a vendor's
declared network footprint, carrying authorised ASNs, authorised IP
prefixes, and an expiry.  The <tt>_alter</tt> record of <xref target="alter-record"/>
binds a key to a <tt>~handle</tt>, with a log root and a revocation
commitment.  A deployment that wanted both could publish both, and
nothing in either record's owner name or field set collides with the
other.</t>
      <t>The neighbouring drafts keep the agent protocol and the transport
apart, each in its own way.  <xref target="MDNS-AGENT"/> defines <tt>proto</tt> as the
agent protocol identifier and never as a transport, and carries the
connection data in the SRV record instead.  <xref target="MDNS-ARCHITECT"/> defines
no <tt>proto</tt> key at all, and keeps the agent protocol distinct from
the wire protocol inside its SVCB record, the one in the <tt>mcp</tt>
position and the other in <tt>alpn</tt>.  Neither of them puts a transport
where the agent protocol belongs.  Revision 01 of this document did,
and this document no longer does.</t>
      <t>This document uses one parameter for the agent
protocol family and a second, separate parameter for the transport
or binding.  The transport parameter is named <tt>transport</tt> because
the Model Context Protocol specification already calls this axis by
that name, so an MCP implementer meets one term, not two.</t>
      <t>This document keeps a third axis separate again.  <tt>transport</tt> names
the binding (<tt>streamable-http</tt>, <tt>sse</tt>), and the wire protocol
underneath it (<tt>h2</tt>, <tt>h3</tt>) is left to the <tt>alpn</tt> service parameter
of SVCB and HTTPS records <xref target="RFC9460"/>, where DNS already carries it.
<xref target="DNS-AID"/> permits <tt>alpn</tt> to hold the transport, the agent protocol,
or both.  This document does not overload <tt>alpn</tt> in that way.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="why-txt">
      <name>Why TXT rather than SVCB</name>
      <t><xref target="DNS-AID"/> carries its connectivity data in SVCB records, with
TXT as a fallback, and <xref target="MDNS-ARCHITECT"/> uses SVCB.  This document is the reverse, TXT
is the primary carrier.  The reason is the payload.</t>
      <t>An <tt>_mcp</tt> record's value is almost entirely opaque tokens the
resolver does not interpret, an endpoint URL, a public key, a
capability list, an attestation scope.  SVCB is useful when a
resolver or a connection library acts on the parameters directly,
selecting a transport, following an <tt>alpn</tt>, choosing a port.  It
adds a registered SvcParamKey per field and a priority-ordered
target list.  For a record whose fields are consumed by an MCP
client after resolution, and not by the resolver, that machinery is
overhead without a matching benefit, and a TXT string is the
lighter carrier.</t>
      <t>Where a field IS resolver-actionable, this document defers to SVCB
rather than duplicating it.  The wire protocol lives in the SVCB or
HTTPS <tt>alpn</tt> parameter <xref target="RFC9460"/>, never in this TXT record, for that reason.  An operator who wants SVCB-based transport
selection publishes an HTTPS record for the endpoint host in the
ordinary way, and the two records coexist.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="mcp-record">
      <name>Record Format: <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> (Service Discovery)</name>
      <t>This section defines the Discovery Record introduced in revision 00, in
full.</t>
      <section anchor="mcp-location">
        <name>DNS Location</name>
        <t>The Discovery Record is a DNS TXT resource record <xref target="RFC1035"/>
published at the label <tt>_mcp</tt> prepended to the Policy Domain:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
_mcp.<policy-domain>. IN TXT "<record-value>"
]]></artwork>
        <t>The underscore prefix conforms to the conventions established in
<xref target="RFC8552"/> for globally scoped, underscore-prefixed DNS node names.</t>
        <t>Multiple TXT resource records <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be published at the same DNS
name.  Where multiple records exist, each <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> independently conform
to the syntax defined in this section.  Clients <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> evaluate all
returned records and select among them using the <tt>priority</tt> field
as described below.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="mcp-abnf">
        <name>ABNF Grammar</name>
        <t>The record value is a semicolon-delimited sequence of key-value
pairs.  The following ABNF <xref target="RFC5234"/> defines the syntax:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
mcp-record      = version *( ";" SP field )
version         = "v=mcp1"
field           = url-field / proto-field / transport-field /
                  pk-field / epoch-field / cap-field /
                  attest-field / scope-field / priority-field /
                  ttl-field / ext-field / unknown-field

url-field       = "url=" https-uri
proto-field     = "proto=" proto-value
transport-field = "transport=" transport-value
pk-field        = "pk=" algo ":" base64url
epoch-field     = "epoch=" 1*DIGIT
cap-field       = "cap=" cap-csv
attest-field    = "attest=" attest-csv
scope-field     = "scope=" scope-csv
priority-field  = "priority=" 1*DIGIT
ttl-field       = "ttl=" 1*DIGIT
ext-field       = "ext=" https-uri
unknown-field   = token "=" *qtext

https-uri       = "https://" *uri-char
uri-char        = %x21-3A / %x3C-7E
                ; printable ASCII, excluding ";" (%x3B) and SP.
                ; A URI carries no raw space, so admitting one here
                ; would let a url= value swallow the field after it.
qtext           = %x20-3A / %x3C-7E
                ; printable ASCII and SP, excluding ";" (%x3B),
                ; which delimits one field from the next.  A value
                ; that could contain ";" could swallow the delimiter.
algo            = "ed25519"
base64url       = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" )
proto-value     = token
transport-value = token
cap-csv         = cap-token *( "," cap-token )
cap-token       = token
attest-csv      = attest-token *( "," attest-token )
attest-token    = token
scope-csv       = scope-token *( "," scope-token )
scope-token     = "tools" / "resources" / "prompts" /
                  "sampling" / "identity" / token
token           = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" )
]]></artwork>
        <t><tt>unknown-field</tt> matches ONLY a field name this document does not
define.  ABNF has no way to say "any token except these", so the
exclusion is stated here, and it is normative.  Where a field name
IS defined above, the field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be parsed by that field's own rule.
A record in which a defined field's value does not satisfy its own
rule is MALFORMED, and a client <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> discard it, exactly as
<xref target="mcp-discovery"/> discards a record whose <tt>url</tt> is not a valid HTTPS
URI.  A client <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> re-read such a field as an <tt>unknown-field</tt>.
Without this rule the alternation would swallow every defect it was
written to exclude: <tt>url=https://x.com priority=5</tt> would parse as an
unknown field named <tt>url</tt> rather than as the malformed <tt>url</tt> field
it is.</t>
        <t>The grammar admits any token in <tt>proto</tt> and in <tt>transport</tt>.
Revision 01 admitted any token in <tt>proto</tt> and records in the wild
carry transport values there, so a resolver <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be able to PARSE
such a record before it can decide what to do with it, and the
reading rule of <xref target="reading-legacy"/> is what decides.</t>
        <t>The values this document DEFINES are enumerated in the field
definitions below.  <tt>proto</tt> has exactly one
defined value, <tt>mcp</tt>.  <tt>transport</tt> has exactly three,
<tt>streamable-http</tt>, <tt>sse</tt>, and <tt>stdio-url</tt>.  Those two sets are
disjoint, so no value is defined for both fields.  A transport value
appearing in <tt>proto</tt> is RECOGNISED there, under <xref target="reading-legacy"/>,
and is not DEFINED there.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="mcp-fields">
        <name>Field Definitions</name>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-v">
          <name>v (REQUIRED)</name>
          <t>Protocol version identifier.  <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be the literal string <tt>mcp1</tt>.
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> appear as the first field in the record.  Clients <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject
any record whose <tt>v</tt> field is absent, is not the first field, or
contains a value other than <tt>mcp1</tt>.</t>
          <t>This version gate enables future incompatible revisions of the
record format.  A future version <tt>mcp2</tt> would indicate breaking
changes to field semantics or discovery flow.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-url">
          <name>url (REQUIRED)</name>
          <t>The HTTPS URL of the MCP server endpoint.  <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use the <tt>https</tt>
scheme.  <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be a syntactically valid URI per RFC 3986.  This is
the entry point for MCP session establishment.</t>
          <t>Clients <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> attempt to connect to URLs using schemes other
than <tt>https</tt>.  Servers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> present a valid TLS certificate for
the hostname in the URL.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-proto">
          <name>proto (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>The agent protocol family the endpoint speaks.  Default value:
<tt>mcp</tt>.  For a record published at <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> the only value
defined by this document is <tt>mcp</tt>; the field is retained because
the same key, with the same meaning, is used by <xref target="MDNS-AGENT"/>
(see <xref target="related-work"/>) and a client that reads
several of them should not have to special-case this one.</t>
          <t><tt>proto</tt> does not name a transport.  It does not carry
<tt>streamable-http</tt>, <tt>sse</tt>, <tt>h2</tt>, <tt>h3</tt>, or any other binding.  The
transport is carried by the <tt>transport</tt> field below.  A record
published under revision 01 may still carry a transport value
here, and <xref target="reading-legacy"/> says how to read one.</t>
          <t>The field is <bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>, but not unconditionally.  A publisher that
emits a <tt>transport</tt> field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> also emit <tt>proto=mcp</tt>, for the
interoperability reason given in <xref target="reading-legacy"/>.  Omitting
<tt>proto</tt> is permitted only where <tt>transport</tt> is also omitted.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-transport">
          <name>transport (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>The MCP transport binding used by the server.  Default value:
<tt>streamable-http</tt>.  Defined values:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t><tt>streamable-http</tt>, the HTTP-based streaming transport (default).</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>sse</tt>, the HTTP+SSE transport of MCP protocol version 2024-11-05,
retained for deployed servers.  The Model Context Protocol
specification marks this transport superseded by
<tt>streamable-http</tt>.  It is listed so an existing server stays
discoverable, not as a recommendation for new deployments.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>stdio-url</tt>, a URL pointing to a signed launch descriptor for a
stdio-based server (descriptor format out of scope).  This is a
discovery convenience defined by this document, not one of the MCP
specification's own transport names.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>The field is named <tt>transport</tt> because that is the term the Model
Context Protocol specification itself uses for this axis, so an
<tt>_mcp</tt> record and an MCP client configuration name the transport
the same way.</t>
          <t>Implementations <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> support at least <tt>streamable-http</tt>.
A client that meets a <tt>transport</tt> value it does not recognise <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
skip the record and proceed to the next record by priority, or to
HTTPS fallback.</t>
          <t>The wire protocol beneath the transport (<tt>h2</tt>, <tt>h3</tt>, <tt>http/1.1</tt>)
is NOT carried in this record.  It is already expressible as the
<tt>alpn</tt> service parameter of an SVCB or HTTPS resource record
<xref target="RFC9460"/>, and duplicating it in TXT would create two sources of
truth for one fact.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="reading-legacy">
          <name>Reading a record published before this revision</name>
          <t>Revision 01 of this document defined <tt>proto</tt> as the transport, so
records in the wild carry <tt>proto=streamable-http</tt>, <tt>proto=sse</tt>, or
<tt>proto=stdio-url</tt>.  Revision 01 also admitted ANY token in that
field, and required a client that met a <tt>proto</tt> value it did not
recognise to SKIP the record.  Both of those behaviours are
preserved here.  Such records remain valid and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be read as
follows.</t>
          <t>A client reading an <tt>_mcp</tt> record determines two things, the
protocol family first and the transport second.  Taking them in the
other order is what makes an unrecognised value look harmless, so
the order is normative.</t>
          <t><strong>Step A, the protocol family.</strong>  The family is <tt>mcp</tt> where any one
of the following holds:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t><tt>proto</tt> is absent;</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>proto</tt> carries <tt>mcp</tt>;</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>proto</tt> carries one of the three values defined for <tt>transport</tt>
in <xref target="mcp-field-transport"/>.  This is the revision 01 form, in
which the transport was written into <tt>proto</tt>.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>Where <tt>proto</tt> carries any other value, it names a protocol family
this document does not define.  The client <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> skip the record and
proceed to the next record by priority, or to HTTPS fallback.  It
<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat the value as a transport, and it <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> apply a
default transport to the record.  This holds whether or not a
<tt>transport</tt> field is also present: a record reading
<tt>transport=streamable-http; proto=websocket</tt> is skipped, because the
family is unknown, and the presence of a readable transport does not
make an unknown family speakable.</t>
          <t><strong>Step B, the transport.</strong>  A client reaches this step only where
Step A yielded the family <tt>mcp</tt>.</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t>Where <tt>transport</tt> is present and carries one of the three values
defined in <xref target="mcp-field-transport"/>, that value is the transport,
and any transport value carried in <tt>proto</tt> <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Where <tt>transport</tt> is present and carries any other value, the
client <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> skip the record, and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> proceed to the next record
by priority or to HTTPS fallback (<xref target="mcp-field-transport"/>).</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Where <tt>transport</tt> is absent and <tt>proto</tt> carries one of the three
defined transport values, that value is the transport.  This is
the revision 01 form.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Where <tt>transport</tt> is absent and <tt>proto</tt> is absent or carries
<tt>mcp</tt>, the transport is <tt>streamable-http</tt>.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>Revision 01 admitted any
token in <tt>proto</tt>, so <tt>proto=websocket</tt> was a syntactically legal
record, and every conformant revision 01 client SKIPPED it, because
revision 01 required a skip on an unrecognised <tt>proto</tt> value.  A
client that instead read an unrecognised <tt>proto</tt> value as a protocol
family, and then applied the default transport, would open a
<tt>streamable-http</tt> session against a server that never offered one.
That record was unusable under revision 01 and it stays unusable
here, which keeps the two revisions interoperable.</t>
          <t>A publisher that emits a <tt>transport</tt> field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> also emit
<tt>proto=mcp</tt>.  A revision 01 client does not
know the <tt>transport</tt> field, and its own forward-compatibility rule
tells it to IGNORE any field it does not know, so it reads only
<tt>proto</tt>.  A record carrying <tt>transport=streamable-http</tt> beside
<tt>proto=sse</tt> would therefore resolve to <tt>streamable-http</tt> under this
revision and to <tt>sse</tt> under revision 01, which is one record and two
transports.  Setting <tt>proto=mcp</tt> alongside <tt>transport</tt> removes the
divergence, because a revision 01 client then finds no transport it
recognises in <tt>proto</tt> and skips the record rather than reaching a
different endpoint state than a current client would.</t>
          <t>Publishers <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> move to the two-field form.  No flag day is
required, because the two forms are distinguishable by inspection,
and because no value is defined for both fields
(<xref target="mcp-abnf"/>).</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-pk">
          <name>pk (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>Ed25519 public key for endpoint verification, encoded as
<tt>ed25519:&lt;base64url&gt;</tt> where <tt>&lt;base64url&gt;</tt> is the raw 32-byte
public key encoded per <xref target="RFC4648"/> Section 5, without padding.</t>
          <t>Where present, the <tt>pk</tt> field provides a cryptographic binding
between the DNS record and the MCP server.  Clients <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> verify
that the key matches at least one of the following:</t>
          <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
              <t>A key in the server's TLS certificate SubjectPublicKeyInfo.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>The signing key used in HTTP Message Signatures <xref target="RFC9421"/> on
MCP responses.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>The key declared in the Server Card <xref target="SEP-1649"/> served by the
endpoint.</t>
            </li>
          </ol>
          <t>If verification fails, the client <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> treat the server as
untrusted and <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> proceed with the MCP session.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-epoch">
          <name>epoch (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>A monotonic non-negative integer that increments on every key
rotation.  Default value: <tt>0</tt>.</t>
          <t>Signed claims or attestations issued by the MCP server carry a key
identifier (kid) of the form <tt>&lt;algo&gt;:&lt;pk&gt;#&lt;epoch&gt;</tt>.  Verifiers
resolve the Discovery Record, extract the current epoch, and apply
the following rules:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t>Claims with <tt>epoch == current</tt> are valid, subject to temporal
checks.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Claims with <tt>epoch &lt; current</tt> are revoked unless the claim's
expiry timestamp predates the rotation event.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Claims with <tt>epoch &gt; current</tt> <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be rejected as either
forgeries or evidence of a stale verifier DNS cache.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>The epoch field enables epoch-based revocation without external
Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) or Online Certificate Status
Protocol (OCSP) infrastructure.  Incrementing the epoch revokes
all outstanding claims issued under prior epochs, subject to the
grace period defined by each claim's expiry.</t>
          <t>The rules above compare a claim against the record.  They do not
compare the record against itself over time.  A publisher never
lowers the epoch, because the field is monotonic, so a record whose
epoch is lower than one a client has already observed is not a state
a conformant publisher produces.  <xref target="key-continuity"/> states what a
client does when it observes one, and what it does when the <tt>pk</tt>
changes.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-cap">
          <name>cap (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>Capability tier advertised by the server, expressed as a
comma-separated list of tokens.  This field provides a coarse hint
to clients about the functional scope of the server.</t>
          <t>No normative semantics are defined for specific capability values
in this document.  Protocol extensions <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> define capability tokens
and their semantics.  Clients that do not recognise a capability
token <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore it.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-attest">
          <name>attest (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>A comma-separated list of attestation types that the MCP server
declares it is authorised to issue.  The value enumerates claim
types that downstream verifiers will accept from this issuer.</t>
          <t>Defined values, extensible:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t><tt>employ</tt>, current employment affiliation.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>contract</tt>, contractual or freelance engagement.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>alumnus</tt>, former affiliation.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>director</tt>, board or directorial role.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>member</tt>, generic membership (professional body, association).</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>contrib</tt>, verified contribution without formal affiliation.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>Verifiers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject any attestation claim whose type is not
present in the issuer's <tt>attest</tt> field.  This provides a
structural defence against capability creep: the domain's
published attestation scope is the upper bound on what its
claims can assert.</t>
          <t>Forward compatibility: unknown attestation values <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored,
not rejected.  A verifier encountering <tt>attest=employ,fellow</tt>
where <tt>fellow</tt> is undefined treats the record as
<tt>attest=employ</tt> and proceeds.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-scope">
          <name>scope (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>Comma-separated list of MCP primitives supported by the server.
Defined values:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t><tt>tools</tt>, the server exposes callable tools.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>resources</tt>, the server exposes readable resources.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>prompts</tt>, the server exposes prompt templates.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>sampling</tt>, the server supports LLM sampling requests.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>identity</tt>, the server supports identity resolution queries.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>Unknown values <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored.  This field is advisory; the
authoritative capability set is declared during the MCP
<tt>initialize</tt> handshake.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-priority">
          <name>priority (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>A non-negative integer.  Default value: <tt>10</tt>.  Where multiple
Discovery Records exist at the same DNS name, clients <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> sort
records by <tt>priority</tt> in ascending order and attempt connection
to lower-valued records first.</t>
          <t>This field enables multi-server failover without external load
balancing.  If connection to the highest-priority server fails,
the client proceeds to the next record.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-ttl">
          <name>ttl (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>Advisory TTL in seconds for client-side caching of the parsed
Discovery Record metadata.  Clients <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> use this value to avoid
repeated DNS lookups when the DNS TTL is shorter than desired.
The DNS TTL itself remains authoritative for cache expiry of the
raw DNS response; the <tt>ttl</tt> field applies to post-parse metadata
caching only.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-field-ext">
          <name>ext (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>An HTTPS URL pointing to a protocol-extension document.  The
format and semantics of the extension document are defined by
the protocol extension, not by this specification.</t>
          <t>This field enables protocol-specific extensions (identity
protocols, payment protocols, agent-to-agent negotiation) to
attach additional metadata without consuming space in the DNS
TXT record.  The extension document <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be served over HTTPS.
Clients that do not recognise or support the extension <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
ignore this field.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="mcp-forward-compat">
        <name>Forward Compatibility</name>
        <t>Implementations <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore unknown fields.  A parser encountering
a field name that it does not recognise <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> skip that field and
continue parsing the remaining fields.  This rule ensures that
future extensions to the record format do not break existing
implementations.</t>
        <t>Ignoring an unknown FIELD is not the same act as skipping a record
on an unrecognised VALUE in a field this document defines.  The
first is required here; the second is required by
<xref target="mcp-field-transport"/> and <xref target="reading-legacy"/>.</t>
        <t>Breaking changes to the semantics of existing fields require a
version bump, for example <tt>v=mcp2</tt>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="mcp-multistring">
        <name>Multi-String Concatenation</name>
        <t>DNS TXT resource records are limited to 255 bytes per
character-string <xref target="RFC1035"/>.  Where a Discovery Record exceeds 255
bytes, the record <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be split across multiple character-strings
within a single TXT RDATA, which the client concatenates, as
<xref target="RFC7208"/> Section 3.3 does for SPF.</t>
        <t>Example of a multi-string record:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
_mcp.example.com. IN TXT (
  "v=mcp1; url=https://mcp.example.com; "
  "pk=ed25519:LongBase64UrlEncodedPublicKeyValueHere; "
  "epoch=3; attest=employ,contract,alumnus; scope=tools,identity"
)
]]></artwork>
        <t>Parsers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> concatenate all character-strings within a single TXT
RDATA before parsing the semicolon-delimited fields.  Parsers
<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat each character-string as an independent record.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="orgalter-record">
      <name>Record Format: <tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> (Identity Bootstrap)</name>
      <t>This section defines the Org-Identity Record introduced in revision 02.  It
is given here in full.</t>
      <section anchor="orgalter-location">
        <name>DNS Location</name>
        <t>The Org-Identity Record is a DNS TXT resource record <xref target="RFC1035"/>
published at the label <tt>_org-alter</tt> prepended to the Policy Domain:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
_org-alter.<policy-domain>. IN TXT "<record-value>"
]]></artwork>
        <t>The underscore prefix conforms to the conventions established in
<xref target="RFC8552"/> for globally scoped, underscore-prefixed DNS node names.</t>
        <t>A domain <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> publish a <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record without an
<tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record (service-only deployment), or an
<tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record without a <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record
(identity-only deployment), or both (full deployment).  The
recommended pattern for any operator running an org-alter instance
is to publish both.</t>
        <t>Multiple TXT resource records <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be published at the same DNS name
(e.g., for staged identity rotation).  Clients <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> evaluate all
returned records and select the one with the highest <tt>epoch</tt> field.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="orgalter-abnf">
        <name>ABNF Grammar</name>
        <t>The record value is a semicolon-delimited sequence of key-value
pairs.  The following ABNF <xref target="RFC5234"/> defines the syntax:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
orgalter-record = version *( ";" SP field )
version       = "v=alter1"
field         = org-field / entity-field / entity-type-field /
                founded-field / regions-field / regulated-field /
                bootstrap-field / mcp-policy-field /
                epoch-field / pk-field / attest-field /
                ext-field / unknown-field

org-field        = "org=" text-value
entity-field     = "entity=" registry ":" text-value
entity-type-field = "entity-type=" text-value
founded-field    = "founded=" date-fullyear
regions-field    = "regions=" region-csv
regulated-field  = "regulated=" framework-csv
bootstrap-field  = "bootstrap=" https-uri
mcp-policy-field = "mcp-policy=" policy-token
epoch-field      = "epoch=" 1*DIGIT
pk-field         = "pk=" algo ":" base64url
attest-field     = "attest=" attest-csv
ext-field        = "ext=" https-uri
unknown-field    = token "=" *qtext

registry      = "abn" / "acn" / "ein" / "ch" / "cro" / "lei" / token
text-value    = 1*qtext
qtext         = %x20-3A / %x3C-7E
              ; printable ASCII and SP, excluding ";" (%x3B),
              ; which delimits fields.  A legal entity name carries
              ; spaces, so VCHAR alone cannot express one.
region-csv    = region-token *( "," region-token )
region-token  = 2ALPHA   ; ISO 3166-1 alpha-2
framework-csv = framework-token *( "," framework-token )
framework-token = "disp" / "itar" / "ear" / "hipaa" / "gdpr" /
                  "soc2" / "iso27001" / "iso42001" / "essential8" /
                  "aprs" / token
policy-token  = "open" / "refuse-automated" / "refuse-tenant" /
                "refuse-all" / token
date-fullyear = 4DIGIT [ "-" 2DIGIT [ "-" 2DIGIT ] ]
algo          = "ed25519"
base64url     = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" )
https-uri     = "https://" *uri-char
uri-char      = %x21-3A / %x3C-7E
              ; printable ASCII, excluding ";" (%x3B) and SP.
              ; A URI carries no raw space.
token         = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" )
]]></artwork>
        <t>A legal entity name carries spaces, so <tt>text-value</tt> admits them and
excludes only the semicolon that separates one field from the next.
Revision 02 defined <tt>org</tt>, <tt>entity</tt> and <tt>entity-type</tt> over <tt>1*VCHAR</tt>,
which excludes the space.</t>
        <t>A URI does not carry a raw space, so <tt>bootstrap</tt> and <tt>ext</tt> are
defined over <tt>uri-char</tt> rather than <tt>text-value</tt>.  Admitting SP in a
URI value would let it run past its own end and consume the field
after it.</t>
        <t>As in <xref target="mcp-abnf"/>, <tt>unknown-field</tt> matches ONLY a field name this
document does not define.  Where a field name IS defined above, the
field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be parsed by that field's own rule, and a record in which
a defined field's value does not satisfy its rule is MALFORMED and
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be discarded rather than re-read as an unknown field.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="orgalter-fields">
        <name>Field Definitions</name>
        <section anchor="v-required">
          <name>v (REQUIRED)</name>
          <t>Protocol version identifier.  <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be the literal string <tt>alter1</tt>.
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> appear as the first field in the record.  Clients <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject
any record whose <tt>v</tt> field is absent, is not the first field, or
contains a value other than <tt>alter1</tt>.</t>
          <t>The version namespace is independent of the <tt>_mcp</tt> record's
<tt>v=mcp1</tt> namespace.  This allows the two record types to evolve
independently.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="org-required">
          <name>org (REQUIRED)</name>
          <t>The canonical legal name of the organisation operating the domain.
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be the registered legal entity name as it appears in the
operator's primary corporate registry, not a trading name or brand.
For trading names, see the optional <tt>entity-type</tt> field.</t>
          <t>Examples:</t>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
org=Example Pty Ltd
org=Example Corporation
]]></artwork>
        </section>
        <section anchor="entity-recommended">
          <name>entity (RECOMMENDED)</name>
          <t>A globally-disambiguating canonical entity identifier, prefixed by
its registry namespace.  Defined registries:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t><tt>abn:</tt>, Australian Business Number (11 digits, no spaces).</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>acn:</tt>, Australian Company Number (9 digits, no spaces).</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>ein:</tt>, US Employer Identification Number (<tt>NN-NNNNNNN</tt>).</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>ch:</tt>, UK Companies House number (8 alphanumeric).</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>cro:</tt>, Irish Companies Registration Office number.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>lei:</tt>, Legal Entity Identifier (20 alphanumeric per ISO 17442).</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>Additional registries <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be defined; clients <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> treat unknown
registry namespaces as opaque identifiers.</t>
          <t>Example:</t>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
entity=abn:12345678901
]]></artwork>
          <t>The <tt>entity</tt> field lets a verifier check the declared name against
the public registry.  A domain claiming to be <tt>Example Pty Ltd</tt>
without an ABN that resolves to that name in ABR Lookup shows as a
mismatch to any verifier with access to that registry.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="entity-type-optional">
          <name>entity-type (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>A short human-readable label for the entity's type, drawn from its
jurisdiction's vocabulary.  Examples: <tt>Pty Ltd</tt>, <tt>LLC</tt>, <tt>GmbH</tt>,
<tt>SAS</tt>, <tt>non-profit</tt>.  This field is advisory and is intended for
display to humans; it is not a structured taxonomy.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="founded-optional">
          <name>founded (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>The date the legal entity was founded or registered, as
<tt>YYYY</tt> or <tt>YYYY-MM</tt> or <tt>YYYY-MM-DD</tt> per ISO 8601.  This field is
advisory and is used by onboarding wizards and identity verifiers
to display "Founded N years ago" or to detect implausibly young
entities making strong claims.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="regions-optional">
          <name>regions (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>A comma-separated list of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes
indicating the operator's primary regions of operation.  This field
is advisory.  It is used by onboarding wizards to set sane defaults
for jurisdiction-specific behaviour (e.g., currency, locale, public
registry preference).</t>
          <t>Example:</t>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
regions=AU,NZ,SG
]]></artwork>
        </section>
        <section anchor="regulated-optional">
          <name>regulated (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>A comma-separated list of regulatory framework tokens under which the
operator is bound.  Defined values (extensible):</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t><tt>disp</tt>, Australian Defence Industry Security Program.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>itar</tt>, US International Traffic in Arms Regulations.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>ear</tt>, US Export Administration Regulations.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>hipaa</tt>, US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>gdpr</tt>, EU General Data Protection Regulation.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>soc2</tt>, AICPA SOC 2 Type II.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>iso27001</tt>, ISO/IEC 27001 information security management.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>iso42001</tt>, ISO/IEC 42001 AI management systems.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>essential8</tt>, ASD Essential Eight (ML2 or higher).</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>aprs</tt>, Australian Privacy Principles / Privacy Act.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>A token in this field declares that the operator is bound by the
named framework and that automated access crossing the regulated
boundary <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be refused.  Onboarding wizards reading this field
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> refuse to attempt authenticated access to data stores covered by
the declared framework, regardless of whether credentials are
available.  A remote agent can read the declaration before it
attempts a connection.</t>
          <t>Forward compatibility: an unknown framework token <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be
ignored.  It has the effect that step 4 of <xref target="orgalter-bootstrap"/> gives any
framework token.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="bootstrap-optional">
          <name>bootstrap (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>An HTTPS URL pointing to a JSON document containing additional
identity bootstrap metadata: a directory of public roster members
(if the org chooses to publish one), an organisational logo URL, a
canonical public website URL, an <tt>attest</tt> profile beyond what fits
in DNS, and any operator-defined extensions.</t>
          <t>The bootstrap document <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be served over HTTPS with a valid TLS
certificate for the Policy Domain.  The document format is
operator-defined.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-policy-optional">
          <name>mcp-policy (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>A single token declaring how the operator's MCP endpoint relates to
external automated access:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t><tt>open</tt>, the MCP endpoint accepts queries from any agent with
appropriate authentication.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>refuse-automated</tt>, the MCP endpoint exists for human-mediated
access only.  Automated agents <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> initiate sessions.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>refuse-tenant</tt>, the MCP endpoint exists, but the operator runs
one or more tenants (e.g., an M365 tenant) into which automated
access is forbidden.  This is the typical declaration for an
org-alter instance run by an operator who has DISP-accredited or
ITAR-bound systems alongside their public meta-layer.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><tt>refuse-all</tt>, the MCP endpoint exists for the operator's own
internal use only.  External agents <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> attempt connection.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>Default value, if absent: <tt>open</tt>.</t>
          <t>The <tt>mcp-policy</tt> field complements the <tt>regulated</tt> field.
<tt>regulated=disp; mcp-policy=refuse-tenant</tt> is the canonical
declaration for a defence contractor running an org-alter at the
unclassified meta-layer alongside a regulated tenant they will not
allow automated agents to enter.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="epoch-optional">
          <name>epoch (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>A monotonic non-negative integer that increments on every identity
rotation event (e.g., legal entity restructure, change of control,
move to a new jurisdiction).  Default value: <tt>0</tt>.  Semantics mirror
the <tt>epoch</tt> field of the <tt>_mcp</tt> record (<xref target="mcp-field-epoch"/>).  A wizard that
has persisted this record's <tt>pk</tt> and <tt>epoch</tt> applies the rules of
<xref target="key-continuity"/> when it re-reads the record.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="pk-optional">
          <name>pk (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>Ed25519 public key for endpoint verification, encoded identically to
the <tt>_mcp</tt> record's <tt>pk</tt> field (<xref target="mcp-field-pk"/>).  When present, the same key
provides cryptographic binding for both endpoint discovery and
identity bootstrap.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="attest-optional">
          <name>attest (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>A comma-separated list of attestation types the operator declares it
is authorised to issue, identical in semantics to the <tt>_mcp</tt>
record <tt>attest</tt> field (<xref target="mcp-field-attest"/>).  Where both records publish an <tt>attest</tt> field,
the values <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be consistent.  An onboarding wizard <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> use the
union of the two.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="ext-optional">
          <name>ext (OPTIONAL)</name>
          <t>An HTTPS URL pointing to a protocol-extension document, identical in
semantics to the <tt>_mcp</tt> record <tt>ext</tt> field (<xref target="mcp-field-ext"/>).  This field is
distinct from <tt>bootstrap</tt>: <tt>ext</tt> is for protocol-level extensions
to the discovery format itself; <tt>bootstrap</tt> is for operator-level
identity metadata.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="orgalter-forward-compat">
        <name>Forward Compatibility</name>
        <t>Implementations <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore unknown fields.  This rule, identical to
that of the <tt>_mcp</tt> record (<xref target="mcp-forward-compat"/>), ensures that future
extensions to the <tt>_org-alter</tt> record format do not break existing
implementations.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="alter-record">
      <name>Record Format: <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> (Envelope Publication)</name>
      <t>This section defines the Envelope Publication record introduced
in revision 03.  The record publishes the seven required fields of the
identity envelope (binding a <tt>~handle</tt> to its public key,
IdentityLog root, inception timestamp, revocation commitment, and
detached signature, under a protocol version) at an
underscore-prefixed label under the handle's hosting zone.  The envelope
schema admits an optional <tt>caveats</tt> array which is never carried in
DNS; this document specifies no transport and no vocabulary for it,
so under this document the array is always empty and the signature
is computed over an empty array (<xref target="signing-input"/>).  The signature
algorithm is not a separate field.  It is derived from the <tt>pk=</tt>
prefix via the registry of <xref target="sigalg-registry"/>, and enters the signing
input under that derivation.</t>
      <section anchor="alter-location">
        <name>DNS Location</name>
        <t>The Envelope Record is a DNS TXT resource record <xref target="RFC1035"/>
published at the label <tt>_alter</tt> prepended to the hosting zone:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
_alter.<zone>. IN TXT "<record-value>"
]]></artwork>
        <t>The underscore prefix conforms to the conventions established in
<xref target="RFC8552"/> for globally scoped, underscore-prefixed DNS node names.</t>
        <t>Publication of a per-individual envelope at this label is <strong><bcp14>NOT
RECOMMENDED</bcp14></strong>, for the reasons in <xref target="alter-applicability"/>.  That applies to
any number of handles.  A zone <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> publish envelopes for more
than one <tt>~handle</tt> at this owner name, because a single query there
returns every handle the zone hosts (<xref target="alter-applicability"/>).</t>
        <t>A domain <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> publish any combination of <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>,
<tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>, and <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> records independently
(service-only, identity-only, envelope-only, or any intersection).</t>
        <section anchor="alter-applicability">
          <name>Applicability of the Envelope Record</name>
          <t>Publication of a per-individual envelope in DNS is <strong><bcp14>NOT
RECOMMENDED</bcp14></strong> for new deployments.  Three properties of DNS are the
reason.</t>
          <t><strong>Enumeration.</strong>  Where a zone co-hosts several handles at one
owner name, a single query returns the entire set, and the
individuals listed in it cannot each consent to the disclosure of
the others.  Even with one handle per zone, DNSSEC's authenticated
denial of existence permits zone walking unless NSEC3 or a compact
denial scheme is deployed, and this document does not require one.</t>
          <t><strong>Size.</strong>  A conformant envelope does not fit in a single 255-octet
character-string, and no conformant envelope is smaller than the
limit.  Co-hosting a handful of handles at one owner name exceeds
the 1232-octet fragmentation budget that current DNS operational
guidance assumes, and the RRset grows without bound in the number
of handles.  The resolution algorithm of <xref target="recognition"/> retrieves the
whole RRset and filters client-side, so the cost of resolving one
handle grows with the number of handles the zone hosts.</t>
          <t><strong>Erasure.</strong>  A DNS record, once published and cached, cannot be
recalled.  A mechanism that binds a natural person's identifier to
a key in public DNS offers that person no way to withdraw the
binding from the caches and passive collectors that have already
taken it.  Revocation, where this document specifies it at all,
marks a binding dead from the moment of reveal, along with every
claim signed under its key (<xref target="field-rev"/>); it does not unpublish it.</t>
          <t>These properties come from publishing in DNS.  They do not apply to
the envelope format, its signing input (<xref target="signing-input"/>), or the
verification procedure (<xref target="recognition"/>).</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="alter-abnf">
        <name>ABNF Grammar</name>
        <t>The record value is a semicolon-delimited sequence of key-value
pairs.  Two grammars are given, because a publisher and a resolver
are held to different rules.  <tt>alter-record</tt> is what a conformant
publisher <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> emit.  <tt>alter-accepted</tt> is what a conformant resolver
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> accept.  Every <tt>alter-record</tt> is an <tt>alter-accepted</tt>; the
converse does not hold.</t>
        <t>The following ABNF (per <xref target="RFC5234"/>) defines the syntax:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
; Publisher emission.  A conformant publisher MUST emit this form.
alter-record   = version ";" SP handle-field
                 ";" SP pubkey-field
                 ";" SP ilr-field
                 ";" SP ts-field
                 ";" SP rev-field
                 ";" SP sig-field
                 *( ";" SP unknown-field )

; Resolver acceptance.  A conformant resolver MUST accept this form.
; The version field stays first.  The remaining six required fields
; may arrive in any order, each exactly once, interleaved with any
; number of unknown fields.
alter-accepted = version *( ";" SP accepted-field )
accepted-field = handle-field / pubkey-field / ilr-field
               / ts-field / rev-field / sig-field
               / unknown-field

version        = "v=alter1"
handle-field   = "h=" handle
pubkey-field   = "pk=" algo ":" base64url
ilr-field      = "ilr=" base64url     ; SHA-256 of IdentityLog root
ts-field       = "ts=" 1*DIGIT        ; inception_ts, Unix seconds
rev-field      = "rev=" base64url   ; SHA-256 of revocation pre-image
sig-field      = "sig=" base64url     ; Ed25519 detached signature
unknown-field  = token "=" *qtext

handle         = "~" handle-name
handle-name    = sovereign-name / bot-name / instrument-name
sovereign-name = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." )
               ; Sovereign tier
bot-name       = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." ) ".bot"
               ; Bot tier
instrument-name
               = "cc-" 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." )
               ; Instrument tier
algo          = "ed25519"
base64url      = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" )
token          = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" )
qtext          = %x20-3A / %x3C-7E
               ; printable ASCII and SP, excluding ";" (%x3B),
               ; which delimits one field from the next.
]]></artwork>
        <t>ABNF alone cannot express "each of these six exactly once, in any
order", so the cardinality rule is stated here and is normative.  A
resolver <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject any record in which a required field is absent,
or in which any field name appears more than once.</t>
        <t>ABNF cannot express the exclusion either.  As in <xref target="mcp-abnf"/>,
<tt>unknown-field</tt> matches ONLY a field name this document does not
define.  Where a field name IS defined above, the field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be
parsed by that field's own rule, and a record in which a defined
field's value does not satisfy its rule is MALFORMED and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be
rejected rather than re-read as an unknown field.</t>
        <t>The seven keys are <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>.  Publishers <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> omit or reorder
them, and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> emit them in the order shown in <tt>alter-record</tt>.</t>
        <t>The <tt>v</tt> field is first for publisher and resolver alike.  A resolver
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject a record whose <tt>v</tt> field is absent or is not the first
field (<xref target="field-v"/>), so the ordering freedom above extends to the
remaining six required fields and to unknown fields, and never to
<tt>v</tt>.  Ordering among those six carries no meaning, and a resolver
<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> derive any from it.</t>
        <t>Resolvers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> tolerate unknown fields wherever they appear, and
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore them, per the forward-compatibility rule of
<xref target="forward-compat"/>.</t>
        <t>Field order on the wire has no part in signature computation.  The
signed bytes are the JCS serialisation specified in
<xref target="signing-input"/>, which sorts member names in code-point order and
is therefore blind to the order the TXT record used.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="alter-fields">
        <name>Field Definitions</name>
        <section anchor="field-v">
          <name>v (REQUIRED)</name>
          <t>Protocol version identifier.  <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be the literal string <tt>alter1</tt>.
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> appear as the first field in the record.  Resolvers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
reject any record whose <tt>v</tt> field is absent, is not the first
field, or contains a value other than <tt>alter1</tt>.</t>
          <t>The version namespace <tt>v=alter1</tt> on <tt>_alter.&lt;zone&gt;</tt> is independent
of the identically-named <tt>v=alter1</tt> on <tt>_org-alter.&lt;zone&gt;</tt>.  The
two namespaces are disambiguated by the enclosing record label and
<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be conflated.  Future versions of either record may
advance independently (e.g. <tt>_alter.&lt;zone&gt;</tt> may progress to
<tt>v=alter2</tt> while <tt>_org-alter.&lt;zone&gt;</tt> remains at <tt>v=alter1</tt>, or the
reverse).</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="field-h">
          <name>h (REQUIRED)</name>
          <t>The Sovereign-, Bot-, or Instrument-tier <tt>~handle</tt> to which the
envelope binds.  The leading tilde is mandatory.  Where a resolver
encounters multiple envelope TXT RRs sharing an owner name, <tt>h=</tt> is
the sole field it <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> use to disambiguate them.  Publishers <bcp14>MUST
NOT</bcp14> create that arrangement (<xref target="alter-location"/>); the rule is retained for
resolvers only, so that a record published under revision 04 can
still be read.  An Instrument-tier handle has no envelope of its own
(<xref target="terminology"/>); a publisher <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> publish an envelope whose
<tt>h</tt> is an Instrument-tier handle.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="field-pk">
          <name>pk (REQUIRED)</name>
          <t>An Ed25519 public key prefixed by its algorithm namespace and
encoded in base64url without padding per <xref target="RFC4648"/> Section 5:</t>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
pk=ed25519:<base64url-no-pad-32-bytes>
]]></artwork>
          <t>Resolvers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject records whose algorithm prefix is not
<tt>ed25519</tt> until a future revision registers additional algorithms.
The <tt>pk</tt> value is the verification key for the detached signature
in the <tt>sig</tt> field.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="field-ilr">
          <name>ilr (REQUIRED)</name>
          <t>Base64url-no-pad SHA-256 digest of an IdentityLog root that the
publisher claims was witnessed at envelope creation.  The field carries a root and nothing more, so it cannot establish that
this envelope is recorded in that log, and a resolver <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> rely
on it to detect substitution.  <xref target="identitylog"/> states what it can and
cannot establish, and <xref target="sec-substitution"/> sets out the forgery it permits.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="field-ts">
          <name>ts (REQUIRED)</name>
          <t>Envelope inception timestamp, expressed on the wire as decimal Unix
seconds.  Resolvers <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> use this field to detect clock skew,
evaluate caveat maturity, or reject envelopes with implausibly
future inception.  In the signing input of <xref target="signing-input"/> the value is
carried as a JSON string of those same decimal digits, never as a
JSON number.  A resolver that re-types it as a number canonicalises
different bytes and every signature fails against it.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="field-rev">
          <name>rev (REQUIRED)</name>
          <t>Base64url-no-pad SHA-256 digest of the revocation pre-image.
Revocation is effected by revealing the pre-image to the
IdentityLog; upon reveal, the envelope is considered revoked and
<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be honoured by resolvers.  The <tt>rev</tt> field is a
hash commitment: the pre-image is never published in DNS
and is released only at revocation time to the log.</t>
          <t>Revocation takes effect at once and has no grace period.  From the
moment the pre-image is revealed, every claim signed under the
envelope's <tt>pk</tt> is invalid, whenever it was signed, and a verifier
<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> honour a claim signed under the key of a revoked envelope.
The epoch rotation of the <tt>_mcp</tt> record differs: a claim issued under
an earlier epoch keeps the grace of its own expiry
(<xref target="mcp-field-epoch"/>), because rotation is routine and revocation
signals compromise.</t>
          <t>Publishers <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat removal of the TXT record as revocation.
Absence of a record is indistinguishable from misconfiguration; only
pre-image reveal is authoritative.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="field-sig">
          <name>sig (REQUIRED)</name>
          <t>Base64url-no-pad detached signature over the JCS-canonicalised
envelope JSON with the <tt>sig</tt> field absent.  Canonicalisation is
specified by <xref target="RFC8785"/>.  The signing input is the envelope JSON
reconstructed from the parsed TXT fields, plus a <tt>signature_alg</tt>
member derived from the <tt>pk=</tt> algorithm prefix per the registry of
<xref target="sigalg-registry"/>, plus an EMPTY <tt>caveats</tt> array.  The signature
algorithm itself is the one named by the <tt>pk=</tt> prefix.  The exact
signing input is normative and appears in <xref target="signing-input"/>; it is not
restated by reference elsewhere.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="unknown-fields">
          <name>Unknown fields</name>
          <t>Fields not enumerated above <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored by resolvers per
the forward-compatibility rule (<xref target="forward-compat"/>), as the
<tt>unknown-field</tt> rule of <xref target="alter-abnf"/> provides.  Future revisions of
this document <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> define additional envelope fields, and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> introduce a
new field only together with a new envelope version registered under
<xref target="envelope-version-registry"/>.  This document defines no registry of
envelope fields.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="signing-input">
        <name>Canonical Serialisation</name>
        <t>The <tt>sig</tt> input is constructed as follows.  This construction is
normative and exhaustive.  An implementation that deviates in a key
name, a value type, or the membership of the object will produce
bytes that no other implementation can verify.</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t>Parse the TXT RR character-strings into key-value pairs.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Derive <tt>signature_alg</tt> from the algorithm prefix of the <tt>pk</tt>
value via the Signature Algorithm Registry of <xref target="sigalg-registry"/>.  For
<tt>pk=ed25519:...</tt> the derivation yields the string <tt>Ed25519</tt>.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Construct the envelope JSON object, whose members are exactly
the six parsed fields that are not <tt>sig</tt>, plus the derived
<tt>signature_alg</tt>, plus <tt>caveats</tt>:  </t>
            <sourcecode type="json"><![CDATA[
{
  "v": "<v>",
  "h": "<h>",
  "pk": "<pk>",
  "ilr": "<ilr>",
  "ts": "<ts>",
  "rev": "<rev>",
  "caveats": [],
  "signature_alg": "<derived>"
}
]]></sourcecode>
            <t>
The keys are the TXT field names, not expanded synonyms.  Every
value is a JSON string, <tt>ts</tt> included, which carries the decimal
digits of the TXT field verbatim and is NOT converted to a JSON
number.  <tt>caveats</tt> is a JSON array and, for any envelope resolved
from DNS under this document, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be the EMPTY array.  This
document defines no caveat transport and no caveat vocabulary, so
a non-empty array has no interoperable meaning and an
implementation <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> construct one.  <tt>sig</tt> <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be absent from
the signing input, and no other member may be present.  These
rules make the signed bytes a total function of the TXT record.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Apply <xref target="RFC8785"/> JSON Canonicalisation Scheme to the object,
which sorts the member names in code-point order.  The member
order shown above is illustrative and has no effect on the
canonical bytes.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The resulting byte stream is the signing input for the algorithm
named in step 2.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
        <t>Verification reverses this construction and checks the detached
signature in the <tt>sig</tt> field against the derived byte stream.</t>
        <t><tt>v</tt> is inside the signing input.  A resolver that accepted an
envelope whose version was unsigned could be walked down to a
weaker version namespace by an on-path rewrite of the <tt>v</tt> field
alone, so the version is signed with everything else.</t>
        <t>Publishers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> emit TXT fields in the order given in <xref target="alter-abnf"/>,
but the DNS key=value ordering has no role in signature
computation: the signed bytes are always the JCS serialisation of
the JSON object.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="forward-compat">
        <name>Forward Compatibility</name>
        <t>Resolvers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore unknown fields in the <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>
record.  This rule, identical to that of the <tt>_mcp</tt> and
<tt>_org-alter</tt> records (<xref target="mcp-forward-compat"/>, <xref target="orgalter-forward-compat"/>), ensures that future extensions do not
break existing implementations.</t>
        <t>Publishers <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> introduce new fields that repurpose or overload
the seven required field names; a new field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> use a new name, and is
introduced only together with a new envelope version registered under
<xref target="envelope-version-registry"/> (<xref target="unknown-fields"/>).</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="multistring">
        <name>Multi-String Reassembly</name>
        <t>Where the serialised envelope exceeds the 255-octet character-string
limit of <xref target="RFC1035"/> Section 3.3.14, publishers <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> split at <tt>; </tt>
boundaries between complete key-value pairs where the pair fits.  A
publisher <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> split within a key-value pair, and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> do so where a
single pair exceeds 255 octets on its own, which any signature
algorithm with a large signature will require.  Resolvers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
concatenate the character-strings of a TXT RR in the order returned
by the DNS library (i.e. the RR wire order) BEFORE parsing, so the
split point is not observable to the parser and carries no meaning.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="dnssec">
      <name>DNSSEC Requirement</name>
      <t>The zone publishing an <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> envelope record <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be
DNSSEC-signed per <xref target="RFC4033"/>, <xref target="RFC4034"/>, and <xref target="RFC4035"/>.
Authoritative servers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> respond with valid RRSIG coverage for
the TXT RRset.  Recursive resolvers handling queries for the
envelope RRset <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> perform DNSSEC validation and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> set the AD
(Authenticated Data) bit on the response delivered to the stub
client.</t>
      <t>Stub clients (MCP clients, alter-runtime daemons, onboarding
wizards, recognition verifiers) consuming <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>
envelope records <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject any response that lacks a set AD bit
or that fails local RRSIG verification when operating in
validating-stub mode.  A record obtained over an unvalidated DNS
path <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be treated as unauthenticated TXT content.  Treating it as an
envelope is a downgrade vulnerability (<xref target="sec-downgrade"/>).</t>
      <t>This requirement is specific to <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> records.  DNSSEC
is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> but not <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> for <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> and
<tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> records in this revision, for backward
compatibility with revision 01 and revision 02 deployments.  Future revisions of
this document <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> promote DNSSEC to <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> for the other two
records once deployment data justifies the promotion.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="dane-tlsa">
      <name>DANE TLSA Pin</name>
      <t>The MCP endpoint associated with a published envelope <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> carry a
DANE TLSA resource record <xref target="RFC6698"/> binding the endpoint's leaf TLS
certificate or SubjectPublicKeyInfo to the zone.  The TLSA record
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be published at:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
_443._tcp.mcp.<zone>. IN TLSA <usage> <selector> <matching-type>
                              <cert-association-data>
]]></artwork>
      <t>Recommended parameters:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t><strong>Usage field.</strong> <tt>3</tt> (DANE-EE), pin the end-entity certificate
directly, with no CA chain reliance.  A publisher that explicitly
requires CA-chain validation <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> use <tt>1</tt> (PKIX-EE) instead.
Publishers <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> use <tt>0</tt> (PKIX-TA) or <tt>2</tt> (DANE-TA) for the
envelope record; the trust basis of the envelope is the
end-entity leaf.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t><strong>Selector field.</strong> <tt>1</tt> (SPKI), pin the SubjectPublicKeyInfo so
that certificate rotations preserving the keypair do not
invalidate the record.  Selector <tt>0</tt> (full certificate) <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be
used but requires more frequent TLSA republication.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t><strong>Matching-type field.</strong> <tt>1</tt> (SHA-256).  Matching type <tt>2</tt>
(SHA-512) is reserved for future revisions.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>Clients establishing an MCP session at <tt>https://mcp.&lt;zone&gt;/</tt> in
conjunction with a resolved envelope <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> fetch and validate the
TLSA record, <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> abort the TLS handshake on mismatch, and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>
fall back to PKIX-only validation on TLSA failure.</t>
      <t>The TLSA requirement is scoped to envelopes whose MCP session
establishment is triggered by the resolved envelope (i.e. when the
envelope resolution and the subsequent MCP session are part of a
single recognition transaction).  MCP clients that do not resolve
an envelope (e.g. revision 01 clients consuming only <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>)
are out of scope for this requirement and continue to operate
under revision 01 rules.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="identitylog">
      <name>IdentityLog Cross-Reference</name>
      <t>The <tt>ilr=</tt> field of the <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record carries a
base64url-no-pad SHA-256 digest of an IdentityLog root claimed by
the publisher to have been witnessed at envelope creation.</t>
      <t>What <tt>ilr=</tt> can and cannot establish:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>A resolver that has an independent view of the log <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> confirm
that the root named in <tt>ilr=</tt> is one the log actually published.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>A resolver <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> conclude from <tt>ilr=</tt> that the envelope in
front of it is recorded in that log.  The field carries a root
and nothing else.  It carries no leaf hash, no audit path, and no
proof of inclusion, so no resolver can perform that check, and
<xref target="sec-substitution"/> sets out the forgery this permits.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>A resolver <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat the presence, absence, or successful
lookup of <tt>ilr=</tt> as a defence against envelope substitution.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The field is advisory.  It is kept so that the wire format does not
change.</t>
      <t>The log's leaf hashing, tree construction, cadence, and witness
protocol are not specified by this document, and a reader should
not assume a specification exists.</t>
      <t>The revocation check also crosses the IdentityLog.  Where a
resolver has access to the log's revocation surface, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> treat
the envelope as revoked, and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> honour it regardless of the
freshness of the TXT RRset, if a pre-image whose SHA-256 equals the
<tt>rev=</tt> field has been revealed there.</t>
      <t>A reader implementing from this document alone has no such access.
The surface that carries reveals is not specified here and is not
published anywhere a reader can fetch, so revocation status cannot
presently be established from DNS alone.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="alter-uri">
      <name><tt>alter:</tt> URI Scheme Cross-Reference</name>
      <t>The URI scheme <tt>alter:</tt> provides a dispatchable
surface for <tt>~handle</tt> references: operating-system URI handlers
(xdg-mime, LSHandlers, Windows registry, Android intent-filter)
invoke a resolver that retrieves the envelope from DNS and verifies
it per <xref target="recognition"/>.</t>
      <t>The scheme is specified in <xref target="ALTER-URI"/>.  The registration sought is provisional, per <xref target="RFC7595"/> Section 4, under the procedure of <xref target="RFC7595"/> Section 7.2.  The full
registration body, scheme syntax, semantics, encoding
considerations, interoperability and security considerations,
author and change controller, is submitted to IANA separately from
this document.
The registration reference will be substituted when IANA assigns
one.</t>
      <t>Handlers invoked via <tt>alter:</tt> URIs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> perform full envelope
verification, DNSSEC validation (<xref target="dnssec"/>), and DANE TLSA binding
(<xref target="dane-tlsa"/>) when establishing any HTTPS session, before acting on
any content or
directive derived from the envelope.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="procedures">
      <name>Discovery and Bootstrap Procedures</name>
      <t>The formats these procedures consume are given in full in
<xref target="mcp-record"/>, <xref target="orgalter-record"/> and <xref target="alter-record"/>.</t>
      <section anchor="mcp-discovery">
        <name>Discovery Procedure: <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt></name>
        <t>This is the algorithm an MCP client follows to discover an MCP
server associated with a given domain.  It is the algorithm of
<xref target="DNSDISC-01"/>, restated here in full.  Revision 05 added the reading rule at step 7c,
and revision 06 extended step 7b to apply <xref target="key-continuity"/>.
Every other step is unchanged.</t>
        <section anchor="mcp-discovery-input">
          <name>Input</name>
          <t>The procedure takes a single input, an Origin Domain.  The Origin
Domain is typically extracted from an identifier encountered during
agent operation, such as an email address (<tt>user@example.com</tt> yields
<tt>example.com</tt>), a URL (<tt>https://example.com/path</tt> yields
<tt>example.com</tt>), a handle (<tt>~user@example.com</tt> yields
<tt>example.com</tt>), or a bare domain.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="mcp-discovery-algorithm">
          <name>Algorithm</name>
          <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
              <t><strong>Normalise.</strong>  Convert the Origin Domain to its canonical form:
lowercase per <xref target="RFC4343"/>, and apply IDNA2008 processing where the
domain contains non-ASCII labels.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Construct query name.</strong>  Prepend the label <tt>_mcp.</tt> to the
normalised Origin Domain, yielding <tt>_mcp.&lt;origin&gt;.</tt>.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Query DNS.</strong>  Issue a DNS query for <tt>_mcp.&lt;origin&gt;. IN TXT</tt>
via the client's configured recursive resolver.  Clients <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>
prefer DoH (<xref target="RFC8484"/>) or DoT (<xref target="RFC7858"/>) to protect query
privacy (<xref target="privacy-query-metadata"/>).</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Handle the DNS response.</strong>  </t>
              <t>
a. On NOERROR with one or more TXT records, proceed to step 5.  </t>
              <t>
b. On NXDOMAIN, or NOERROR with zero TXT records, proceed to
   step 8 (HTTPS fallback).  </t>
              <t>
c. On SERVFAIL or timeout, the client <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> retry with exponential
   backoff, or proceed to step 8.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Parse records.</strong>  For each TXT RDATA in the response:  </t>
              <t>
a. Concatenate all character-strings within the RDATA.  </t>
              <t>
b. Split the concatenated string on the <tt>";"</tt> delimiter, trimming
   leading and trailing whitespace from each field.  </t>
              <t>
c. Verify that the first field is <tt>v=mcp1</tt>.  If it is not,
   discard this record.  </t>
              <t>
d. Extract all recognised fields.  Ignore unknown fields, per the
   forward-compatibility rule of <xref target="mcp-forward-compat"/>.  </t>
              <t>
e. Verify that the <tt>url</tt> field is present and carries a
   syntactically valid HTTPS URL.  If it does not, discard this
   record.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Sort by priority.</strong>  Collect all valid records and sort them by
<tt>priority</tt> in ascending order, lowest value first.  Records of
equal priority <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be tried in any order.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Connect.</strong>  For each record in priority order:  </t>
              <t>
a. Establish a TLS connection to the host named in the <tt>url</tt>
   field.  </t>
              <t>
b. Where the client holds a pinned key binding for the Origin
   Domain, apply <xref target="key-continuity"/> first, and verify the endpoint
   against the pinned key whether or not the record carries a
   <tt>pk</tt> field.  Otherwise, where the record carries a <tt>pk</tt> field,
   verify the key per <xref target="mcp-field-pk"/>.  On failure, skip to the
   next record.  </t>
              <t>
c. Determine the transport by applying the reading rule of
   <xref target="reading-legacy"/> to the record's <tt>transport</tt> and <tt>proto</tt>
   fields.  Where that rule directs the client to SKIP the
   record, skip it and proceed to the next record by priority.
   Otherwise, initiate the MCP session over the transport the
   rule yields.  </t>
              <t>
d. If the MCP <tt>initialize</tt> handshake succeeds, discovery is
   complete.  </t>
              <t>
e. If connection or handshake fails, proceed to the next record.
   If all records are exhausted, proceed to step 8.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>HTTPS fallback.</strong>  Attempt HTTPS-based discovery by fetching
<tt>https://&lt;origin&gt;/.well-known/mcp/server-card.json</tt> per
<xref target="SEP-1649"/>, or <tt>https://&lt;origin&gt;/.well-known/mcp</tt> per
<xref target="SEP-1960"/>.  If fallback succeeds, proceed with the MCP session.
If fallback fails, discovery has failed.</t>
            </li>
          </ol>
          <t>This procedure does not consume the <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record and
imposes no DNSSEC requirement.  A client that resolves an envelope
executes <xref target="recognition"/> instead, which does.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="orgalter-bootstrap">
        <name>Identity Bootstrap Procedure: <tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt></name>
        <t>This is the procedure by which an org-alter implementation reads its
own DNS records on first install to populate its canonical identity
state.  It is the algorithm of <xref target="DNSDISC-02"/>, unchanged, restated
here in full.</t>
        <section anchor="orgalter-bootstrap-input">
          <name>Input</name>
          <t>The procedure takes a single input, the operator's primary domain
name, being the Policy Domain under which the operator publishes
records.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="orgalter-bootstrap-algorithm">
          <name>Algorithm</name>
          <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
              <t><strong>Query <tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> TXT.</strong>  Issue a DNS query for the
Org-Identity Record.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>If found, parse and load.</strong>  Extract <tt>org</tt>, <tt>entity</tt>,
<tt>entity-type</tt>, <tt>founded</tt>, <tt>regions</tt>, <tt>regulated</tt>, and
<tt>mcp-policy</tt> into the org-alter's identity state.  These become
the canonical identity declaration the org-alter uses in all
subsequent self-description and external attestation.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>If <tt>bootstrap=</tt> is present, fetch the bootstrap document</strong> over
HTTPS.  Validate the document's TLS certificate against the
Policy Domain.  Merge the document's roster, logo, and extension
fields into the identity state.  Reject the bootstrap document if
its TLS certificate is invalid, or if its content does not parse.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Honour <tt>regulated=</tt> and <tt>mcp-policy=</tt></strong> as immutable structural
constraints on the org-alter instance.  </t>
              <t>
a. If <tt>regulated</tt> carries any framework token, set the
   org-alter's boundary policy to refuse, and disable every
   automated data ingestion.  </t>
              <t>
b. If <tt>mcp-policy=refuse-tenant</tt>, the org-alter <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> refuse to
   install any ingester that requires authenticated access to a
   tenant covered by the declared framework, even where
   credentials are subsequently provided.  </t>
              <t>
c. The wizard <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> display these constraints to the operator
   for confirmation, and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> allow the operator to override
   them silently.  An operator who wishes to relax a constraint
   <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> update the DNS record first, then re-run bootstrap.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Cross-check <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>.</strong>  Query the service-discovery
record of <xref target="mcp-record"/>.  Where both records exist and both
publish a <tt>pk</tt> field, the values <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> match.  A mismatch
indicates either a configuration error or a key compromise; the
wizard <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> refuse to bootstrap under that condition, and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
surface the discrepancy to the operator.  <xref target="sec-key-consistency"/>
states how this rule relates to the envelope key of
<xref target="alter-record"/>, which is a distinct key and is not subject to
it.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Verify against public registries.</strong>  Where the <tt>entity</tt> field
declares a known registry namespace (for example <tt>abn:</tt>), the
wizard <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> query the corresponding free public registry and
verify that the declared entity identifier resolves to the
declared <tt>org</tt> name.  A mismatch is not necessarily fatal,
because names change and registries lag, but the wizard <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
surface the discrepancy and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> require operator confirmation
before proceeding.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Persist canonical state.</strong>  Write the resolved identity into
the org-alter's local identity state, source-citing each field to
its DNS or HTTPS origin.</t>
            </li>
          </ol>
        </section>
        <section anchor="orgalter-bootstrap-coldstart">
          <name>First-Run Cold Start</name>
          <t>For an operator who has not yet published an <tt>_org-alter</tt> record at
the time of installation, the wizard <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> fall back to interactive
seeding.  It prompts for <tt>org</tt>, optionally prompts for <tt>entity</tt>, and
asks whether the operator's environment is regulated.  After
interactive seeding, the wizard <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> generate a draft DNS record
value for the operator to publish, which completes the bootstrap
loop.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="recognition">
        <name>Envelope Recognition Procedure: <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt></name>
        <t>The procedure takes two inputs, a zone and the <tt>~handle</tt> to be
recognised, and both are <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>.  An <tt>alter:</tt> URI <xref target="ALTER-URI"/> supplies the handle.  The zone is never derived from the spelling of the handle.  It is supplied by the caller, or taken as Section 3.4 of <xref target="ALTER-URI"/> specifies.  A resolver that has only a zone, and no handle,
cannot execute this procedure.  Step 4 selects the record whose <tt>h=</tt>
matches the requested handle, and with no requested handle there is
nothing to match against.  Such a resolver has not been asked a
recognition question, and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat whatever record it finds at
the owner name as the answer to one.</t>
        <t>Given those two inputs, a resolver <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> execute the following steps
in order.  Steps 1 through 8 and step 10 are FATAL: failure of any
of them terminates recognition, and the envelope <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be treated as
unverified.  Steps 9, 11 and 12 are ADVISORY: being UNABLE to perform
them <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> terminate recognition, because a resolver that cannot
reach a surface has learned nothing either way.  A POSITIVE finding
is different.  A revocation observed at step 12 is FATAL and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
abort (<xref target="identitylog"/>).</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t><strong>Query.</strong>  Issue a DNS TXT query for <tt>_alter.&lt;zone&gt;.</tt>.  Use
DoH or DoT in preference to UDP/53 where operationally feasible.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>DNSSEC validation.</strong>  Validate the RRSIG chain from the root
trust anchor to the TXT RRset (<xref target="dnssec"/>).  Confirm the AD bit
on the response when relying on an upstream validating resolver,
or locally RRSIG-validate in validating-stub mode.  On failure,
abort.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Chunk reassembly.</strong>  Concatenate character-strings in RR order;
parse <tt>; </tt>-separated key-value pairs.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Handle disambiguation.</strong>  Select the record whose <tt>h=</tt> field
matches the requested <tt>~handle</tt>.  If no record matches, abort.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Field extraction.</strong>  Confirm presence of the seven required
fields (<tt>v</tt>, <tt>h</tt>, <tt>pk</tt>, <tt>ilr</tt>, <tt>ts</tt>, <tt>rev</tt>, <tt>sig</tt>).  Reject any
record missing any required field, or whose <tt>v</tt> is not
<tt>alter1</tt>.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Envelope reconstruction.</strong>  Build the envelope JSON exactly as
<xref target="signing-input"/> specifies, deriving <tt>signature_alg</tt> from the <tt>pk=</tt>
prefix and supplying an empty <tt>caveats</tt> array.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>JCS canonicalisation.</strong>  Apply <xref target="RFC8785"/> JCS to the envelope
with the <tt>sig</tt> field absent.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Ed25519 verification.</strong>  Verify the detached <tt>sig</tt> over the
JCS byte stream using the public key in <tt>pk</tt>.  On failure,
abort.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>IdentityLog cross-reference (ADVISORY).</strong>  A
resolver with an independent view of the log <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> confirm that the
root named in <tt>ilr=</tt> is one the log published.  A resolver <bcp14>MUST
NOT</bcp14> abort on failure, and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat success as evidence that
this envelope is in the log, because <tt>ilr=</tt> carries no proof of
inclusion (<xref target="identitylog"/>; <xref target="sec-substitution"/>).</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>DANE TLSA validation.</strong>  When establishing an MCP session at
<tt>mcp.&lt;zone&gt;</tt> as part of the same recognition transaction, fetch
the TLSA record at <tt>_443._tcp.mcp.&lt;zone&gt;.</tt> and gate the TLS
handshake on the binding (<xref target="dane-tlsa"/>).  On mismatch, abort.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Caveats evaluation (OUT OF SCOPE for this document).</strong>  The
envelope schema admits an optional <tt>caveats</tt> array, which is
never carried in DNS.  This document specifies neither a
transport for it nor a vocabulary, so a resolver implementing
this document alone <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> treat the envelope as having no
caveats, and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> verify the signature over an empty <tt>caveats</tt>
array per <xref target="signing-input"/>.  A future document may define a caveats
surface, and until one does, an envelope whose signer intended
caveats cannot be distinguished from one that carries none.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Revocation check (ADVISORY).</strong>  Where the resolver has access
to the log's revocation surface, consult it.  Being UNABLE to
perform this step <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> terminate recognition, and <xref target="identitylog"/>
says why a resolver implementing this document alone cannot.  If a
pre-image whose SHA-256 equals
<tt>rev=</tt> has been revealed, the envelope IS revoked, recognition
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> abort, and the envelope <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be honoured however fresh
the TXT RRset.  The revocation is immediate, and every claim signed
under the envelope's key is invalid from that moment, whenever it was
signed (<xref target="field-rev"/>).</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
        <t>An envelope is verified when every FATAL step (1 through 8, and 10)
has succeeded AND no ADVISORY step has returned a positive failure.
A resolver that CANNOT reach a revocation surface proceeds, while a
resolver that OBSERVES a revocation <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> abort and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat
the envelope as verified.  An unverified envelope <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be refused
upstream of any authorisation or trust decision.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="caching">
      <name>Caching</name>
      <t>The rules for the first two records are those of <xref target="DNSDISC-01"/> and
<xref target="DNSDISC-02"/>, unchanged, with the key continuity rule of <xref target="key-continuity"/> added in
revision 06, restated here so that a reader need not
fetch either document to cache correctly.</t>
      <t>For <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>, clients <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> cache the parsed record metadata
for the duration of the DNS TTL.  Where the record carries a <tt>ttl</tt>
field, clients <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> extend the metadata cache to that duration, but
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> re-validate the underlying DNS record when the DNS TTL expires.
A client that has connected to an MCP server and verified its <tt>pk</tt>
        <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> cache the verified key binding and re-validate it on
subsequent connections, which is trust on first use with periodic
re-verification against DNS.  What the client does when that
re-verification disagrees with what it cached is stated in
<xref target="key-continuity"/>.</t>
      <t>For <tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>, records <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be cached for the duration
of the DNS TTL.  An onboarding wizard typically reads the record
once at install time and persists the resolved state locally, so the
DNS record need not be re-read on every invocation.  Wizards <bcp14>MAY</bcp14>
re-read it on operator request, on <tt>epoch</tt> change detected by a
periodic background poll, or on identity verification failure.</t>
      <t><tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> records <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be cached for the duration of the
DNS TTL.  Resolvers <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> serve stale envelope TXT past the
RRset TTL unless they are themselves validating caches and can
re-confirm RRSIG coverage on each serve.  Recognition verifiers
<bcp14>MAY</bcp14> cache successful verification results locally for a short
interval (bounded above by the RRset TTL or 3600 seconds,
whichever is smaller) to amortise the cost of repeated JCS and
Ed25519 operations.  A resolver that is able to perform the
revocation check at all (<xref target="identitylog"/> sets out why one working from
this document alone is not) <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> re-run it on each recognition
event, not on each cache refresh.</t>
      <section anchor="key-continuity">
        <name>Key Continuity</name>
        <t>This section states what a client does when re-validation of a
cached key binding fails.  The mechanism is the one SSH clients
apply to host keys.</t>
        <t>A pinned key binding is the triple a client holds after a successful
verification under <xref target="mcp-field-pk"/>: the Origin Domain, the <tt>pk</tt> it
verified, and the <tt>epoch</tt> the record carried at the time, defaulting
to <tt>0</tt> where the record carried none.  On each later resolution of
<tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> for which it holds a pin, the client compares the
record it receives with the pin, and the following rules apply in
order.</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t><strong>Same key, same epoch.</strong>  Continuity holds.  The client proceeds
under <xref target="mcp-discovery"/>.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Epoch lower than the pinned epoch.</strong>  The epoch is monotonic
(<xref target="mcp-field-epoch"/>), so a decrease is never a state a conformant
publisher produces.  It indicates a stale or manipulated response,
a publisher restoring an old record, or a new operator of the
domain that began its own count at <tt>0</tt>.  The client <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> lower
its pinned epoch, and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> replace its pinned key on the
strength of this record.  It <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> re-query, bypassing any local
cache it controls.  Where the served key equals the pinned key,
the client <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> proceed, and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> evaluate the kid of any claim
against its pinned epoch rather than the lower served one.  Where
the served key differs, the client <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> treat the server as
untrusted, exactly as a failed verification under
<xref target="mcp-field-pk"/>, and <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> surface the discrepancy.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Different key, same epoch.</strong>  The record's own contract is that
the epoch increments on every key rotation, so a key that changes
without it is an undeclared change.  The client <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> treat the
server as untrusted, <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> replace its pin, and <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> surface
the discrepancy.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Different key, higher epoch.</strong>  This is a declared rotation.
The client <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> verify the new key per <xref target="mcp-field-pk"/> before
replacing its pin, and on success <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> replace the pinned key and
epoch.  A declared rotation is also what a new operator
of a lapsed and re-registered domain can publish, because the
epoch is self-asserted by whoever controls the zone.  A client
with access to registration data <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> therefore apply the
change-of-control signals of <xref target="key-continuity-control"/> before it
replaces the pin.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Same key, higher epoch.</strong>  The client <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> raise its pinned
epoch.  Claims under the lower epoch are then handled per
<xref target="mcp-field-epoch"/>.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>No key.</strong>  A record that carried a <tt>pk</tt> when the pin was made
and now carries none has not released the pin.  The client <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
continue to verify the endpoint against the pinned key, as step 7b
of <xref target="mcp-discovery-algorithm"/> requires.  Removing the field is not
a way to rotate a key.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
        <t>A pinned key <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be replaced automatically under rules 2, 3 or
6.  It <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be replaced by an action of the client's user or operator,
taken outside this procedure and after the discrepancy has been
surfaced to them.</t>
        <section anchor="key-continuity-absence">
          <name>Absence Is Not Revocation</name>
          <t>A client that holds a pin and finds no <tt>_mcp</tt> record, on NXDOMAIN or
on NOERROR with no TXT records, proceeds to the HTTPS fallback of
step 8 of <xref target="mcp-discovery-algorithm"/>.  It <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> clear the pin,
and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat the absence as revocation of the binding or of
any claim issued under it.  A client that reaches an endpoint for
the same Origin Domain by fallback <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> verify it against the
pinned key.</t>
          <t>This is the position <xref target="sec-revocation-opacity"/> takes for the envelope
record, for the same reason.  A zone that is briefly unreachable,
through an outage, a registrar incident or a tooling error, must not
become a revocation event.  A second reason applies to pins alone.
If absence cleared a pin, an attacker able to suppress the record for a single resolution
would reset the client to first use, and could then publish its own
key and have it accepted as though no pin had ever existed.</t>
          <t>This differs from <xref target="DOMAIN-SET"/>, which holds in
its Section 6.4 that removal of a record is revocation.  The two
records do different jobs.  A domain-set record is an attestation
its publisher withdraws by deleting it.  An <tt>_mcp</tt> record is a
pointer to an endpoint, and a key binding is revoked by rotation,
under rule 4 above, never by the record going away.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="key-continuity-control">
          <name>Change-of-Control Signals</name>
          <t>The epoch cannot distinguish a rotation by the existing operator
from a rotation by a new one, because both publish a higher epoch
and a new key.  Registration data can, in part.  <xref target="DOMAIN-SET"/>
Section 6.3 gives consumer rules for this case, graded by the
strength of the signal, and this document adopts them for the pinned
key binding.  A client with access to registration data for the
Origin Domain, for example through RDAP <xref target="RFC9083"/>, <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> consume
those signals in the order given there, and act on them as follows.</t>
          <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
              <t><strong>Creation date changed.</strong>  The registry object was deleted and
the name registered again, and renewal or restoration never
changes it.  The domain is now operated by a party the pin says
nothing about.  The client <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> discard the pin, <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> carry the
pinned binding, or any trust its user or operator attached to it,
forward to whatever key the record now serves, and <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> surface
the change.  A binding made after that point is a first use, and
<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be presented as a continuation of the earlier one.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Lapse indicators.</strong>  A registry grace status, or an expiry
earlier than the observation, means the registration lapsed.
Control may have passed without deletion, because names sold on
in expiry auctions keep their creation date.  A declared rotation
under rule 4 observed while a lapse indicator is present <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>
replace the pin automatically, and <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be surfaced for the
action of the user or operator described above.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t><strong>Transfer indicators.</strong>  A transfer event, or a change of
sponsoring registrar, <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be surfaced as a warning.  It does
not by itself block a declared rotation.</t>
            </li>
          </ol>
          <t>A change of control that leaves no trace in registration data, such
as a sale inside one registrar with no lapse, followed by a declared
rotation, is not detectable by a client following this document.
<xref target="DOMAIN-SET"/> states the same limit for its own records.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The security considerations of <xref target="DNSDISC-01"/> Section 7 apply to
the <tt>_mcp</tt> record, and those of <xref target="DNSDISC-02"/> Section 10 apply to
the <tt>_org-alter</tt> record.  The subsections below cover the
<tt>_alter</tt> envelope record and the rules this document adds to the
other two records.</t>
      <section anchor="sec-downgrade">
        <name>DNSSEC Downgrade</name>
        <t>The mandatory DNSSEC requirement in <xref target="dnssec"/> is the primary
defence against on-path manipulation of envelope TXT content.  An
attacker who can inject unsigned responses, e.g. via a compromised
resolver or a DNS middlebox that strips RRSIG, would otherwise
be able to substitute an attacker-controlled envelope at the resolver
boundary.  Stub clients <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject any response lacking AD or
failing local RRSIG verification.  Operators <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> downgrade the
<tt>_alter.</tt> RRset to unsigned during KSK/ZSK rollover (see <xref target="RFC6781"/>
for best-current practice on rollover).</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="tlsa-pin-rotation">
        <name>TLSA Pin Rotation</name>
        <t>The DANE TLSA requirement in <xref target="dane-tlsa"/> binds the MCP endpoint's TLS
leaf to a specific hash.  Operators rotating certificates <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
publish the new TLSA record before the new certificate is activated
on the live listener, with a grace window of at least twice the
TLSA RRset TTL.  Selector 1 (SPKI) survives rotations that preserve
the keypair; selector 0 requires republication on every rotation.
Loss of the TLS private key forces certificate reissue and
republication of the TLSA record, not silent cert replacement.  It
does not engage the <tt>rev=</tt> reveal path, which revokes the identity
envelope and has no bearing on a TLS leaf.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sec-substitution">
        <name>Envelope Substitution</name>
        <t>An attacker in control of a domain's DNS can publish an arbitrary
envelope for any <tt>~handle</tt> claimed to be hosted under that zone.
The structural defences, and the limit of each, are:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t><strong>IdentityLog witness.  This defence does not hold as
specified.</strong>  <tt>ilr=</tt> carries a bare tree root and no proof of
anything, so a resolver can confirm that the named root was
witnessed but CANNOT confirm that the envelope in front of it is
a leaf under that root, and no field of <xref target="alter-abnf"/> would let it.
A zone attacker therefore mints an envelope, copies any
witnessed root out of the public log, signs, and publishes.  The
result satisfies every check the recognition procedure of
<xref target="recognition"/> specifies.  As specified, <tt>ilr=</tt> establishes only
that the publisher could read a public value.  Implementers <bcp14>MUST
NOT</bcp14> rely on <tt>ilr=</tt> to detect substitution.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>Ed25519 signature.</strong>  The detached signature binds the
envelope to a specific Ed25519 key.  An attacker who does not
hold the private key cannot forge a valid <tt>sig</tt>.  An attacker
who does hold the private key has already compromised the
handle; the revocation path (<xref target="identitylog"/>) is the residual mitigation.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t><strong>DNSSEC.</strong>  <xref target="dnssec"/> prevents tampering with the TXT RRset in
transit, which prevents third-party substitution.  It does not
prevent a malicious zone operator from publishing a malicious
envelope.  Defence (1) does not hold against that attack, and
defence (2) holds only where the operator does not hold the private
key.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sec-revocation-opacity">
        <name>Revocation Opacity</name>
        <t>Revocation is effected by revealing the pre-image to the
IdentityLog, not by removing the TXT record.  Absence of a record
is indistinguishable from misconfiguration; resolvers <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>
treat absence as revocation.  A zone
briefly unreachable (DNS outage, registrar incident, tooling error)
must not accidentally become a revocation event.
<xref target="key-continuity-absence"/> applies the same position to a pinned
<tt>_mcp</tt> key binding, and says why it differs from <xref target="DOMAIN-SET"/>.</t>
        <t>The cost is that a compromised zone may continue to serve a valid
(but intended-to-be-revoked) envelope until the rightful
handle-holder reveals the pre-image.  This document does not
specify where a reveal is published, and <xref target="identitylog"/> says why no such
surface can be assumed, so revocation is not presently actionable
by a resolver working from this document alone.
Handle-holders <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> establish a pre-committed revocation reveal
procedure at mint time.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="clock-skew-and-ts">
        <name>Clock Skew and <tt>ts=</tt></name>
        <t>The <tt>ts=</tt> inception timestamp is advisory: resolvers <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> use it to
detect implausibly future envelopes (e.g. minted more than a few
hundred seconds after current wall time) but <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> rely on
local clock for security-critical decisions.  This document
specifies no authoritative ordering anchor.  <tt>ts=</tt> is self-asserted
by the publisher and is advisory only.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sec-key-consistency">
        <name>Cross-Record Key Consistency</name>
        <t>Where all three records (<tt>_mcp</tt>, <tt>_org-alter</tt>, <tt>_alter</tt>) are
published under one zone and each carries a <tt>pk</tt> field, the values
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be evaluated for consistency.  Two different rules apply.</t>
        <t>The <tt>_mcp.pk</tt> and <tt>_org-alter.pk</tt> fields are the service key and the
organisational key.  Step 5 of <xref target="orgalter-bootstrap"/>, restated from
<xref target="DNSDISC-02"/>, requires them to MATCH where both are published, and
requires a bootstrapping wizard to refuse and to surface the
discrepancy where they do not.  That rule is unchanged.  A mismatch
across that pair indicates a configuration error or a key
compromise.</t>
        <t>The <tt>_alter.pk</tt> field is the envelope key.  It is a
structurally distinct key with a distinct purpose, it is NOT subject
to the bootstrap match rule, and it <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> differ from both of the
others.  A resolver <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat a difference between <tt>_alter.pk</tt>
and either of the other two as evidence of anything.</t>
        <t>Where a zone operator has bound all three to one Ed25519 key, as a
single-operator deployment may do, a later mismatch indicates either a rotation in progress
or a compromise, and resolvers <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> surface it.  A resolver cannot
distinguish that deployment from one that intended three distinct
keys, because this document publishes no signal of the operator's
intent, so the surfacing is advisory and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be fatal.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="passive-stream-coupling">
        <name>Passive-Stream Coupling</name>
        <t>A publisher <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> ride an inferred trait, a passive-stream
derivative, or a provenance-tagged attribute on the
<tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record.</t>
        <t>This is a recommendation, and nothing in the grammar enforces it.
The ABNF of <xref target="alter-abnf"/> admits
<tt>unknown-field = token "=" *qtext</tt>, which admits arbitrary attributes, and <xref target="forward-compat"/> requires resolvers to
IGNORE unknown fields rather than reject the record.  The <tt>qtext</tt>
rule bounds only the field DELIMITER, so that an unknown field
cannot swallow the semicolon and consume the fields after it.  It
bounds nothing about the field's meaning.  Nothing in
this document structurally prevents a publisher from riding
additional attributes on this owner name, and a resolver <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>
infer from a record's conformance that it carries nothing else.</t>
        <t>Two consequences follow.  An unknown-field is NOT covered by the signing input of <xref target="signing-input"/>,
which spans the six required fields other than <tt>sig</tt>, plus the
derived <tt>signature_alg</tt> and an empty <tt>caveats</tt> array, and nothing
else.  Any attribute riding the record is therefore UNSIGNED, and a
resolver <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> attribute it to the handle-holder.  And because a resolver ignores what it does
not recognise, the record is a viable carrier for data the envelope
was never meant to convey.  The privacy implications of passive
inference are out of scope for this document.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sec-change-of-control">
        <name>Change of Control</name>
        <t>Every record this document defines names its subject by a domain,
and a domain can change hands.  When a registration lapses and the
name is registered again, the new registrant controls the zone and
can publish any of the three records.  Nothing in the records
changes shape when that happens, and no single resolution can tell
the new operator from the old one.</t>
        <t>For the <tt>_mcp</tt> record, <xref target="key-continuity"/> is the defence.  A client
that pinned the prior operator's key refuses an undeclared key change
and an epoch that goes down, keeps its pin when the record
disappears, and, where it can read registration data, discards the
pin on a changed creation date rather than carrying it to the new
operator.  A client that has never connected before has no pin, and
for that client a re-registered domain is indistinguishable from any
other first use.</t>
        <t>For the <tt>_alter</tt> record, the limit stated in <xref target="sec-substitution"/>
applies without change.  The envelope carries no epoch, and this
document specifies no pin for it.  A new registrant can mint an
envelope for a handle under a key of its own and satisfy every FATAL
step of <xref target="recognition"/>.  A resolver that has previously verified an
envelope for the same handle, and now finds a different <tt>pk</tt>, <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>
surface the change.  It learns nothing further from this document
about which of the two keys the handle-holder controls.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="privacy">
      <name>Privacy Considerations</name>
      <t>The privacy considerations of <xref target="DNSDISC-01"/> Section 8 apply to the
<tt>_mcp</tt> record, and those of <xref target="DNSDISC-02"/> Section 11 apply to the
<tt>_org-alter</tt> record.  The subsections below cover the <tt>_alter</tt>
envelope record.</t>
      <section anchor="public-handle-disclosure">
        <name>Public Handle Disclosure</name>
        <t>Publishing <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> exposes the bound <tt>~handle</tt>, its
Ed25519 public key, its IdentityLog root, its inception timestamp,
and its revocation-hash commitment to any DNS observer.  Public
verifiability does not require public enumeration, and
<xref target="alter-applicability"/> sets out why DNS publication brings both.
A handle-holder who requires concealment <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> publish an
<tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record.  Means of recognition that do not publish
in DNS are outside the scope of this document.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="privacy-query-metadata">
        <name>DNS Query Metadata</name>
        <t>A resolver querying <tt>_alter.example.com</tt> reveals to its recursive
resolver that it intends to verify the envelope hosted under that
zone.  Query metadata privacy is addressed at the transport layer:
clients <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> prefer DoH (<xref target="RFC8484"/>) or DoT (<xref target="RFC7858"/>) over
UDP/53 where operationally feasible.  This consideration is the
same as in revisions 01 and 02, and matters more here because the envelope
names an individual.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="revocation-unlinkability">
        <name>Revocation Unlinkability</name>
        <t>The <tt>rev=</tt> field is the SHA-256 of a secret pre-image; publishing
it does not disclose the pre-image.  An observer cannot predict
the pre-image or link it back to any identifier.  Reveal at
revocation time links the pre-image to the envelope, but only at
the moment of revocation, not during the envelope's active
lifetime.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="iana-labels">
        <name>Underscored DNS Node Name Registration</name>
        <t>This document requests IANA to update the entries in the
"Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry
established by <xref target="RFC8552"/> as follows.  Each label is defined by this
document, in the section named, and no longer by an earlier revision
of it.</t>
        <table>
          <thead>
            <tr>
              <th align="left">RR Type</th>
              <th align="left">_NODE NAME</th>
              <th align="left">Reference</th>
            </tr>
          </thead>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">TXT</td>
              <td align="left">
                <tt>_mcp</tt></td>
              <td align="left">
                <xref target="mcp-record"/> of this document</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">TXT</td>
              <td align="left">
                <tt>_org-alter</tt></td>
              <td align="left">
                <xref target="orgalter-record"/> of this document</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">TXT</td>
              <td align="left">
                <tt>_alter</tt></td>
              <td align="left">
                <xref target="alter-record"/> of this document</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
        <t>The <tt>_alter</tt> label is used to publish envelope records as defined
in <xref target="alter-record"/> of this document.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="alter-uri-scheme-registration">
        <name><tt>alter:</tt> URI Scheme Registration</name>
        <t>This document cross-references the provisional registration
of <tt>alter:</tt> per <xref target="RFC7595"/> Section 4, which IANA made on
5 October 2026.  The registration template is carried in
<xref target="ALTER-URI"/>.  This document
notes that recognition verifiers invoked via <tt>alter:</tt> URIs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
follow <xref target="recognition"/> of this document for envelope verification.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="envelope-version-registry">
        <name>Envelope Version Registry</name>
        <t>This document defines the version tag <tt>v=alter1</tt> for the
<tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record, independent of the identically-named tag
on the <tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record.  Future versions (<tt>v=alter2</tt>
and beyond) <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be coordinated with implementers and documented in
successor revisions of this draft.  Until a working group takes up
identity-envelope DNS publication, the author maintains the version
namespace.  A new envelope version is the only way a new envelope field
is introduced (<xref target="unknown-fields"/>).</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="org-alter-version-registry-unchanged-from-v02">
        <name>Org-Alter Version Registry (unchanged from revision 02)</name>
        <t>The version tag <tt>v=alter1</tt> for the <tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record is
preserved from revision 02.  No changes are requested in this revision.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="registry-namespace-registry-unchanged-from-v02">
        <name>Registry Namespace Registry (unchanged from revision 02)</name>
        <t>The initial set of <tt>entity</tt> field registry namespaces (<tt>abn</tt>,
<tt>acn</tt>, <tt>ein</tt>, <tt>ch</tt>, <tt>cro</tt>, <tt>lei</tt>) defined in revision 02 is preserved
unchanged.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="framework-token-registry-unchanged-from-v02">
        <name>Framework Token Registry (unchanged from revision 02)</name>
        <t>The initial set of <tt>regulated</tt> framework tokens (<tt>disp</tt>, <tt>itar</tt>,
<tt>ear</tt>, <tt>hipaa</tt>, <tt>gdpr</tt>, <tt>soc2</tt>, <tt>iso27001</tt>, <tt>iso42001</tt>,
<tt>essential8</tt>, <tt>aprs</tt>) defined in revision 02 is preserved unchanged.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sigalg-registry">
        <name>Signature Algorithm Registry</name>
        <t>This document defines the initial <tt>pk=</tt> and <tt>sig=</tt> algorithm
namespace <tt>ed25519</tt> for the <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record.  Future
algorithms (e.g. <tt>ed448</tt>, <tt>ml-dsa-65</tt>) <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be registered by
successor documents.  Resolvers <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> reject records whose
algorithm prefix is not registered at the resolver's protocol
version.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="examples">
      <name>Examples</name>
      <t>This section provides non-normative examples of Envelope Records
for common deployment scenarios.</t>
      <section anchor="minimal-envelope-for-a-single-handle-not-recommended">
        <name>Minimal Envelope for a Single Handle (<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>)</name>
        <t>A zone hosting a single Sovereign-tier handle publishes its
envelope at <tt>_alter.&lt;zone&gt;.</tt>:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
_alter.example.com. 3600 IN TXT (
  "v=alter1; h=~alice; "
  "pk=ed25519:<EXAMPLE-pubkey-32B-base64url>; "
  "ilr=<EXAMPLE-identitylog-root-32B-base64url>; "
  "ts=1729123456; "
  "rev=<EXAMPLE-revocation-hash-32B-base64url>; "
  "sig=<EXAMPLE-ed25519-signature-64B-base64url>"
)
]]></artwork>
        <t>All base64url values in this example are illustrative.  Production
values are the Ed25519 public key, SHA-256 digests, and 64-byte
detached signature encoded per <xref target="RFC4648"/> Section 5 without
padding.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="zone-hosting-multiple-handles-a-publisher-must-not-do-this">
        <name>Zone Hosting Multiple Handles (a publisher MUST NOT do this)</name>
        <t>This example is retained so that a resolver can read the records a
revision 04 publisher may already have published.  It is NOT a pattern to
follow.  The shape below IS the enumeration exposure described in
the Applicability statement.  One query at the owner name returns
every handle the zone hosts, and none of the individuals listed can
consent on behalf of the others.  A publisher <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> create it
(<xref target="alter-location"/>).</t>
        <t>Resolvers disambiguate by the <tt>h=</tt> field:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
_alter.example.org. 3600 IN TXT "v=alter1; h=~alice; pk=..."
_alter.example.org. 3600 IN TXT "v=alter1; h=~bob; pk=..."
_alter.example.org. 3600 IN TXT "v=alter1; h=~carol.bot; pk=..."
]]></artwork>
        <t>A resolver asked to verify <tt>~bob</tt> at <tt>example.org</tt> selects the
second RR.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="full-zone-all-three-records-the-alter-record-is-not-recommended">
        <name>Full Zone (All Three Records; the <tt>_alter</tt> record is <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>)</name>
        <t>A zone operator running an org-alter instance for their own
principal handle publishes all three records:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
_mcp.example.com.      IN TXT "v=mcp1; url=https://mcp.example.com/"
_org-alter.example.com. IN TXT "v=alter1; org=Example Org; ..."
_alter.example.com.     IN TXT "v=alter1; h=~alice; "
                               "pk=ed25519:...; ilr=...; "
                               "ts=...; rev=...; sig=..."
_443._tcp.mcp.example.com. IN TLSA 3 1 1 <sha256-of-spki>
]]></artwork>
        <t>Together these expose: the MCP service endpoint and its
capabilities (<tt>_mcp</tt>); the legal entity, regulatory posture, and
jurisdictional regions (<tt>_org-alter</tt>); the Sovereign-tier
envelope for <tt>~alice</tt> (<tt>_alter</tt>); and the DANE TLSA pin on the
MCP endpoint.  A resolver may consume any subset according to its
recognition requirement.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="interop">
      <name>Interoperability with Earlier Record Generations</name>
      <t>A domain that publishes only an <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record published under
revision 01 continues to work with all revision 01, 02, and 03 clients.  Where that record
carries a transport value in <tt>proto</tt>, a client conforming to this
revision reads it under steps A and B of <xref target="reading-legacy"/> and reaches the
same endpoint over the same transport.  No republication is required
for the record to keep working, and none is required for a record
carrying a <tt>proto</tt> value that no revision recognised, because such a
record was skipped by revision 01 clients and is skipped by these.</t>
      <t>A domain that publishes <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> and <tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>
(revision 02) continues to work with revision 02 clients and with clients conforming
to this document, unchanged.  A client conforming to this document
may additionally query <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> handle its absence
gracefully, which is the common case and the recommended one:
publication of that record is <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>
(<xref target="alter-applicability"/>), so a conforming client should expect to
find it absent and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat its absence as an error.</t>
      <t>A domain that publishes only <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> (envelope-only, no
MCP server, no organisational record) is permitted by the grammar.
The configuration is <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14> per <xref target="alter-applicability"/>.</t>
      <t>The three records are orthogonal along their semantic axes but
share the zone's DNSSEC trust root.  A resolver conforming to this
document that resolves any subset of the three records treats each
resolution as independent and does not fail the resolution of one
record because another is absent or malformed.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="impl-status">
      <name>Implementation Status</name>
      <t>This section records the status of known implementations at the
time of publication, per <xref target="RFC7942"/>.</t>
      <t>Deployed and resolvable in the <tt>truealter.com</tt> zone:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t><tt>_mcp.truealter.com</tt>, carrying <tt>v=mcp1</tt> with <tt>url</tt>, <tt>proto</tt>,
<tt>pk</tt>, <tt>epoch</tt>, and <tt>cap</tt>.  This is the only record in the zone
that a resolver can verify against this document today.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t><tt>_alter.truealter.com</tt>, carrying <tt>v=alter1</tt>.  It does not carry
the envelope field set (<tt>h</tt>, <tt>ilr</tt>, <tt>ts</tt>, <tt>rev</tt>, <tt>sig</tt>) and is
therefore NOT an instance of the Envelope Record of <xref target="alter-record"/>.
No conformant Envelope Record is published in this zone.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t><tt>_org-alter.truealter.com</tt>, carrying <tt>v=alter1</tt> with <tt>org</tt>,
<tt>entity</tt>, <tt>entity-type</tt>, <tt>founded</tt>, <tt>regions</tt>, <tt>mcp-policy</tt>,
<tt>epoch</tt>, <tt>pk</tt>, and <tt>attest</tt>.  It omits <tt>regulated</tt> and <tt>bootstrap</tt>.
Its <tt>pk</tt> is the same key the <tt>_mcp</tt> record carries, as step 5 of
<xref target="orgalter-bootstrap-algorithm"/> requires.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The zone is DNSSEC-signed, so the requirement of <xref target="dnssec"/> is met by
the operator.  <tt>truealter.com</tt> publishes a key-signing key and a
zone-signing key, both algorithm 13, and the parent zone holds a
corresponding DS record.</t>
      <t>Implemented in code, and NOT exercised against any conformant
envelope, because none is published:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>A resolver and verification library implementing the JCS
signing-input construction of <xref target="signing-input"/> and the Ed25519
signature check.  It conforms to this revision on the signing
input and the signature check.  It does NOT conform on two steps
of the recognition procedure of <xref target="recognition"/>: it still treats the
IdentityLog cross-reference as fatal, where step 9 now says a
resolver <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> abort, and it still fetches caveats over HTTPS,
which step 11 now places out of scope.  Those two steps follow
revision 04.  It also does not yet perform the revocation check of
step 12, so it does not refuse a claim signed under a revoked key,
and it does not check the <tt>h</tt> field against the grammar of
<xref target="field-h"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>NOT deployed:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t><tt>_443._tcp.mcp.truealter.com</tt> does not resolve, so no DANE TLSA
pin is published and the DANE binding of <xref target="dane-tlsa"/> is untested in
deployment.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>There is no signed-tree-head federation and no witness-mirror
network.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>No inclusion proof is generated or checked anywhere.  The <tt>ilr</tt>
field of <xref target="alter-abnf"/> is published as a bare root with no proof
attached.  <xref target="sec-substitution"/> sets out what that permits.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The Envelope Record of <xref target="alter-record"/> therefore has NO conformant
deployment at the time of writing, in this zone or any other known
to the author.  It is specified, implemented in a verifier, and
unpublished.</t>
      <t>The deployed <tt>_alter.truealter.com</tt> record carries none of the
envelope fields that <xref target="alter-record"/> defines, so it is not an instance of
the Envelope Record and a resolver <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> treat it as one.</t>
      <t>The key continuity rule of <xref target="key-continuity"/> is new in revision 06.
No implementation of it is claimed.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC1035" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1035.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Domain names - implementation and specification</title>
            <author fullname="P. Mockapetris" initials="P." surname="Mockapetris"/>
            <date month="November" year="1987"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This RFC is the revised specification of the protocol and format used in the implementation of the Domain Name System. It obsoletes RFC-883. This memo documents the details of the domain name client - server communication.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="STD" value="13"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1035"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC1035"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4033" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4033.xml">
          <front>
            <title>DNS Security Introduction and Requirements</title>
            <author fullname="R. Arends" initials="R." surname="Arends"/>
            <author fullname="R. Austein" initials="R." surname="Austein"/>
            <author fullname="M. Larson" initials="M." surname="Larson"/>
            <author fullname="D. Massey" initials="D." surname="Massey"/>
            <author fullname="S. Rose" initials="S." surname="Rose"/>
            <date month="March" year="2005"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) add data origin authentication and data integrity to the Domain Name System. This document introduces these extensions and describes their capabilities and limitations. This document also discusses the services that the DNS security extensions do and do not provide. Last, this document describes the interrelationships between the documents that collectively describe DNSSEC. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4033"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4033"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4034" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4034.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions</title>
            <author fullname="R. Arends" initials="R." surname="Arends"/>
            <author fullname="R. Austein" initials="R." surname="Austein"/>
            <author fullname="M. Larson" initials="M." surname="Larson"/>
            <author fullname="D. Massey" initials="D." surname="Massey"/>
            <author fullname="S. Rose" initials="S." surname="Rose"/>
            <date month="March" year="2005"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document is part of a family of documents that describe the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The DNS Security Extensions are a collection of resource records and protocol modifications that provide source authentication for the DNS. This document defines the public key (DNSKEY), delegation signer (DS), resource record digital signature (RRSIG), and authenticated denial of existence (NSEC) resource records. The purpose and format of each resource record is described in detail, and an example of each resource record is given.</t>
              <t>This document obsoletes RFC 2535 and incorporates changes from all updates to RFC 2535. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4034"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4034"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4035" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4035.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions</title>
            <author fullname="R. Arends" initials="R." surname="Arends"/>
            <author fullname="R. Austein" initials="R." surname="Austein"/>
            <author fullname="M. Larson" initials="M." surname="Larson"/>
            <author fullname="D. Massey" initials="D." surname="Massey"/>
            <author fullname="S. Rose" initials="S." surname="Rose"/>
            <date month="March" year="2005"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document is part of a family of documents that describe the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The DNS Security Extensions are a collection of new resource records and protocol modifications that add data origin authentication and data integrity to the DNS. This document describes the DNSSEC protocol modifications. This document defines the concept of a signed zone, along with the requirements for serving and resolving by using DNSSEC. These techniques allow a security-aware resolver to authenticate both DNS resource records and authoritative DNS error indications.</t>
              <t>This document obsoletes RFC 2535 and incorporates changes from all updates to RFC 2535. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4035"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4035"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4343" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4343" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4343.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity Clarification</title>
            <author fullname="D. Eastlake 3rd" initials="D." surname="Eastlake 3rd"/>
            <date month="January" year="2006"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Domain Name System (DNS) names are "case insensitive". This document explains exactly what that means and provides a clear specification of the rules. This clarification updates RFCs 1034, 1035, and 2181. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4343"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4343"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4648" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4648.xml">
          <front>
            <title>The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings</title>
            <author fullname="S. Josefsson" initials="S." surname="Josefsson"/>
            <date month="October" year="2006"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes the commonly used base 64, base 32, and base 16 encoding schemes. It also discusses the use of line-feeds in encoded data, use of padding in encoded data, use of non-alphabet characters in encoded data, use of different encoding alphabets, and canonical encodings. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4648"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4648"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5234" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5234.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF</title>
            <author fullname="D. Crocker" initials="D." role="editor" surname="Crocker"/>
            <author fullname="P. Overell" initials="P." surname="Overell"/>
            <date month="January" year="2008"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Internet technical specifications often need to define a formal syntax. Over the years, a modified version of Backus-Naur Form (BNF), called Augmented BNF (ABNF), has been popular among many Internet specifications. The current specification documents ABNF. It balances compactness and simplicity with reasonable representational power. The differences between standard BNF and ABNF involve naming rules, repetition, alternatives, order-independence, and value ranges. This specification also supplies additional rule definitions and encoding for a core lexical analyzer of the type common to several Internet specifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="STD" value="68"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5234"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5234"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6698" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6698.xml">
          <front>
            <title>The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA</title>
            <author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
            <author fullname="J. Schlyter" initials="J." surname="Schlyter"/>
            <date month="August" year="2012"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Encrypted communication on the Internet often uses Transport Layer Security (TLS), which depends on third parties to certify the keys used. This document improves on that situation by enabling the administrators of domain names to specify the keys used in that domain's TLS servers. This requires matching improvements in TLS client software, but no change in TLS server software. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6698"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6698"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7208" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7208" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7208.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1</title>
            <author fullname="S. Kitterman" initials="S." surname="Kitterman"/>
            <date month="April" year="2014"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Email on the Internet can be forged in a number of ways. In particular, existing protocols place no restriction on what a sending host can use as the "MAIL FROM" of a message or the domain given on the SMTP HELO/EHLO commands. This document describes version 1 of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) protocol, whereby ADministrative Management Domains (ADMDs) can explicitly authorize the hosts that are allowed to use their domain names, and a receiving host can check such authorization.</t>
              <t>This document obsoletes RFC 4408.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7208"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7208"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7595" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7595.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Guidelines and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes</title>
            <author fullname="D. Thaler" initials="D." role="editor" surname="Thaler"/>
            <author fullname="T. Hansen" initials="T." surname="Hansen"/>
            <author fullname="T. Hardie" initials="T." surname="Hardie"/>
            <date month="June" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document updates the guidelines and recommendations, as well as the IANA registration processes, for the definition of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes. It obsoletes RFC 4395.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="35"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7595"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7595"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8461" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8461" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8461.xml">
          <front>
            <title>SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS)</title>
            <author fullname="D. Margolis" initials="D." surname="Margolis"/>
            <author fullname="M. Risher" initials="M." surname="Risher"/>
            <author fullname="B. Ramakrishnan" initials="B." surname="Ramakrishnan"/>
            <author fullname="A. Brotman" initials="A." surname="Brotman"/>
            <author fullname="J. Jones" initials="J." surname="Jones"/>
            <date month="September" year="2018"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS) is a mechanism enabling mail service providers (SPs) to declare their ability to receive Transport Layer Security (TLS) secure SMTP connections and to specify whether sending SMTP servers should refuse to deliver to MX hosts that do not offer TLS with a trusted server certificate.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8461"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8461"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8552" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8552" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8552.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute Leaves</title>
            <author fullname="D. Crocker" initials="D." surname="Crocker"/>
            <date month="March" year="2019"/>
            <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>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="222"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8552"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8552"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8785" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8785" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8785.xml">
          <front>
            <title>JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS)</title>
            <author fullname="A. Rundgren" initials="A." surname="Rundgren"/>
            <author fullname="B. Jordan" initials="B." surname="Jordan"/>
            <author fullname="S. Erdtman" initials="S." surname="Erdtman"/>
            <date month="June" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Cryptographic operations like hashing and signing need the data to be expressed in an invariant format so that the operations are reliably repeatable. One way to address this is to create a canonical representation of the data. Canonicalization also permits data to be exchanged in its original form on the "wire" while cryptographic operations performed on the canonicalized counterpart of the data in the producer and consumer endpoints generate consistent results.</t>
              <t>This document describes the JSON Canonicalization Scheme (JCS). This specification defines how to create a canonical representation of JSON data by building on the strict serialization methods for JSON primitives defined by ECMAScript, constraining JSON data to the Internet JSON (I-JSON) subset, and by using deterministic property sorting.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8785"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8785"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9421" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9421" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9421.xml">
          <front>
            <title>HTTP Message Signatures</title>
            <author fullname="A. Backman" initials="A." role="editor" surname="Backman"/>
            <author fullname="J. Richer" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Richer"/>
            <author fullname="M. Sporny" initials="M." surname="Sporny"/>
            <date month="February" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a mechanism for creating, encoding, and verifying digital signatures or message authentication codes over components of an HTTP message. This mechanism supports use cases where the full HTTP message may not be known to the signer and where the message may be transformed (e.g., by intermediaries) before reaching the verifier. This document also describes a means for requesting that a signature be applied to a subsequent HTTP message in an ongoing HTTP exchange.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9421"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9421"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9460" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9460" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9460.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Service Binding and Parameter Specification via the DNS (SVCB and HTTPS Resource Records)</title>
            <author fullname="B. Schwartz" initials="B." surname="Schwartz"/>
            <author fullname="M. Bishop" initials="M." surname="Bishop"/>
            <author fullname="E. Nygren" initials="E." surname="Nygren"/>
            <date month="November" year="2023"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the "SVCB" ("Service Binding") and "HTTPS" DNS resource record (RR) types to facilitate the lookup of information needed to make connections to network services, such as for HTTP origins. SVCB records allow a service to be provided from multiple alternative endpoints, each with associated parameters (such as transport protocol configuration), and are extensible to support future uses (such as keys for encrypting the TLS ClientHello). They also enable aliasing of apex domains, which is not possible with CNAME. The HTTPS RR is a variation of SVCB for use with HTTP (see RFC 9110, "HTTP Semantics"). By providing more information to the client before it attempts to establish a connection, these records offer potential benefits to both performance and privacy.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9460"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9460"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="MCP" target="https://modelcontextprotocol.io">
          <front>
            <title>Model Context Protocol Specification</title>
            <author>
              <organization>Agentic AI Foundation</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC7638" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7638" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7638.xml">
          <front>
            <title>JSON Web Key (JWK) Thumbprint</title>
            <author fullname="M. Jones" initials="M." surname="Jones"/>
            <author fullname="N. Sakimura" initials="N." surname="Sakimura"/>
            <date month="September" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This specification defines a method for computing a hash value over a JSON Web Key (JWK). It defines which fields in a JWK are used in the hash computation, the method of creating a canonical form for those fields, and how to convert the resulting Unicode string into a byte sequence to be hashed. The resulting hash value can be used for identifying or selecting the key represented by the JWK that is the subject of the thumbprint.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7638"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7638"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="AGENT-AID" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nemethi-dawn-aid/">
          <front>
            <title>Agent Identity and Discovery (AID)</title>
            <author fullname="B. Nemethi">
              <organization>Open Agent Registry, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="DNS-AID" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mozleywilliams-dnsop-dnsaid/">
          <front>
            <title>DNS for AI Discovery</title>
            <author fullname="J. Mozley">
              <organization>Infoblox, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="N. Williams">
              <organization>Infoblox, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="B. Sarikaya">
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <author fullname="R. Schott">
              <organization>Deutsche Telekom</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="J. Damick">
              <organization>Amazon</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="MDNS-AGENT" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jakab-dawn-agent-discovery-mdns/">
          <front>
            <title>Zero-Configuration Agent Discovery</title>
            <author fullname="L. Jakab">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="F. Brockners">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="MDNS-ARCHITECT" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yao-dawn-agent-discovery-architect/">
          <front>
            <title>Agent Discovery Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="J. Yao">
              <organization>CNNIC</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="G. Geng">
              <organization>Jinan University</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="M. Chen">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="H. Li">
              <organization>CNNIC</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="SAIP" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jovancevic-saip/">
          <front>
            <title>SAIP: Signed Agent Identity Protocol</title>
            <author fullname="S. Jovancevic">
              <organization>SKGO</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="ALTER-URI" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-morrison-alter-uri-scheme/">
          <front>
            <title>The 'alter' URI Scheme for Dispatchable ~handle References</title>
            <author fullname="Blake Morrison">
              <organization>Alter Meridian Pty Ltd</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
          <refcontent>Work in Progress</refcontent>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-morrison-alter-uri-scheme"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="DNSDISC-01" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-01">
          <front>
            <title>Discovery of Model Context Protocol Servers via DNS TXT Records</title>
            <author fullname="Blake Morrison">
              <organization>Alter Meridian Pty Ltd</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2026" month="April"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-01"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="DNSDISC-02" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-02">
          <front>
            <title>Discovery of Model Context Protocol Servers via DNS TXT Records</title>
            <author fullname="Blake Morrison">
              <organization>Alter Meridian Pty Ltd</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2026" month="April"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-02"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="DOMAIN-SET" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-barrett-dnsop-domain-set-00">
          <front>
            <title>The Domain Set Discovery Protocol (domain-set)</title>
            <author fullname="T. Barrett">
              <organization>EnCirca, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="C. Schaub">
              <organization>EnCirca, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="A. Barrett">
              <organization>EnCirca, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="P. Kowalik">
              <organization>DENIC eG</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2026" month="August"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-barrett-dnsop-domain-set-00"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2606" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2606" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2606.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Reserved Top Level DNS Names</title>
            <author fullname="D. Eastlake 3rd" initials="D." surname="Eastlake 3rd"/>
            <author fullname="A. Panitz" initials="A." surname="Panitz"/>
            <date month="June" year="1999"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a few top level domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as examples in documentation, and the like. In addition, a few second level domain names reserved for use as examples are documented. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="32"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2606"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2606"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6376" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6376.xml">
          <front>
            <title>DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures</title>
            <author fullname="D. Crocker" initials="D." role="editor" surname="Crocker"/>
            <author fullname="T. Hansen" initials="T." role="editor" surname="Hansen"/>
            <author fullname="M. Kucherawy" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Kucherawy"/>
            <date month="September" year="2011"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, role, or organization that owns the signing domain to claim some responsibility for a message by associating the domain with the message. This can be an author's organization, an operational relay, or one of their agents. DKIM separates the question of the identity of the Signer of the message from the purported author of the message. Assertion of responsibility is validated through a cryptographic signature and by querying the Signer's domain directly to retrieve the appropriate public key. Message transit from author to recipient is through relays that typically make no substantive change to the message content and thus preserve the DKIM signature.</t>
              <t>This memo obsoletes RFC 4871 and RFC 5672. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="STD" value="76"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6376"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6376"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6781" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6781" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6781.xml">
          <front>
            <title>DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2</title>
            <author fullname="O. Kolkman" initials="O." surname="Kolkman"/>
            <author fullname="W. Mekking" initials="W." surname="Mekking"/>
            <author fullname="R. Gieben" initials="R." surname="Gieben"/>
            <date month="December" year="2012"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a set of practices for operating the DNS with security extensions (DNSSEC). The target audience is zone administrators deploying DNSSEC.</t>
              <t>The document discusses operational aspects of using keys and signatures in the DNS. It discusses issues of key generation, key storage, signature generation, key rollover, and related policies.</t>
              <t>This document obsoletes RFC 4641, as it covers more operational ground and gives more up-to-date requirements with respect to key sizes and the DNSSEC operations.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6781"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6781"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9989" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9989" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9989.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Domain-Based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)</title>
            <author fullname="T. Herr" initials="T." role="editor" surname="Herr"/>
            <author fullname="J. Levine" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Levine"/>
            <date month="May" year="2026"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) protocol.</t>
              <t>DMARC permits the owner of an email's Author Domain to enable validation of the domain's use to indicate the Domain Owner's or Public Suffix Operator's message handling preference regarding failed validation and to request reports about the use of the domain name. Mail-receiving organizations can use this information when evaluating handling choices for incoming mail.</t>
              <t>This document obsoletes RFCs 7489 and 9091.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9989"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9989"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7858" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7858.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Specification for DNS over Transport Layer Security (TLS)</title>
            <author fullname="Z. Hu" initials="Z." surname="Hu"/>
            <author fullname="L. Zhu" initials="L." surname="Zhu"/>
            <author fullname="J. Heidemann" initials="J." surname="Heidemann"/>
            <author fullname="A. Mankin" initials="A." surname="Mankin"/>
            <author fullname="D. Wessels" initials="D." surname="Wessels"/>
            <author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
            <date month="May" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide privacy for DNS. Encryption provided by TLS eliminates opportunities for eavesdropping and on-path tampering with DNS queries in the network, such as discussed in RFC 7626. In addition, this document specifies two usage profiles for DNS over TLS and provides advice on performance considerations to minimize overhead from using TCP and TLS with DNS.</t>
              <t>This document focuses on securing stub-to-recursive traffic, as per the charter of the DPRIVE Working Group. It does not prevent future applications of the protocol to recursive-to-authoritative traffic.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7858"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7858"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7942" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7942.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Sheffer" initials="Y." surname="Sheffer"/>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <date month="July" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section. This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.</t>
              <t>This process is not mandatory. Authors of Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. This document obsoletes RFC 6982, advancing it to a Best Current Practice.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="205"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7942"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7942"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8484" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8484.xml">
          <front>
            <title>DNS Queries over HTTPS (DoH)</title>
            <author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
            <author fullname="P. McManus" initials="P." surname="McManus"/>
            <date month="October" year="2018"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines a protocol for sending DNS queries and getting DNS responses over HTTPS. Each DNS query-response pair is mapped into an HTTP exchange.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8484"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8484"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9083" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9083.xml">
          <front>
            <title>JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)</title>
            <author fullname="S. Hollenbeck" initials="S." surname="Hollenbeck"/>
            <author fullname="A. Newton" initials="A." surname="Newton"/>
            <date month="June" year="2021"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes JSON data structures representing registration information maintained by Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and Domain Name Registries (DNRs). These data structures are used to form Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) query responses. This document obsoletes RFC 7483.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="STD" value="95"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9083"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9083"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="SEP-1649" target="https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/issues/1649">
          <front>
            <title>MCP Server Cards</title>
            <author>
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date>n.d.</date>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="SEP-1960" target="https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/issues/1960">
          <front>
            <title>.well-known/mcp Discovery Endpoint</title>
            <author>
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date>n.d.</date>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="MORRISON-IFT" target="https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31951383">
          <front>
            <title>Identity Field Theory: Toward a Physics of Being Known</title>
            <author fullname="Blake Morrison">
              <organization>Alter Meridian Pty Ltd</organization>
            </author>
            <date year="2026"/>
          </front>
        </reference>
      </references>
    

<section anchor="recognition-pseudocode">
      <name>Recognition Pseudocode</name>
      <t>The following pseudocode illustrates the combined recognition
procedure defined in <xref target="recognition"/>.  It is non-normative; the
normative procedure is the twelve-step algorithm in the body of
this document.</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
function recognise_envelope(handle, zone):
    # Step 1-2: Query + DNSSEC
    response = dns_query("_alter." + zone, type=TXT, prefer=DoH)
    if not response.ad_bit and not local_rrsig_validate(response):
        raise UnauthenticatedResponse

    # Step 3-5: Chunk reassembly + handle disambiguation + fields
    records = [parse_alter_record(rr) for rr in response.rrset]
    record = find(records, lambda r: r.h == handle)
    if record is None or record.v != "alter1":
        raise RecordNotFound
    for f in ["h", "pk", "ilr", "ts", "rev", "sig"]:
        if not hasattr(record, f):
            raise MalformedRecord

    # Step 6-7: Envelope reconstruction + JCS.  Keys are the TXT
    # field names; every value stays a string, ts included.
    alg = signature_alg_for_prefix(record.pk)   # Signature Algorithm
                                               # Registry
    envelope = {
        "v": record.v,
        "h": record.h,
        "pk": record.pk,
        "ilr": record.ilr,
        "ts": record.ts,
        "rev": record.rev,
        "caveats": [],
        "signature_alg": alg,
    }
    signing_input = jcs_canonicalise(envelope)

    # Step 8: signature verify under the derived algorithm
    if not signature_verify(alg, record.pk, record.sig,
                            signing_input):
        raise SignatureInvalid

    # Step 9: IdentityLog cross-ref. ADVISORY. Confirms the ROOT
    # was published; cannot confirm THIS envelope is under that
    # root, so a failure annotates and never aborts. See 12.3.
    ilr_root_seen = identitylog_root_published(record.ilr)

    # Step 10: DANE TLSA (if establishing MCP session)
    if establishing_mcp_session(zone):
        tlsa = dns_query("_443._tcp.mcp." + zone, type=TLSA)
        if not tlsa_matches_endpoint(tlsa, "mcp." + zone):
            raise TLSAFailure

    # Step 11: Caveats are OUT OF SCOPE for this document (Sec 12.3).
    # No transport and no vocabulary are specified, so the verified
    # envelope carries none and the signature is checked over [].
    caveats = []

    # Step 12: Revocation
    if identitylog_revocation_revealed(record.rev):
        raise EnvelopeRevoked

    return VerifiedEnvelope(record, caveats, ilr_root_seen)
]]></artwork>
    </section>
    <section anchor="document-history">
      <name>Document History</name>
      <t>draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-08 (October 2026):</t>
      <t>One change to a record format: the handle in the <tt>h</tt> field now follows the <tt>handle-name</tt> grammar of <xref target="ALTER-URI"/>.  It begins with a letter, admits "." so that an organisation's handle such as <tt>~example.com</tt> can be carried, and no longer admits "_".  No change to any procedure.  Two new requirements: a publisher <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> publish an envelope for an Instrument-tier handle (Section 7.3.2), and a verifier <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> honour a claim signed under the key of a revoked envelope (Section 7.3.6).</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Records in the Abstract, <xref target="terminology"/> and <xref target="alter-uri-scheme-registration"/> that IANA provisionally registered the <tt>alter:</tt> scheme on 5 October 2026, and says in <xref target="impl-status"/> that the verifier does not yet perform the step 12 revocation check or check the <tt>h</tt> grammar.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>States in <xref target="field-rev"/>, the Erasure paragraph of <xref target="alter-applicability"/> and step 12 of <xref target="recognition"/> that revocation takes effect when the pre-image is revealed, with no grace period, and that every claim signed under the revoked envelope's key is invalid from that moment, whenever it was signed.  The epoch rotation of the <tt>_mcp</tt> record keeps its per-claim expiry grace.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Says in <xref target="unknown-fields"/>, <xref target="forward-compat"/> and <xref target="envelope-version-registry"/> that a new envelope field is introduced only together with a new envelope version, and that resolvers ignore fields they do not know.  Earlier text pointed new fields at a registry that does not exist.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Replaces the notes at the head of <xref target="security"/> and <xref target="privacy"/>, which said the revision 01 and 02 considerations were retained, with sentences citing <xref target="DNSDISC-01"/> Sections 7 and 8 and <xref target="DNSDISC-02"/> Sections 10 and 11.  No consideration is added or removed.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Strikes the sentence saying this document is what the
<xref target="AGENT-AID"/> <tt>mcp</tt> protocol token defers to, at the request of the
<xref target="AGENT-AID"/> author, whose registry points that token at the MCP
specification.  <xref target="related-work"/> now says only that a client that
learns <tt>p=mcp</tt> may also look up <tt>_mcp</tt>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Cites <xref target="ALTER-URI"/> for the <tt>alter:</tt> scheme, corrects the <xref target="RFC7595"/> section for provisional registration to Section 4, and says in <xref target="recognition"/> that an <tt>alter:</tt> URI supplies the handle and that the zone is never derived from the handle's spelling.  Removes editing-history notes from the Introduction and Terminology, and trims wording in <xref target="related-work"/> and <xref target="why-txt"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Rewrites <xref target="related-work"/> to describe each neighbouring draft by what it
specifies, without characterising its intent or scope.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Moves accounts of earlier revisions out of the body and into this
appendix, and removes commentary on the document's own candour.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Removes the identity field framing from the Introduction, and
cites <xref target="MORRISON-IFT"/> from the <tt>~handle</tt> definition instead.  Removes
two terminology notes that were editorial guidance rather than
definitions.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Makes <tt>entity</tt> and <tt>regulated</tt> proper subsections of
<xref target="orgalter-fields"/>.  States the forward-compatibility rule for unknown
<tt>regulated</tt> tokens by reference to step 4 of <xref target="orgalter-bootstrap"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Corrects item 3 of <xref target="sec-substitution"/>, which said a malicious zone
operator is caught by defence (1), which does not hold.  Corrects a
section reference in <xref target="recognition-pseudocode"/>.  Removes the provisional-use
sentence from <xref target="iana-labels"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Corrects the Instrument-tier description in <xref target="terminology"/> to match
Section 8.5 of <xref target="MORRISON-IFT"/>, says at the <tt>h</tt> field of
<xref target="field-h"/> that an Instrument-tier handle has no envelope of its own,
and removes the Instrument-tier envelope example, which contradicted it.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Corrects statements in <xref target="related-work"/>, <xref target="why-txt"/> and
<xref target="mcp-field-proto"/> about what neighbouring drafts specify.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Removes a schema URL that does not resolve, and a fallback in
<xref target="alter-uri"/> that no procedure defines.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Corrects revision references in <xref target="introduction"/>, <xref target="mcp-record"/>,
<xref target="mcp-discovery"/> and <xref target="caching"/>, and replaces references to earlier
record generations with section numbers.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Removes product terms and an undefined term from <xref target="terminology"/>,
<xref target="dane-tlsa"/>, <xref target="orgalter-bootstrap-algorithm"/> and
<xref target="public-handle-disclosure"/>, and replaces a third-party name in an
example.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Replaces the authoring organisation's own name and ABN in the examples of <xref target="entity-recommended"/> and the section before it with example values.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-07 (September 2026):</t>
      <t>Tracks the current <xref target="AGENT-AID"/> revision and corrects the status
of the <tt>alter:</tt> URI scheme.  No change to any record defined here.</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Stops describing the <tt>alter:</tt> URI scheme as provisionally
registered with IANA (<xref target="terminology"/>, <xref target="alter-uri"/>,
<xref target="alter-uri-scheme-registration"/>).  Revision 06 said it was,
and it was not.  Provisional registration is now requested.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Moves the revision summary out of the Abstract.  This appendix
carries it in full.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Names the revision that made each change in four sentences that
said "this revision" about revisions 05 and 06.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Describes the <xref target="AGENT-AID"/> record in its <tt>aid2</tt> format, where
revision 06 still described <tt>aid1</tt>.  The endpoint-proof key is now an
unpadded base64url JWK <tt>x</tt> value with its JWK thumbprint <xref target="RFC7638"/> as
the signature <tt>keyid</tt>, and the <tt>i</tt> rotation identifier is gone.  <tt>aid1</tt>
stays valid through <xref target="AGENT-AID"/>'s compatibility window.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Points the <xref target="AGENT-AID"/> reference at draft-nemethi-dawn-aid, the name
the document now carries.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-06 (September 2026):</t>
      <t>Adds a key continuity rule for the <tt>_mcp</tt> record, the first
normative change since revision 05, and corrects two statements in
the revision 05 Implementation Status section.  No record format
changes and no field is added.</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Adds <xref target="key-continuity"/>.  Every earlier revision described the
<tt>_mcp</tt> key binding as trust on first use with periodic
re-verification, and none said what a client does when the
re-verification disagrees.  A client following revision 05 that
had pinned a key would accept a different one on the next
connection, which is the case of a lapsed domain registered again
by someone else.  The new section covers a changed key under the
same epoch, an epoch that goes down, a declared rotation, and a
record that drops its <tt>pk</tt>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>States that an epoch decrease is never a conformant publisher
state (<xref target="mcp-field-epoch"/>).  The earlier rules covered a claim
whose epoch is below or above the record's, and nothing covered the
record's own epoch going down, which is what a new registrant
publishing <tt>epoch=0</tt> over a pinned <tt>epoch=2</tt> looks like.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Extends step 7b of <xref target="mcp-discovery-algorithm"/> to apply the rule,
and to verify against a pinned key where the record no longer
carries one.  The procedure's opening sentence no longer claims the
algorithm of <xref target="DNSDISC-01"/> unchanged.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adopts the graded change-of-control signals of <xref target="DOMAIN-SET"/>
Section 6.3 for the pinned binding (<xref target="key-continuity-control"/>),
and adds <xref target="DOMAIN-SET"/> and <xref target="RFC9083"/> as informative references.
<xref target="DOMAIN-SET"/> already specified a consumer-side rule for a lapsed
and re-registered domain, and this document had none.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Keeps absence of a record distinct from revocation, and says the
difference from <xref target="DOMAIN-SET"/> Section 6.4 is deliberate
(<xref target="key-continuity-absence"/>).  That document treats removal of a
record as revocation.  This one does not, for the envelope record
since revision 03 and now for the pinned key binding, because
clearing a pin on absence would let one suppressed resolution
reset a client to first use.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds <xref target="sec-change-of-control"/>, which states the change-of-control
exposure for all three records, and states for the <tt>_alter</tt> record
that this document specifies no pin and that a new registrant
passes every FATAL step of <xref target="recognition"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Records in <xref target="impl-status"/> that no implementation of the new rule
is claimed.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The two Implementation Status corrections, both of which understated
the deployment:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Corrects the DNSSEC statement.  Revision 05 said <tt>truealter.com</tt> was
not DNSSEC-signed and that the parent zone held no DS.  The zone was
signed nine days before revision 05 was filed and is signed today,
with a key-signing key and a zone-signing key at algorithm 13 and a
DS in the parent.  The consequence revision 05 drew from the
erroneous statement, that no Envelope Record could be relied upon in
this zone, is withdrawn with it.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Records <tt>_org-alter.truealter.com</tt> as deployed.  Revision 05 recorded
it as NXDOMAIN, which was accurate when filed.  It has since been
provisioned and carries the field set named in the Implementation
Status section.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The remaining statements of that section were re-checked against the
zone and against the code and are carried forward unchanged.  The
absent DANE TLSA pin, the absence of any conformant Envelope Record,
the two recognition steps on which the verifier still follows
revision 04, the absent federation and witness network, and the
absence of inclusion proofs all still hold.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-05 (July 2026):</t>
      <t>Corrections to -04, and the record formats and procedures restated in
full.  No new mechanism.</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Restores the citation of <xref target="AGENT-AID"/>, which revision 01 carried and
revisions 02 through 04 dropped, and distinguishes it from <xref target="DNS-AID"/>, a
different draft with the same acronym.  Revision 05 also said that
this document is what the <xref target="AGENT-AID"/> <tt>mcp</tt> protocol token defers to.
Revision 08 strikes that sentence at the request of the
<xref target="AGENT-AID"/> author.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Gives all three record formats (<xref target="mcp-record"/>, <xref target="orgalter-record"/>,
<xref target="alter-record"/>), all three procedures (<xref target="mcp-discovery"/>,
<xref target="orgalter-bootstrap"/>, <xref target="recognition"/>) and the caching rules
(<xref target="caching"/>) in full.  Revisions 03 and 04 incorporated the first two
records and their procedures by reference to revisions 01 and 02.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Separates the agent protocol family from the transport binding in
the <tt>_mcp</tt> record.  Revision 01 used <tt>proto</tt> for the transport.
<tt>proto</tt> now names the protocol family and <tt>transport</tt> names the
binding, which is the term the Model Context Protocol specification
uses.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>States how to read an <tt>_mcp</tt> record published under revision 01
(<xref target="reading-legacy"/>).  A <tt>proto</tt> value that names neither the protocol
family nor a known transport causes the record to be SKIPPED, as
revision 01 required.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Reconciles the <tt>_mcp</tt> grammar with its prose.  The grammar admits
any token in <tt>proto</tt> and <tt>transport</tt>; <tt>proto</tt> has exactly one defined
value and <tt>transport</tt> exactly three, and the two sets are disjoint.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Replaces <tt>1*VCHAR</tt> for <tt>org</tt>, <tt>entity</tt> and <tt>entity-type</tt> with a
<tt>text-value</tt> rule that admits SP and excludes only the field separator
(<xref target="orgalter-abnf"/>).</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Stops every value rule in all three grammars from running past the
end of its own field.  <tt>unknown-field</tt> and <tt>https-uri</tt> were defined
over <tt>*VCHAR</tt>, which includes the semicolon.  <tt>qtext</tt> admits SP and
excludes the semicolon; <tt>uri-char</tt> excludes both.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>States that <tt>unknown-field</tt> matches only a field name this document
does not define, so a defined field whose value is malformed makes
the record malformed (<xref target="mcp-abnf"/>).  The split-on-semicolon parse in
<xref target="mcp-discovery"/> already behaved this way.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Requires a publisher emitting <tt>transport</tt> to emit <tt>proto=mcp</tt> with
it (<xref target="reading-legacy"/>).</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds <xref target="related-work"/> and <xref target="why-txt"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Cites each label in the IANA table (<xref target="iana-labels"/>) to the section of
this document that defines it.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Rewrites <xref target="impl-status"/> against the deployed zone and code.  The -04
section claimed an <tt>_org-alter</tt> record, a DANE TLSA pin, a conformant
envelope record and a signed-tree-head witness federation, none of
which existed.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Withdraws the claim in <xref target="sec-substitution"/> defence (1) that <tt>ilr=</tt>
defeats envelope substitution.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Fixes the signing input of <xref target="signing-input"/>.  The keys are the TXT field
names, <tt>v</tt> is inside the signed object, and <tt>ts</tt> is a JSON string.
An envelope signed under -04 does not verify under -05.  No envelope
signed under -04 exists.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Derives <tt>signature_alg</tt> from the <tt>pk=</tt> algorithm prefix via the
registry of <xref target="sigalg-registry"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Allows a split within a key-value pair in <xref target="multistring"/>, so a field
longer than 255 octets can be carried.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Marks publication of a per-individual envelope in DNS as <bcp14>NOT
RECOMMENDED</bcp14>, and forbids more than one handle at one owner name
(<xref target="alter-location"/>, <xref target="alter-applicability"/>).</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Withdraws the IdentityLog witness federation everywhere -04 asserted
it, and makes the cross-reference at step 9 of <xref target="recognition"/> advisory.
The <tt>ilr=</tt> field is kept so the wire format does not change.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>States that a reader implementing from this document alone cannot
check revocation.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Repairs every internal cross-reference.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Corrects all four references into <xref target="DNSDISC-01"/> and <xref target="DNSDISC-02"/>.
The <tt>_mcp</tt> record format is Section 5 of <xref target="DNSDISC-01"/>, not Section 3,
and its discovery procedure is Section 6, not Section 4.  The
<tt>_org-alter</tt> record format is Section 6 of <xref target="DNSDISC-02"/>, not Section
4, and its bootstrap procedure is Section 7, not Section 6.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Gives the <tt>_alter</tt> record two ABNF grammars (<xref target="alter-abnf"/>), one
for publisher emission and one for resolver acceptance, with the
field-cardinality rule stated beside them.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Reconciles <xref target="sec-key-consistency"/> with step 5 of
<xref target="orgalter-bootstrap"/>.  The <tt>_mcp</tt> and <tt>_org-alter</tt> keys must match;
only the envelope key of <xref target="alter-record"/> <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> differ.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Removes two hand-written reference sections that duplicated the
generated ones.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Corrects the field count to seven <bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14> fields.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-03 (April 2026):</t>
      <t>Editorial corrections (retiring -02):</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Removes the third-party-domain worked example used in -02 and
replaces all instances with <xref target="RFC2606"/> reserved example-domain
forms; no third-party operational domain appears in any
illustrative DNS record in this revision.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Strips city and locality fields from the author front-matter
block, retaining only name, organisation, and email per editorial
policy.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>Substantive additions:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Adds the <tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> Envelope Record (<xref target="alter-record"/>).</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Defines <tt>v</tt>, <tt>h</tt>, <tt>pk</tt>, <tt>ilr</tt>, <tt>ts</tt>, <tt>rev</tt>, <tt>sig</tt> fields for the
new record.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Introduces a mandatory DNSSEC validation requirement for
<tt>_alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> responses (<xref target="dnssec"/>).</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Introduces a mandatory DANE TLSA <xref target="RFC6698"/> pin on the MCP
endpoint (<xref target="dane-tlsa"/>) for envelope-triggered MCP sessions.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds the IdentityLog cross-reference requirement (<xref target="identitylog"/>).
Revision 05 withdraws it; see the -05 entry above.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds a provisional <tt>alter:</tt> URI scheme cross-reference per
<xref target="RFC7595"/> (<xref target="alter-uri"/>).</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds the envelope recognition procedure (<xref target="recognition"/>), a
twelve-step algorithm.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds IANA registration for <tt>_alter</tt> underscore-prefixed label
(<xref target="iana-labels"/>) and the independent <tt>v=alter1</tt> envelope version
namespace.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds a Signature Algorithm Registry (<xref target="sigalg-registry"/>) with initial
value <tt>ed25519</tt>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds Security Considerations for DNSSEC downgrade, TLSA pin
rotation, envelope substitution, revocation opacity, clock skew,
cross-record key consistency, and passive-stream coupling.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds Privacy Considerations for public handle disclosure, DNS
query metadata, and revocation unlinkability.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds Examples for minimal envelope, multi-handle zone, full
~alter zone with all three records, and Instrument-tier handle.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds Implementation Status entry for the envelope reference
implementation.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Incorporated the v01 <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> and v02 <tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt>
record specifications by reference, leaving them unchanged.
Revision 05 restates both in full; see the -05 entry above.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-02 (April 2026):</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Adds the <tt>_org-alter.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> Org-Identity Record.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Defines <tt>org</tt>, <tt>entity</tt>, <tt>entity-type</tt>, <tt>founded</tt>, <tt>regions</tt>,
<tt>regulated</tt>, <tt>bootstrap</tt>, <tt>mcp-policy</tt>, <tt>epoch</tt>, <tt>pk</tt>, <tt>attest</tt>,
<tt>ext</tt> fields for the organisational record.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds the Identity Bootstrap procedure.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds IANA registration for <tt>_org-alter</tt> underscore-prefixed
label.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds version tag <tt>v=alter1</tt> (org-alter namespace) and registry
namespace and framework token registries.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds Examples for minimal, full, regulated (DISP), and
multi-regulator deployments.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds Implementation Status entry for the orgalter_discover
reference library.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>v01 <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> record specification is incorporated by
reference and remains unchanged.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-01 (April 2026):</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Adds Identity Field Theory grounding for <tt>epoch</tt> and <tt>scope</tt>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Refines security considerations for identity assurance decay.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Refines privacy considerations for scope as a privacy boundary.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds Coexistence section with SEP-1959, AID, A2A.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Adds Implementation Status section.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>draft-morrison-mcp-dns-discovery-00 (April 2026):</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Initial submission.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Defines <tt>_mcp.&lt;domain&gt;</tt> TXT record format with ABNF grammar.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Defines discovery procedure with HTTPS fallback.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Defines <tt>pk</tt>, <tt>epoch</tt>, <tt>attest</tt>, <tt>scope</tt>, <tt>cap</tt>, <tt>priority</tt>,
<tt>ttl</tt>, and <tt>ext</tt> fields.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Registers <tt>_mcp</tt> in the underscored DNS node name registry.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="contributors" numbered="false" toc="include" removeInRFC="false">
      <name>Contributors</name>
      <contact fullname="Christopher Whiteside">
        <organization/>
        <address>
          <email>cwhiteside.engineering@gmail.com</email>
        </address>
      </contact>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
