draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-01.txt   draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-02.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Obsoletes RFC 2929, Updates RFC 1183 Motorola Laboratories Obsoletes RFC 2929 Motorola Laboratories
Expires: February 2006 August 2005 Updates RFCs 1183 and 3597
Expires: September 2006 March 2006
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
------ ---- ------ ----- ---- -------------- ------ ---- ------ ----- -------------------
<draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-01.txt> <draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-02.txt>
Status of This Document Status of This Document
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Distribution of this draft is unlimited. It is intended to become Distribution of this draft is unlimited. It is intended to become
the new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 2929. Comments should be sent to the the new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 2929. Comments should be sent to the
DNS Working Group mailing list <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>. DNS Working Group mailing list <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than a "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Abstract Abstract
Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
Table of Contents..........................................2 Table of Contents..........................................2
1. Introduction............................................3 1. Introduction............................................3
2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................3 2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................3
2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4 2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4
2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................4 2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................4
2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5 2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5
3. DNS Resource Records....................................6 3. DNS Resource Records....................................6
3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations............................7 3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations............................7
3.1.1 DNS TYPE Allocation Policy...........................8 3.1.1 DNS TYPE Allocation Policy...........................8
3.1.2 Special Note on the OPT RR...........................9 3.1.2 Expert Review DNS TYPE Expert Review Template........8
3.1.3 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field...........................9 3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR...........................9
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations...........................9 3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field...........................9
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................10
3.3 RR NAME Considerations................................11 3.3 RR NAME Considerations................................11
4. Security Considerations................................11 4. Security Considerations................................12
Appendix: Changes from RFC 2929...........................12 Additional IPR Provisions.................................13
Copyright and Disclaimer..................................13 Appendix: Changes from RFC 2929...........................14
Normative References......................................13
Informative References....................................14
Authors Addresses.........................................16 Copyright and Disclaimer..................................15
Expiration and File Name..................................16 Normative References......................................15
Informative References....................................16
Author's Address..........................................18
Expiration and File Name..................................18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure
hierarchical databases which hierarchically store "resource records" hierarchical databases which hierarchically store "resource records"
(RRs) under domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and (RRs) under domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and
zones which can be independently maintained. See [RFC 1034, 1035, zones which can be independently maintained. See [RFC 1034, 1035,
2136, 2181, 4033] familiarity with which is assumed. 2136, 2181, 4033] familiarity with which is assumed.
This document provides, either directly or by reference, general IANA This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general
parameter assignment considerations applying across DNS query and IANA parameter assignment considerations applying across DNS query
response headers and all RRs. There may be additional IANA and response headers and all RRs. There may be additional IANA
considerations that apply to only a particular RR type or 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. See the specific RFC defining that RR type or
query/response opcode for such considerations if they have been query/response opcode for such considerations if they have been
defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC 1183] which are defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC 1183] which are
included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC 2929]. included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC 2929].
IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters. See IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters. See
<http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm>. <http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm>.
"IETF Standards Action", "IETF Consensus", "Specification Required", "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Consensus", "Specification Required",
skipping to change at page 4, line 17 skipping to change at page 4, line 17
many DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value many DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value
of the response header without clearing bits. Thus any attempt to 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 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 a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous given existing
implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF
Standards Action. Standards Action.
The unsigned fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count (ANCOUNT), The unsigned fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count (ANCOUNT),
authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information count (ARCOUNT) authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information count (ARCOUNT)
express the number of records in each section for all opcodes except express the number of records in each section for all opcodes except
Update. These fields have the same structure and data type for Update [RFC 2136]. These fields have the same structure and data
Update but are instead the counts for the zone (ZOCOUNT), type for Update but are instead the counts for the zone (ZOCOUNT),
prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional information prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional information
(ARCOUNT) sections. (ARCOUNT) sections.
2.1 One Spare Bit? 2.1 One Spare Bit?
There have been ancient DNS implementations for which the Z bit being 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 on in a query meant that only a response from the primary server for
a zone is acceptable. It is believed that current DNS a zone is acceptable. It is believed that current DNS
implementations ignore this bit. implementations ignore this bit.
skipping to change at page 6, line 20 skipping to change at page 6, line 20
All RRs have the same top level format shown in the figure below All RRs have the same top level format shown in the figure below
taken from [RFC 1035]: taken from [RFC 1035]:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | | |
/ / / /
/ NAME / / NAME /
| | / /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TYPE | | TYPE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| CLASS | | CLASS |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TTL | | TTL |
| | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| RDLENGTH | | RDLENGTH |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
skipping to change at page 6, line 46 skipping to change at page 6, line 46
resource record pertains. NAMEs are specific to a CLASS as described 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 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]. labels each of which has a label type [RFC 1035, 2671].
TYPE is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR TYPE TYPE is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR TYPE
codes. See section 3.1. codes. See section 3.1.
CLASS is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS CLASS is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS
codes. See section 3.2. codes. See section 3.2.
TTL is a four octet (32 bit) bit unsigned integer that specifies the TTL is a four octet (32 bit) bit unsigned integer that specifies, for
number of seconds that the resource record may be cached before the data TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be
source of the information should again be consulted. Zero is cached before the source of the information should again be
interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the transaction consulted. Zero is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used
in progress. for the transaction in progress.
RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16 bit integer that specifies the length in RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16 bit integer that specifies the length in
octets of the RDATA field. octets of the RDATA field.
RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the
resource. The format of this information varies according to the TYPE resource. The format of this information varies according to the TYPE
and in some cases the CLASS of the resource record. and in some cases the CLASS of the resource record.
3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations 3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations
There are three subcategories of RR TYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs, There are three subcategories of RR TYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs,
and MetaTYPEs. and MetaTYPEs.
Data TYPEs are the primary means of storing data. QTYPES can only be Data TYPEs are the primary means of storing data. QTYPES can only be
used in queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with used in queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with
an particular DNS message and in some cases can also be used in 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 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 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 from 255 downwards except for the OPT Meta-RR which is
assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS implementations which made assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS implementations which made
caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the RR caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the RR
TYPE. TYPE.
There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC 2671], TSIG There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC 2671], TSIG
[RFC 2845], and TKEY [RFC 2930]. [RFC 2845], and TKEY [RFC 2930].
There are currently five QTYPEs assigned: * (all), MAILA, MAILB, There are currently five QTYPEs assigned: * (all), MAILA, MAILB,
AXFR, and IXFR. AXFR, and IXFR.
Considerations for the allocation of new RR TYPEs are as follows: Considerations for the allocation of new RR TYPEs are as follows:
Decimal Decimal
Hexadecimal Hexadecimal
0 0
0x0000 - TYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG RR [RFC 0x0000 - TYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG RR [RFC
2535] and in other circumstances and must never be allocated 2931, 4034] and in other circumstances and must never be
for ordinary use. allocated for ordinary use.
1 - 127 1 - 127
0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining TYPEs in this range are assigned for data 0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining TYPEs in this range are assigned for data
TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in
section 3.1.1. section 3.1.1.
128 - 255 128 - 255
0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining TYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q and 0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining TYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q and
Meta TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in Meta TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in
section 3.1.1. section 3.1.1.
256 - 32,767 256 - 32,767
0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned for data, Q, or Meta TYPE use by the DNS 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned for data TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation
TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in section 3.1.1. Policy as specified in section 3.1.1.
32,768 - 65,279 32,768 - 65,279
0x8000 - 0xFEFF - Specification Required as defined in [RFC 2434]. 0x8000 - 0xFEFF - assigned for Q or Meta TYPEs by the DNS TYPE
Allocation Policy as specified in section 3.1.1..
65,280 - 65534 65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65,535 65,535
0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action. 0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.
3.1.1 DNS TYPE Allocation Policy 3.1.1 DNS TYPE Allocation Policy
Parameter values specified above as assigned based on DNS TYPE Parameter values specified above as assigned based on DNS TYPE
Allocation Policy. That is, Expert Review with the additional Allocation Policy are allocated by Expert Review if they meet the two
requirement that the review be based on a complete template as requirements listed below. If they do not meet these requirements,
specified below which has been posted for three weeks to the they are allocated by IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC
namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list. 4020].
Partial or draft templates may be posted with the intend of A complete template as specified in Section 3.1.2 has been posted for
soliciting feedback. three weeks to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list before
the Expert Review.
Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted
for comment.
2. The RR for which a TYPE code is being requested must be 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 DNS RR TYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE
Date: Date:
Name and email of originator: Name, email, and telephone number of originator:
Pointer to internet-draft or other document giving a detailed Pointer to internet-draft or other public document giving a
description of the protocol use of the new RR Type: detailed description of the protocol use of the new RR Type:
What need is the new RR TYPE intended to fix? What need is the new RR TYPE intended to satisfy?
What existing RR TYPE(s) come closest to filling that need and why are What existing RR TYPE(s) come closest to filling that need and
they unsatisfactory? why are they unsatisfactory?
Does the proposed RR TYPR require special handling within the DNS Does the proposed RR TYPE require special handling within the
different from an Unknown RR TYPE? DNS different from an Unknown RR TYPE?
Comments: Comments:
3.1.2 Special Note on the OPT RR 3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR
The OPT (OPTion) RR, number 41, is specified in [RFC 2671]. Its The OPT (OPTion) RR, number 41, is specified in [RFC 2671]. Its
primary purpose is to extend the effective field size of various DNS primary purpose is to extend the effective field size of various DNS
fields including RCODE, label type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA fields including RCODE, label type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA
size. In particular, for resolvers and servers that recognize it, it size. In particular, for resolvers and servers that recognize it, it
extends the RCODE field from 4 to 12 bits. extends the RCODE field from 4 to 12 bits.
3.1.3 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field 3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field
The AFSDB RR [RFC 1183] is a CLASS insensitive RR that has the same 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 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 field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a subtype as
follows: follows:
Decimal Decimal
Hexadecimal Hexadecimal
0 0
0x0000 - Allocation requires IETF Standards Action. 0x0000 - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action.
1 1
0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC 1183]. 0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC 1183].
2 2
0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC 1183]. 0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC 1183].
3 - 65,279 3 - 65,279
0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Consensus. 0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Consensus.
65,280 - 65,534 65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65,535 65,535
0xFFFF - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action. 0xFFFF - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action.
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations 3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations
There are 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 DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of
the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary
relationship between the name space or root servers for one CLASS and relationship between the name space or root servers for one data
those for another CLASS. The same name can have completely different CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same name can have
meanings in different CLASSes; however, the label types are the same completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types
and the null label is usable only as root in every CLASS. However, are the same and the null label is usable only as root in every
as global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or Internet, CLASS CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or
has dominated DNS use. Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use.
There are two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal data containing As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would
classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries or updates. 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 The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future
assignments are as follows: assignments are as follows:
Decimal Decimal
Hexadecimal Hexadecimal
0 0
0x0000 - Reserved, assignment requires an IETF Standards Action. 0x0000 - Reserved, assignment requires an IETF Standards Action.
skipping to change at page 10, line 35 skipping to change at page 10, line 52
4 4
0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer 1987]. 0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer 1987].
5 - 127 5 - 127
0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for data 0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for data
CLASSes only. CLASSes only.
128 - 253 128 - 253
0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for 0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for
QCLASSes only. QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only.
254 254
0x00FE - QCLASS None [RFC 2136]. 0x00FE - QCLASS None [RFC 2136].
255 255
0x00FF - QCLASS Any [RFC 1035]. 0x00FF - QCLASS Any [RFC 1035].
256 - 32,767 256 - 32,767
0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Consensus. 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Consensus.
32,768 - 65,279 32,768 - 57,343
0x8000 - 0xFEFF - Assigned based on Specification Required as defined 0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only based on
in [RFC 2434]. 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 65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65,535 65,535
0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action. 0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.
3.3 RR NAME Considerations 3.3 RR NAME Considerations
DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC 1035]. The last label in each 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 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. 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 At the present time, there are two categories of label types, data
labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to
data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended 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 shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs. The two existing data label
types are sometimes referred to as Text and Binary. Text labels can, types are sometimes referred to as Text and Binary. Text labels can,
in fact, include any octet value including zero value octets but most in fact, include any octet value including zero value octets but many
current uses involve only [US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are current uses involve only [US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are
defined to treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching defined to treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching
[insensitive]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC 2673]. The [RFC 4343]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC 2673]. The Binary
Binary label type is Experimental [RFC 3363]. label type is Experimental [RFC 3363].
IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC 2671]. IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC 2671].
NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer 1987] and Chaos [Moon NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer 1987] and Chaos [Moon
1981] CLASSes are essentially for local use. The IN or Internet 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 CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at
this time. this time.
A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class
is given in [RFC 1591]. Some information on reserved top level is given in [RFC 1591]. Some information on reserved top level
domain names is in BCP 32 [RFC 2606]. domain names is in BCP 32 [RFC 2606].
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of
general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC 4033, 4034, 4035] for general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC 4033, 4034, 4035] for
secure DNS considerations. secure DNS considerations.
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.
Appendix: Changes from RFC 2929 Appendix: Changes from RFC 2929
RFC Editor: This Appendix should be deleted for publication. RFC Editor: This Appendix should be deleted for publication.
Changes from RFC 2929 to this draft: Changes from RFC 2929 to this draft:
1. Changed many "IETF Consensus" for RR TYPEs to be "DNS TYPE 1. Changed most "IETF Consensus" and "Specification Required"
Allocation Policy" and add the specification of that policy. Change allocation policies for RR TYPEs to be "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy"
some remaining "IETF Standards Action" allocation requirements to say and add the specification of that policy. Change some remaining "IETF
"as modified by [RFC 4020]". Standards Action" allocation requirements to say "as modified by [RFC
4020]".
2. Updated various RFC references. 2. Updated numerous RFC references.
3. Mentioned that the Binary label type is now Experimental and 3. Mentioned that the Binary label type is now Experimental and
IQuery is Obsolete. IQuery is Obsolete.
4. Changed allocation status of RR Type 0xFFFF and RCODE 0xFFFF to be 4. Changed allocation status of RR TYPE 0xFFFF and RCODE 0xFFFF to be
IETF Standards Action required. IETF Standards Action required.
5. Add an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field. 5. Add an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field.
6. Addition of reference to case insensitive draft. 6. Addition of reference to case insensitive RFC [RFC 4343], Unknown
RRs RFC [RFC 3597], and SIG(0) RFC [RFC 2931].
7. Split Specification Required CLASSes into data CLASSes and query
or meta CLASSes.
Copyright and Disclaimer Copyright and Disclaimer
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to
the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except
as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
skipping to change at page 14, line 15 skipping to change at page 16, line 15
[RFC 2930] - Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY [RFC 2930] - Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
RR)", September 2000. RR)", September 2000.
[RFC 3363] - Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. [RFC 3363] - Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in
the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002. the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002.
[RFC 3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November [RFC 3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November
2002. 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 [RFC 4020] - Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005. Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005.
[RFC 4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC 4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March
2005. 2005.
[RFC 4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC 4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034,
March 2005. March 2005.
skipping to change at page 14, line 45 skipping to change at page 16, line 48
[Dyer 1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena [Dyer 1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena
Technical Plan - Name Service, April 1987, Technical Plan - Name Service, April 1987,
[Moon 1981] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts [Moon 1981] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June
1981. 1981.
[RFC 1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and [RFC 1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and
Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994. 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, [RFC 2929] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning,
"Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929, "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929,
September 2000. September 2000.
[RFC 2606] - Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS [RFC 2931] - Eastlake, E., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures (
Names", RFC 2606, June 1999. SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000.
[insensitive] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case [RFC 4343] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
Insensitivity Clarification", draft-ietf-dnsext-insensitive-*.txt, Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, December 2005.
work in progress.
Authors Addresses Author's Address
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Motorola Laboratories Motorola Laboratories
155 Beaver Street 155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA Milford, MA 01757 USA
Telephone: +1-508-786-7554 (w) Telephone: +1-508-786-7554 (w)
email: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com email: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
Expiration and File Name Expiration and File Name
This draft expires February 2006. This draft expires September 2006.
Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-01.txt. Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-02.txt.
 End of changes. 47 change blocks. 
80 lines changed or deleted 141 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.29, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/