[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                                 Motorola Laboratories
Updates RFCs 1183 and 3597
Expires: December 2006                                         June 2006



              Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
              ------ ---- ------ ----- -------------------
                   <draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-03.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 as "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 specified 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               June 2006


Table of Contents

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

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

      1. Introduction............................................3
      2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................3
      2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4
      2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................4
      2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5
      3. DNS Resource Records....................................6
      3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations............................7
      3.1.1 DNS TYPE Allocation Policy...........................8
      3.1.2 Expert Review DNS TYPE Expert Review Template........8
      3.1.3 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines.........................9
      3.1.4 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................10
      3.1.5 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................10
      3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................10
      3.3 RR NAME Considerations................................12
      4. Security Considerations................................12

      Additional IPR Provisions.................................14

      Appendix: Changes from RFC 2929...........................15

      Copyright.................................................16
      Normative References......................................16
      Informative References....................................17

      Author's Address..........................................19
      Expiration and File Name..................................19
      Disclaimer................................................19


















D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


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, the 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 obsoletes [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].



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.


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


   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,
   some 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 integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count
   (ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information
   count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all
   opcodes except Update [RFC 2136].  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 as modified
   by [RFC 4020].






D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


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 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                      [RFC 2930]
        20    BADNAME   Duplicate key name                 [RFC 2930]
        21    BADALG    Algorithm not supported            [RFC 2930]
        22    BADTRUC   Bad Truncation                     [TSIG-SHA]
        23 - 3,840
          0x0017 - 0x0F00   Available for assignment

        3,841 - 4,095
          0x0F01 - 0x0FFF   Private Use

        4,096 - 65,534
          0x1000 - 0xFFFE   Available for assignment

        65,535
          0xFFFF            Reserved, can only be allocated by an IETF
                            Standards Action.



D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


   Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability,
   assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment"
   requires an IETF Consensus.



3. DNS Resource Records

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

                                       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, for
   data TYPEs, 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


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


   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.



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
   a 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
          2931, 4034] 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 TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in
          section 3.1.1.

     128 - 255
   0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining TYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q and
          Meta TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in
          section 3.1.1.




D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


     256 - 32,767
   0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned for data TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation
          Policy as specified in section 3.1.1.

     32,768 - 65,279
   0x8000 - 0xFEFF - assigned for Q or Meta TYPEs by the DNS TYPE
          Allocation Policy as specified in section 3.1.1..

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

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



3.1.1 DNS TYPE Allocation Policy

   Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above as assigned based on
   DNS TYPE Allocation Policy are allocated by Expert Review if they
   meet the two requirements listed below. Some guidelines for the
   Expert are given in Section 3.1.3. RR TYPEs that do not meet these
   requirements, are allocated by IETF Standards Action as modified by
   [RFC 4020].

   1. A complete template as specified in Section 3.1.2 has been posted
      for three weeks to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list
      before the Expert Review decision.
         Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted
      for comment.

   2. The RR for which a TYPE code is being requested is either (a) a
      data TYPE which can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in
      [RFC 3597] or (b) a Meta TYPE who processing is optional, i.e.,
      which it is safe to simply discard.
         Note that such RRs may include additional section processing
      provided such processing is optional.



3.1.2 Expert Review DNS TYPE Expert Review Template

                 DNS RR TYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE

        Date:

        Name, email, and telephone number of originator:

        Pointer to internet-draft or other public document giving a
        detailed description of the protocol use of the new RR Type:


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


        What need is the new RR TYPE intended to satisfy?

        What existing RR TYPE or TYPEs come closest to filling that
        need and why are they unsatisfactory?

        Does the proposed RR TYPE require special handling within the
        DNS different from an Unknown RR TYPE or ignorable meta-TYPE?

        Comments:



3.1.3 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines

   The designed DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of
   the proposed RRTYPE which may occur on the namedroppers mailing list
   and to consult with other experts as necessary. The Expert should
   reject any RRTYPE allocation request which meets the following
   criterion:

   1. Did not have a complete template as specified above posted to the
      namedroppers mailing list for at least three weeks.

   2. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to
      evaluate or ensure interoperability.

   3. The RRTYPE value is needed for a DNS extension, but the extension
      is not consistent with the documented (or generally understood)
      architecture of the DNS protocol, and would be harmful to the DNS
      if widely deployed.

   4. The intended use of the proposed RRTYPE would cause problems with
      existing DNS deployments.

   5. The requested RRTYPE would conflict with one under development
      within the IETF and the existence of more than one such type would
      harm interoperability.

   6. An existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs appear to adequately meet the
      purpose of the RR for which an RRTYPE value or values are
      requested.

   7. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the
      purpose could be met with a smaller number.

   8. The request appears to be for an RRTYPE value that would not
      genuinely be used in the DNS or whose use would be insignificant
      or whose near term use would be better met by a value from the
      range reserved for Private Use.



D. Eastlake 3rd                                                 [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


3.1.4 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.



3.1.5 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 -  Reserved, 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 IETF Consensus.

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

     65,535
   0xFFFF - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action.



3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations

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

   DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of
   the DNS distributed database.  In particular, there is no necessary
   relationship between the name space or root servers for one data
   CLASS and those for another data CLASS.  The same name can have


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


   completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types
   are the same and the null label is usable only as root in every
   CLASS.  As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or
   Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use.

   As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would
   be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular
   DNS message and which might be usable in queries.  However, it is
   possible that their might be a future requirement for one or more
   "meta-CLASSes".

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

     Decimal
   Hexadecimal

     0
   0x0000 - Reserved, assignment requires an IETF Standards Action.

     1
   0x0001 - Internet (IN).

     2
   0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Consensus as a data CLASS.

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

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

     5 - 127
   0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for data
          CLASSes only.

     128 - 253
   0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for
          QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only.

     254
   0x00FE - QCLASS None [RFC 2136].

     255
   0x00FF - QCLASS Any [RFC 1035].

     256 - 32,767
   0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Consensus.




D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


     32,768 - 57,343
   0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only based on
          Specification Required as defined in [RFC 2434].

     57,344 - 65,279
   0xE000 - 0XFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only based
          on Specification Required as defined in [RFC 2434].

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

     65,535
   0xFFFF - Reserved, 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 many
   current uses involve only [US-ASCII].  For retrieval, Text labels are
   defined to treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching
   [RFC 4343].  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 for essentially 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


D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


   secure DNS considerations.



















































D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


Additional IPR Provisions

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.





























D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


Appendix: Changes from RFC 2929

   RFC Editor: This Appendix should be deleted for publication.

   Changes from RFC 2929 to this draft:

   1. Changed most "IETF Consensus" and "Specification Required"
   allocation policies for RR TYPEs to be "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy"
   and add the specification of that policy which is based on Expert
   Review with additional provisions and restrictions. Change some
   remaining "IETF Standards Action" allocation requirements to say "as
   modified by [RFC 4020]".

   2. Updated numerous 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. Add an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field.

   6. Addition of reference to case insensitive RFC [RFC 4343], Unknown
   RRs RFC [RFC 3597], SIG(0) RFC [RFC 2931], and TSIG SHA RFC [RSIG
   SHA].

   7. Add the BADTRUC code to the table of RCODEs.

   8. Split Specification Required CLASSes into data CLASSes and query
   or meta CLASSes.





















D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


Copyright

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2006.  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.




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.

   [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.



D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


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

   [RFC 3597] - Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
   (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.

   [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.

   [TSIG-SHA] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "HMAC SHA TSIG Algorithm Identifiers",
   draft-ietf-dnsext-tsgi-sha-06.txt. RFC EDITOR NOTE: This draft is in
   the RFC Editor Queue, please replace references with the RFC number
   when it is assigned.

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

   [RFC 2929] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning,
   "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929,
   September 2000.



D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 17]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


   [RFC 2931] - Eastlake, E., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures (
   SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000.

   [RFC 4343] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
   Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, December 2005.















































D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 18]


INTERNET-DRAFT           DNS IANA Considerations               June 2006


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 December 2006.

   Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-03.txt.



Disclaimer

   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.























D. Eastlake 3rd                                                [Page 19]


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