dnsop J. Dickinson
Internet-Draft Sinodun IT
Updates: 1035 (if approved) May 13, 2019
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 14, 2019

Depreciating the DNS Status OpCode


This document updates RFC1035 to depreciate the Status DNS OpCode.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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."

This Internet-Draft will expire on November 14, 2019.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The Status OpCode was given the value of 2 in [RFC1035]. However, no RFC defines what it means or how it should be used. This document makes the Status OpCode obsolete.

2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. Implementation Status

To the author's knowledge there is no implementation of the Status OpCode. A quick test shows inconsistent responses to a Status request with different DNS server implementations returning NotImp, Refused or giving no response at all.

4. Depreciating the Status OpCode

The Status OpCode MUST be marked OBSOLETE.

The correct response to the Status OpCode MUST be NotImp.

5. Security Considerations


6. IANA Considerations

This documents updates the IANA registry "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters OpCode registry" [DNS-IANA].

OpCode Name Reference
2 Status (OBSOLETE) This Document

7. Acknowledgments

Thanks to Mark Andrews, Matt Pounsett, Roy Arends and all the people at IETF 104 that I asked if they knew of any usage of this OpCode. Also thanks to Shane Kerr for reminding me to write this document.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017.

8.2. Informative References

[DNS-IANA] IANA, "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters OpCode registry"

Author's Address

John Dickinson Sinodun IT Magdalen Centre Oxford Science Park Oxford, OX4 4GA EMail: jad@sinodun.com