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

Versions: (draft-eastlake-dnsext-2929bis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5395

INTERNET-DRAFT                                    Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Obsoletes RFC 2929, Updates RFC 1183               Motorola Laboratories
Expires: January 2006                                          July 2005



              Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
              ------ ---- ------ ----- ---- --------------
                   <draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-00.txt>



Status of This Document

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Distribution of this draft is unlimited.  It is intended to become
   the new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 2929.  Comments should be sent to the
   DNS Working Group mailing list <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>.

   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 a "work in progress."

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

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



Abstract

   Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment
   considerations are given for the allocation of Domain Name System
   (DNS) classes, RR types, operation codes, error codes, RR header
   bits, and AFSDB subtypes.








D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


Table of Contents

           Status of This Document....................................1
           Abstract...................................................1

           Table of Contents..........................................2

           1. Introduction............................................3
           1.1 The DNS Special Allocation Policy......................3
           2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................4
           2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................5
           2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................5
           2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5
           3. DNS Resource Records....................................6
           3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations............................8
           3.1.1 Special Note on the OPT RR...........................9
           3.1.2 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field...........................9
           3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations...........................9
           3.3 RR NAME Considerations................................11
           4. Security Considerations................................11
           Appendix A: DNS Special Allocation Template...............12

           Appendix B: Changes from RFC 2929.........................13

           Copyright and Disclaimer..................................14
           Normative References......................................14
           Informative References....................................15

           Author's Address..........................................17
           Expiration and File Name..................................17






















D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


1. Introduction

   The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure
   hierarchical databases which hierarchically store "resource records"
   (RRs) under domain names.  DNS data is structured into CLASSes and
   zones which can be independently maintained.  See [RFC 1034, 1035,
   2136, 2181, 4033] familiarity with which is assumed.

   This document provides, either directly or by reference, general IANA
   parameter assignment considerations applying across DNS query and
   response headers and all RRs.  There may be additional IANA
   considerations that apply to only a particular RR type or
   query/response opcode.  See the specific RFC defining that RR type or
   query/response opcode for such considerations if they have been
   defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC 1183] which are
   included herein. This RFC replaces [RFC 2929].

   IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters.  See
   <http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm>.

   "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Consensus", "Specification Required",
   and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC 2434].



1.1 The DNS Special Allocation Policy

   Many DNS parameters are allocated by IANA based on the DNS special
   policy. This policy authorizes IANA allocation base on meeting any of
   the following three criteria:

   1. An IETF Standards Action.

   2. Approval as an Experimental Protocol.

   3. As provided in [RFC 4020] for Early Allocation except that the
   criteria in Section 2 of [RFC 4020] are completely replaced by the
   following criteria:

   3.a: The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
        handling the protocol entities defined by the code points (the
        "specifications") are adequately described in an Internet draft
        that is intended to become Standards Track or Experimental.

   3.b: The Template provided in Appendix A has been completed and
        posted to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list no more
        than three months before the allocation action. In addition, if
        the Template is new or incorporates any changes from a previously
        posted template for the same allocation, at least two weeks must
        elapse after the template is posted before the allocation action.


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


   3.c: There is sufficient interest in and need for early (pre-RFC)
        implementation and deployment in the community as determined by
        either

        3.c.i: working group consensus and approval by the working group
             Area Director, or

        3.c.ii: for a non-working-group draft, approval by two Area
             Directors.



     2. DNS Query/Response Headers

        The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in
        the following diagram taken from [RFC 2136, 2929]:

                                                   1  1  1  1  1  1
                     0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  0  1  2  3  4  5
                    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
                    |                      ID                       |
                    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
                    |QR|   Opcode  |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD|   RCODE   |
                    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
                    |                QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT                |
                    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
                    |                ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT                |
                    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
                    |                NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT                |
                    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
                    |                    ARCOUNT                    |
                    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

        The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response
        so they can be matched.

        The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a
        response.

        The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically
        meaningful only in queries or only in responses, depending on
        the bit.  However, many DNS implementations copy the query
        header as the initial value of the response header without
        clearing bits.  Thus any attempt to use a "query" bit with a
        different meaning in a response or to define a query meaning for
        a "response" bit is dangerous given existing implementation.
        Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.

        The unsigned fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count
        (ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


        count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section
        for all opcodes except Update.  These fields have the same
        structure and data type for Update but are instead the counts
        for the zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update
        (UPCOUNT), and additional information (ARCOUNT) sections.



     2.1 One Spare Bit?

        There have been ancient DNS implementations for which the Z bit
        being on in a query meant that only a response from the primary
        server for a zone is acceptable.  It is believed that current
        DNS implementations ignore this bit.

        Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires an IETF Standards
        Action.



     2.2 Opcode Assignment

        Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows:

               OpCode Name                      Reference

                0     Query                     [RFC 1035]
                1     IQuery  (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC 3425]
                2     Status                    [RFC 1035]
                3     available for assignment
                4     Notify                    [RFC 1996]
                5     Update                    [RFC 2136]
               6-15   available for assignment

        New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action modified
        by [RFC 4020].



     2.3 RCODE Assignment

        It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of
        RCODE, or response/error code are available.  However, RCODEs
        can appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also
        inside OPT RRs [RFC 2671], TSIG RRs [RFC 2845], and TKEY RRs
        [RFC 2930].  The OPT RR provides an eight bit extension
        resulting in a 12 bit RCODE field and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have
        a 16 bit RCODE field.

        Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


        types all refer to the same error code space with the single
        exception of error code 16 which has a different meaning in the
        OPT RR from its meaning in other contexts.  See table below.

             RCODE   Name    Description                        Reference
             Decimal
               Hexadecimal
              0    NoError   No Error                           [RFC 1035]
              1    FormErr   Format Error                       [RFC 1035]
              2    ServFail  Server Failure                     [RFC 1035]
              3    NXDomain  Non-Existent Domain                [RFC 1035]
              4    NotImp    Not Implemented                    [RFC 1035]
              5    Refused   Query Refused                      [RFC 1035]
              6    YXDomain  Name Exists when it should not     [RFC 2136]
              7    YXRRSet   RR Set Exists when it should not   [RFC 2136]
              8    NXRRSet   RR Set that should exist does not  [RFC 2136]
              9    NotAuth   Server Not Authoritative for zone  [RFC 2136]
             10    NotZone   Name not contained in zone         [RFC 2136]
             11 - 15         Available for assignment
             16    BADVERS   Bad OPT Version                    [RFC 2671]
             16    BADSIG    TSIG Signature Failure             [RFC 2845]
             17    BADKEY    Key not recognized                 [RFC 2845]
             18    BADTIME   Signature out of time window       [RFC 2845]
             19    BADMODE   Bad TKEY Mode                      [RPC 2930]
             20    BADNAME   Duplicate key name                 [RPF 2930]
             21    BADALG    Algorithm not supported            [RPF 2930]
             22 - 3,840      Available for assignment
               0x0016 - 0x0F00
             3,841 - 4,095   Private Use
               0x0F01 - 0x0FFF
             4,096 - 5,7343  Available for assignment
               0x1000 - 0xDFFF
             57,344 - 65,534 Specification Required
               0xE000 - 0xFFFE
             65,535          Reserved
               0xFFFF

        Assignment of new RCODE listed above as "Available for
        assignment" requires an IETF Standards Action modified by [RFC
        4020]. Assignment of RCODE 65,535 requires an IETF Standards
        Action.



     3. DNS Resource Records

        All RRs have the same top level format shown in the figure below
        taken from [RFC 1035]:




D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


                                            1  1  1  1  1  1
              0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  0  1  2  3  4  5
            +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
            |                                               |
            /                                               /
            /                      NAME                     /
            |                                               |
            +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
            |                      TYPE                     |
            +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
            |                     CLASS                     |
            +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
            |                      TTL                      |
            |                                               |
            +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
            |                   RDLENGTH                    |
            +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
            /                     RDATA                     /
            /                                               /
            +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

        NAME is an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this
        resource record pertains.  NAMEs are specific to a CLASS as
        described in section 3.2.  NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence
        of one or more labels each of which has a label type [RFC 1035,
        2671].

        TYPE is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR
        TYPE codes.  See section 3.1.

        CLASS is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR
        CLASS codes.  See section 3.2.

        TTL is a four octet (32 bit) bit unsigned integer that specifies
        the number of seconds that the resource record may be cached
        before the source of the information should again be consulted.
        Zero is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the
        transaction in progress.

        RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16 bit integer that specifies the length
        in octets of the RDATA field.

        RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the
        resource. The format of this information varies according to the
        TYPE and in some cases the CLASS of the resource record.







D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


     3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations

        There are three subcategories of RR TYPE numbers: data TYPEs,
        QTYPEs, and MetaTYPEs.

        Data TYPEs are the primary means of storing data.  QTYPES can
        only be used in queries.  Meta-TYPEs designate transient data
        associated with an particular DNS message and in some cases can
        also be used in queries.  Thus far, data TYPEs have been
        assigned from 1 upwards plus the block from 100 through 103
        while Q and Meta Types have been assigned from 255 downwards
        except for the OPT Meta-RR which is assigned TYPE 41.  There
        have been DNS implementations which made caching decisions based
        on the top bit of the bottom byte of the RR TYPE.

        There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC 2671],
        TSIG [RFC 2845], and TKEY [RFC 2930].

        There are currently five QTYPEs assigned: * (all), MAILA, MAILB,
        AXFR, and IXFR.

        Considerations for the allocation of new RR TYPEs are as
        follows:

          Decimal
        Hexadecimal

          0
        0x0000 - TYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG RR
               [RFC 2535] and in other circumstances and must never be
               allocated for ordinary use.

          1 - 127
        0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining TYPEs in this range are assigned for
               data TYPEs by the DNS Special Allocation Policy.

          128 - 255
        0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining TYPEs in this rage are assigned for
               Q and Meta TYPEs by the DNS Special Allocation Policy.

          256 - 32,767
        0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned for data, Q, or Meta TYPE use by the
               DNS Special Allocation Policy.

          32,768 - 65,279
        0x8000 - 0xFEFF - Specification Required as defined in [RFC
               2434].

          65,280 - 65534
        0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


          65,535
        0xFFFF - can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.



     3.1.1 Special Note on the OPT RR

        The OPT (OPTion) RR, number 41, is specified in [RFC 2671].  Its
        primary purpose is to extend the effective field size of various
        DNS fields including RCODE, label type, OpCode, flag bits, and
        RDATA size.  In particular, for resolvers and servers that
        recognize it, it extends the RCODE field from 4 to 12 bits.



     3.1.2 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field

        The AFSDB RR [RFC 1183] is a CLASS insensitive RR that has the
        same RDATA field structure as the MX RR but the 16 bit unsigned
        integer field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a
        subtype as follows:

          Decimal
        Hexadecimal

          0
        0x0000 -  Allocation requires IETF Standards Action.

          1
        0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC 1183].

          2
        0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC 1183].

          3 - 65,279
        0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by the DNS Special Allocation
               Policy.

          65,280 - 65,534
        0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.

          65,535
        0xFFFF - Allocation requires IETF Standards Action.



     3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations

        DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another
        dimension of the DNS distributed database.  In particular, there


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


        is no necessary relationship between the name space or root
        servers for one CLASS and those for another CLASS.  The same
        name can have completely different meanings in different
        CLASSes; however, the label types are the same and the null
        label is usable only as root in every CLASS.  However, as global
        networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or Internet, CLASS has
        dominated DNS use.

        There are two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal data
        containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in
        queries or updates.

        The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future
        assignments are as follows:

          Decimal
        Hexadecimal

          0
        0x0000 - assignment requires an IETF Standards Action.

          1
        0x0001 - Internet (IN).

          2
        0x0002 - available for assignment by the DNS Special Allocation
               Policy as a data CLASS.

          3
        0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon 1981].

          4
        0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer 1987].

          5 - 127
        0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by the DNS Special
               Allocation Policy for data CLASSes only.

          128 - 253
        0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by the DNS Special
               Allocation Policy for QCLASSes only.

          254
        0x00FE - QCLASS None [RFC 2136].

          255
        0x00FF - QCLASS Any [RFC 1035].

          256 - 32,767
        0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned by the DNS Special Allocation Policy.


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


          32,768 - 65,279
        0x8000 - 0xFEFF - assigned based on Specification Required as
               defined in [RFC 2434].

          65,280 - 65,534
        0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.

          65,535
        0xFFFF - can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.



     3.3 RR NAME Considerations

        DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC 1035].  The last label in
        each NAME is "ROOT" which is the zero length label.  By
        definition, the null or ROOT label can not be used for any other
        NAME purpose.

        At the present time, there are two categories of label types,
        data labels and compression labels.  Compression labels are
        pointers to data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message
        and are intended to shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs.  The two
        existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text and
        Binary.  Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value
        including zero value octets but most current uses involve only
        [US-ASCII].  For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat
        ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching
        [insensitive].  Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC 2673]. The
        Binary label type is Experimental [RFC 3363].

        IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC 2671].

        NAMEs are local to a CLASS.  The Hesiod [Dyer 1987] and Chaos
        [Moon 1981] CLASSes are essentially for local use.  The IN or
        Internet CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the
        Internet at this time.

        A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN
        Class is given in [RFC 1591].  Some information on reserved top
        level domain names is in BCP 32 [RFC 2606].



     4. Security Considerations

        This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of
        general DNS parameters, not security.  See [RFC 4033, 4034,
        4035] for secure DNS considerations.



D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


     Appendix A: DNS Special Allocation Template

        A DNS Special Allocation Policy is specified in Section 1.1
        above as a modification to the Early Allocation Policy specified
        in [RFC 4020].  This DNS Special Allocation Policy is then
        applied to some DNS parameters as described elsewhere in this
        document. As essential element of this policy is the posting of
        the template below to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing
        list.

        Partially completed templates may be posted for the purpose of
        soliciting feedback and templates may be revised and reposted.
        It is intended that the working group chair determining
        consensus to request allocation or the principle author of the
        ID for non-WG IDs or their designate compose and post the
        template.

                DNS PARAMETER SPECIAL EARLY ALLOCATION TEMPLATE

        Origin Section

             Date:
             Name of Internet-Draft:
             Name and email of IETF WG or principal ID author:

        Authority Section

             Name and email of approving AD:

             For WG draft, name and email of WG chair who determined consensus:

             For non-WG draft, name and email of 2nd approving AD:


        Parameter Section

             Kind of Parameter (RR Type, CLASS, or AFSDB subtype):

             Suggested value:

             For an RR Type, please answer the following questions:
                  TBD

             For a CLASS, please answer the following questions:
                  TBD

             For an AFSDB subtype, please answer the following questions:
                  TBD

             Comments


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


     Appendix B: Changes from RFC 2929

        RFC Editor: This Appendix B should be deleted for publication.

        Changes from RFC 2929 to this draft:

        1. Changed many "IETF Consensus" and some "IETF Standards
        Action" allocation requirements changed to be "DNS Special
        Allocation Policy" and add the specification of that policy.
        Change most, but not all, remaining "IETF Standards Action"
        allocation requirements to say "as modified by [RFC 4020]".

        2. Updated various RFC references.

        3. Mentioned that the Binary label type is now Experimental and
        IQuery is Obsolete.

        4. Changed allocation status of RR Type 0xFFFF and RCODE 0xFFFF
        to be IETF Standards Action required.

        5. Change allocation status of the upper one eighth of the
        current RCODE space (except 0xFFFF) to be Specification
        Required.

        6. Add an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field.

        7. Addition of reference to case insensitive draft.

























D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


     Copyright and Disclaimer

        Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is
        subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in
        BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all
        their rights.


        This document and the information contained herein are provided
        on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
        REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND
        THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.



     Normative References

        [RFC 1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and
        Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

        [RFC 1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
        Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

        [RFC 1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P.
        Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990.

        [RFC 1996] - Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of
        Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996.

        [RFC 2136] - Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound,
        "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC
        2136, April 1997.

        [RFC 2181] - Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
        Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.

        [RFC 2434] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
        Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC
        2434, October 1998.

        [RFC 2671] - Vixie, P., "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
        RFC 2671, August 1999.

        [RFC 2673] - Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name
        System", RFC 2673, August 1999.



D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


        [RFC 2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B.
        Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS
        (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000.

        [RFC 2930] - Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS
        (TKEY RR)", September 2000.

        [RFC 3363] - Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O.,
        and T. Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
        Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August
        2002.

        [RFC 3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425,
        November 2002.

        [RFC 4020] - Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation
        of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February
        2005.

        [RFC 4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D.,
        and S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
        4033, March 2005.

        [RFC 4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D.,
        and S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
        RFC 4034, March 2005.

        [RFC 4044] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D.,
        and S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
        Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.

        [US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information
        Interchange", X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New
        York, 1968.



     Informative References

        [Dyer 1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena
        Technical Plan - Name Service, April 1987,

        [Moon 1981] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
        Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June
        1981.

        [RFC 1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and
        Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994.

        [RFC 2929] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B.


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


        Manning, "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42,
        RFC 2929, September 2000.

        [RFC 2606] - Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
        Names", RFC 2606, June 1999.

        [insensitive] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
        Insensitivity Clarification", draft-ietf-dnsext-
        insensitive-*.txt, work in progress.











































D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               July 2005


     Author's Address

        Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
        Motorola Laboratories
        155 Beaver Street
        Milford, MA 01757 USA

        Telephone:   +1-508-786-7554 (w)
        email:       Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com



     Expiration and File Name

        This draft expires January 2006.

        Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-00.txt.



































D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/