[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 3597

INTERNET-DRAFT                                       Andreas Gustafsson
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-06.txt                       Nominum Inc.
                                                              June 2003

Updates: RFC 1034, RFC 2163, RFC 2535



             Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record Types


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

   Extending the Domain Name System with new Resource Record (RR) types
   currently requires changes to name server software.  This document
   specifies the changes necessary to allow future DNS implementations
   to handle new RR types transparently.

1. Introduction

   The DNS is designed to be extensible to support new services through
   the introduction of new resource record (RR) types.  In practice,
   deploying a new RR type currently requires changes to the name server
   software not only at the authoritative DNS server that is providing
   the new information and the client making use of it, but also at all
   slave servers for the zone containing it, and in some cases also at
   caching name servers and forwarders used by the client.



Expires December 2003                                           [Page 1]

draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-06.txt                           June 2003


   Because the deployment of new server software is slow and expensive,
   the potential of the DNS in supporting new services has never been
   fully realized.  This memo proposes changes to name servers and to
   procedures for defining new RR types aimed at simplifying the future
   deployment of new RR types.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].

2. Definition

   An "RR of unknown type" is an RR whose RDATA format is not known to
   the DNS implementation at hand, such that it cannot be converted to a
   type-specific text format, compressed, or otherwise handled in a
   type-specific way, and whose type is not an assigned QTYPE or Meta-
   TYPE in RFC2929 section 3.1 nor within the range reserved in that
   section for assignment only to QTYPEs and Meta-TYPEs.

   In the case of a type whose RDATA format is class specific, an RR is
   considered to be of unknown type when the RDATA format for that
   combination of type and class is not known.

3. Transparency

   To enable new RR types to be deployed without server changes, name
   servers and resolvers MUST handle RRs of unknown type transparently.
   That is, they must treat the RDATA section of such RRs as
   unstructured binary data, storing and transmitting it without change
   [RFC1123].

   To ensure the correct operation of equality comparison (section 6)
   and of the DNSSEC canonical form (section 7) when an RR type is known
   to some but not all of the servers involved, servers MUST also
   exactly preserve the RDATA of RRs of known type, except for changes
   due to compression or decompression where allowed by section 4 of
   this memo.  In particular, the character case of domain names that
   are not subject to compression MUST be preserved.

4. Domain Name Compression

   RRs containing compression pointers in the RDATA part cannot be
   treated transparently, as the compression pointers are only
   meaningful within the context of a DNS message.  Transparently
   copying the RDATA into a new DNS message would cause the compression
   pointers to point at the corresponding location in the new message,
   which now contains unrelated data.  This would cause the compressed
   name to be corrupted.



Expires December 2003                                           [Page 2]

draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-06.txt                           June 2003


   To avoid such corruption, servers MUST NOT compress domain names
   embedded in the RDATA of types that are class-specific or not well-
   known.  This requirement was stated in RFC1123 without defining the
   term "well-known"; it is hereby specified that only the RR types
   defined in RFC1035 are to be considered "well-known".

   The specifications of a few existing RR types have explicitly allowed
   compression contrary to this specification: RFC2163 specified that
   compression applies to the PX RR, and RFC2535 allowed compression in
   SIG RRs and NXT RRs records.  Since this specification disallows
   compression in these cases, it is an update to RFC2163 (section 4)
   and RFC2535 (sections 4.1.7 and 5.2).

   Receiving servers MUST decompress domain names in RRs of well-known
   type, and SHOULD also decompress RRs of type RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX,
   NXT, NAPTR, and SRV (although the current specification of the SRV RR
   in RFC2782 prohibits compression, RFC2052 mandated it, and some
   servers following that earlier specification are still in use).

   Future specifications for new RR types that contain domain names
   within their RDATA MUST NOT allow the use of name compression for
   those names, and SHOULD explicitly state that the embedded domain
   names MUST NOT be compressed.

   As noted in RFC1123, the owner name of an RR is always eligible for
   compression.

5. Text Representation

   In the "type" field of a master file line, an unknown RR type is
   represented by the word "TYPE" immediately followed by the decimal RR
   type number, with no intervening whitespace.  In the "class" field,
   an unknown class is similarly represented as the word "CLASS"
   immediately followed by the decimal class number.

   This convention allows types and classes to be distinguished from
   each other and from TTL values, allowing the "[<TTL>] [<class>]
   <type> <RDATA>" and "[<class>] [<TTL>] <type> <RDATA>" forms of
   RFC1035 to both be unambiguously parsed.

   The RDATA section of an RR of unknown type is represented as a
   sequence of white space separated words as follows:

      The special token \# (a backslash immediately
      followed by a hash sign), which identifies the
      RDATA as having the generic encoding defined
      herein rather than a traditional type-specific
      encoding.



Expires December 2003                                           [Page 3]

draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-06.txt                           June 2003


      An unsigned decimal integer specifying the
      RDATA length in octets.

      Zero or more words of hexadecimal data encoding
      the actual RDATA field, each containing an even
      number of hexadecimal digits.

   If the RDATA is of zero length, the text representation contains only
   the \# token and the single zero representing the length.

   An implementation MAY also choose to represent some RRs of known type
   using the above generic representations for the type, class and/or
   RDATA, which carries the benefit of making the resulting master file
   portable to servers where these types are unknown.  Using the generic
   representation for the RDATA of an RR of known type can also be
   useful in the case of an RR type where the text format varies
   depending on a version, protocol, or similar field (or several)
   embedded in the RDATA when such a field has a value for which no text
   format is known, e.g., a LOC RR [RFC1876] with a VERSION other than
   0.

   Even though an RR of known type represented in the \# format is
   effectively treated as an unknown type for the purpose of parsing the
   RDATA text representation, all further processing by the server MUST
   treat it as a known type and take into account any applicable type-
   specific rules regarding compression, canonicalization, etc.

   The following are examples of RRs represented in this manner,
   illustrating various combinations of generic and type-specific
   encodings for the different fields of the master file format:

     a.example.   CLASS32     TYPE731         \# 6 abcd (
                                              ef 01 23 45 )
     b.example.   HS          TYPE62347       \# 0
     e.example.   IN          A               \# 4 0A000001
     e.example.   CLASS1      TYPE1           10.0.0.2

6. Equality Comparison

   Certain DNS protocols, notably Dynamic Update [RFC2136], require RRs
   to be compared for equality.  Two RRs of the same unknown type are
   considered equal when their RDATA is bitwise equal.  To ensure that
   the outcome of the comparison is identical whether the RR is known to
   the server or not, specifications for new RR types MUST NOT specify
   type-specific comparison rules.

   This implies that embedded domain names, being included in the
   overall bitwise comparison, are compared in a case-sensitive manner.



Expires December 2003                                           [Page 4]

draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-06.txt                           June 2003


   As a result, when a new RR type contains one or more embedded domain
   names, it is possible to have multiple RRs owned by the same name
   that differ only in the character case of the embedded domain
   name(s).  This is similar to the existing possibility of multiple TXT
   records differing only in character case, and not expected to cause
   any problems in practice.

7. DNSSEC Canonical Form and Ordering

   DNSSEC defines a canonical form and ordering for RRs [RFC2535,
   section 8.1].  In that canonical form, domain names embedded in the
   RDATA are converted to lower case.

   The downcasing is necessary to ensure the correctness of DNSSEC
   signatures when case distinctions in domain names are lost due to
   compression, but since it requires knowledge of the presence and
   position of embedded domain names, it cannot be applied to unknown
   types.

   To ensure continued consistency of the canonical form of RR types
   where compression is allowed, and for continued interoperability with
   existing implementations that already implement the RFC2535 canonical
   form and apply it to their known RR types, the canonical form remains
   unchanged for all RR types whose whose initial publication as an RFC
   was prior to the initial publication of this specification as an RFC
   (RFC TBD).

   As a courtesy to implementors, it is hereby noted that the complete
   set of such previously published RR types that contain embedded
   domain names, and whose DNSSEC canonical form therefore involves
   downcasing according to the DNS rules for character comparisons,
   consists of the RR types NS, MD, MF, CNAME, SOA, MB, MG, MR, PTR,
   HINFO, MINFO, MX, HINFO, RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX, NXT, NAPTR, KX, SRV,
   DNAME, and A6.

   This document specifies that for all other RR types (whether treated
   as unknown types or treated as known types according to an RR type
   definition RFC more recent than than RFC TBD), the canonical form is
   such that no downcasing of embedded domain names takes place, and
   otherwise identical to the canonical form specified in RFC2535
   section 8.1.

   Note that the owner name is always set to lower case according to the
   DNS rules for character comparisons, regardless of the RR type.

   The DNSSEC canonical RR ordering is as specified in RFC2535 section 
   8.3, where the octet sequence is the canonical form as revised by
   this specification.



Expires December 2003                                           [Page 5]

draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-06.txt                           June 2003


8. Additional Section Processing

   Unknown RR types cause no additional section processing.  Future RR
   type specifications MAY specify type-specific additional section
   processing rules, but any such processing MUST be optional as it can
   only be performed by servers for which the RR type in case is known.

9. IANA Considerations

   This document does not require any IANA actions.

10. Security Considerations

   This specification is not believed to cause any new security
   problems, nor to solve any existing ones.

Normative References

   [RFC1034] - Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities, P. Mockapetris,
   November 1987.

   [RFC1035] - Domain Names - Implementation and Specifications, P.
   Mockapetris, November 1987.

   [RFC1123] - Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and
   Support, R. Braden, Editor, October 1989.

   [RFC2119] - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,
   S. Bradner, BCP 14, March 1997.

   [RFC2535] - Domain Name System Security Extensions. D. Eastlake,
   March 1999.

   [RFC2613] - Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER Conformant
   Global Address Mapping (MCGAM), C. Allocchio, January 1998.

   [RFC2929] - Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations, D.
   Eastlake, E. Brunner-Williams, B. Manning, September 2000.

Non-normative References

   [RFC1876] - A Means for Expressing Location Information in the Domain
   Name System, C. Davis, P. Vixie, T. Goodwin, I. Dickinson, January
   1996.

   [RFC2052] - A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS
   SRV), A. Gulbrandsen, P. Vixie, October 1996.  Obsoleted by RFC2782.




Expires December 2003                                           [Page 6]

draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-06.txt                           June 2003


   [RFC2136] - Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE),
   P. Vixie, Ed., S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound, April 1997.

   [RFC2782] - A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS
   SRV),  A. Gulbrandsen, P. Vixie, L. Esibov, February 2000.

Author's Address

   Andreas Gustafsson
   Nominum Inc.
   2385 Bay Rd
   Redwood City, CA 94063
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 381 6004

   Email: gson@nominum.com


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001 - 2003).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and
   distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
   provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

Intellectual Property Statement



Expires December 2003                                           [Page 7]

draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-06.txt                           June 2003


   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain
   to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
   document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or
   might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any
   effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the IETF's
   procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary
   rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained
   from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.
































Expires December 2003                                           [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/