draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-03.txt		draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-04.txt
	INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd		INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
	Obsoletes RFC 2929 Motorola Laboratories		Obsoletes RFC 2929 Motorola Laboratories
	Updates RFCs 1183 and 3597		Updates RFCs 1183 and 3597
			Expires: May 2007 November 2006
	Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations		Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
	------ ---- ------ ----- -------------------		------ ---- ------ ----- -------------------
	<draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-03.txt>		<draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-04.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
	skipping to change at page 1, line 41		skipping to change at page 1, line 43
	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
	considerations are specified for the allocation of Domain Name System		considerations are specified for the allocation of Domain Name System
	(DNS) Classes, RR Types, operation codes, error codes, RR header		(DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes,
	bits, and AFSDB subtypes.		DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	Status of This Document....................................1		Status of This Document....................................1
	Abstract...................................................1		Abstract...................................................1
	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 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................7
	3.1.1 DNS TYPE Allocation Policy...........................8		3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy.........................8
	3.1.2 Expert Review DNS TYPE Expert Review Template........8		3.1.2 Expert Review DNS RRTYPE Expert Review Template......8
	3.1.3 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines.........................9		3.1.3 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines.........................9
	3.1.4 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................10		3.1.4 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................10
	3.1.5 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................10		3.1.5 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................10
	3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................10		3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................11
	3.3 RR NAME Considerations................................12		3.3 Label Considerations..................................12
	4. Security Considerations................................12		3.3.1 Label Types.........................................12
			3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................13
	Additional IPR Provisions.................................14		4. Security Considerations................................13
			5. IANA Considerations....................................13
	Appendix: Changes from RFC 2929...........................15		Additional IPR Provisions.................................15
	Copyright.................................................16		Copyright.................................................16
	Normative References......................................16		Normative References......................................16
	Informative References....................................17		Informative References....................................17
	Author's Address..........................................19		Author's Address..........................................19
	Expiration and File Name..................................19		Expiration and File Name..................................19
	Disclaimer................................................19		Disclaimer................................................19
	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 store "resource records" (RRs) under
	(RRs) under domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and		domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones which
	zones which can be independently maintained. See [RFC 1034, 1035,		can be independently maintained. See [RFC1034], [RFC1035],
	2136, 2181, 4033] familiarity with which is assumed.		[RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] familiarity with which is
			assumed.
	This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general		This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general
	IANA parameter assignment considerations applying across DNS query		IANA parameter assignment considerations applying across DNS query
	and 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 RRTYPE or
	query/response opcode. See the specific RFC defining that RR type or		query/response opcode. See the specific RFC defining that RRTYPE 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",
	and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC 2434].		and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC 2434].
	2. DNS Query/Response Headers		2. DNS Query/Response Headers
	The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the		The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the
	following diagram taken from [RFC 2136, 2929]:		following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC2929]:
	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
	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+		+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
	| ID |		| ID |
	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+		+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
	|QR| Opcode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE |		|QR| Opcode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE |
	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+		+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
	| QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT |		| QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT |
	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+		+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
	skipping to change at page 5, line 10		skipping to change at page 5, line 10
	6-15 available for assignment		6-15 available for assignment
	New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified		New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified
	by [RFC 4020].		by [RFC 4020].
	2.3 RCODE Assignment		2.3 RCODE Assignment
	It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of		It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of
	RCODE, or response/error code are available. However, RCODEs can		RCODE, or response/error code are available. However, RCODEs can
	appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside		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].		OPT RRs [RFC2671], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930]. The
	The OPT RR provides an eight bit extension resulting in a 12 bit		OPT RR provides an eight bit extension resulting in a 12 bit RCODE
	RCODE field and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16 bit RCODE field.		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		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		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		error code 16 which has a different meaning in the OPT RR from its
	meaning in other contexts. See table below.		meaning in other contexts. See table below.
	RCODE Name Description Reference		RCODE Name Description Reference
	Decimal		Decimal
	Hexadecimal		Hexadecimal
	0 NoError No Error [RFC 1035]		0 NoError No Error [RFC 1035]
	skipping to change at page 5, line 41		skipping to change at page 5, line 41
	9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC 2136]		9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC 2136]
	10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC 2136]		10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC 2136]
	11 - 15 Available for assignment		11 - 15 Available for assignment
	16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC 2671]		16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC 2671]
	16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC 2845]		16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC 2845]
	17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC 2845]		17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC 2845]
	18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC 2845]		18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC 2845]
	19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC 2930]		19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC 2930]
	20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC 2930]		20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC 2930]
	21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC 2930]		21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC 2930]
	22 BADTRUC Bad Truncation [TSIG-SHA]		22 BADTRUC Bad Truncation [RFC4635]
	23 - 3,840		23 - 3,840
	0x0017 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment		0x0017 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment
	3,841 - 4,095		3,841 - 4,095
	0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Private Use		0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Private Use
	4,096 - 65,534		4,096 - 65,534
	0x1000 - 0xFFFE Available for assignment		0x1000 - 0xFFFE Available for assignment
	65,535		65,535
	0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by an IETF		0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by an IETF
	Standards Action.		Standards Action.
	Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability,		Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability,
	assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment"		assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment"
	requires an IETF Consensus.		requires an IETF Consensus.
	3. DNS Resource Records		3. DNS Resource Records
	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 [RFC1035].
	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 |
	skipping to change at page 6, line 38		skipping to change at page 6, line 38
	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+		+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
	| RDLENGTH |		| RDLENGTH |
	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--|		+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
	/ RDATA /		/ RDATA /
	/ /		/ /
	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+		+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
	NAME is an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this		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		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 [RFC1035], [RFC2671].
	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, for		TTL is a four octet (32 bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for
	data TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be		data TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be
	cached before the source of the information should again be		cached before the source of the information should again be
	consulted. Zero is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used		consulted. Zero is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used
	for the transaction 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 Meta-TYPEs.
	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
	a 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 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and
	assigned from 255 downwards except for the OPT Meta-RR which is		Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downwards except for the OPT
	assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS implementations which made		Meta-RR which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS
	caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the RR		implementations which made caching decisions based on the top bit of
	TYPE.		the bottom byte of the RRTYPE.
	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].		[RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs
			assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR.
	There are currently five QTYPEs assigned: * (all), MAILA, MAILB,		RRTYPEs have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the
	AXFR, and IXFR.		mnemonics used for CLASSes and which must match the following regular
			expression:
			[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*
	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 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG RR
	2931, 4034] and in other circumstances and must never be		[RFC2931], [RFC4034] and in other circumstances and must never
	allocated for ordinary use.		be allocated for ordinary use.
	1 - 127		1 - 127
	0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining TYPEs in this range are assigned for data		0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
	TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in		data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE 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 RRTYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q
	Meta TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation Policy as specified in		and Meta TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
	section 3.1.1.		specified in section 3.1.1.
	256 - 32,767		256 - 61,439
	0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned for data TYPEs by the DNS TYPE Allocation		0x0100 - 0xEFFF - assigned for data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE
	Policy as specified in section 3.1.1.		Allocation Policy as specified in section 3.1.1.
	32,768 - 65,279		61,440 - 65,279
	0x8000 - 0xFEFF - assigned for Q or Meta TYPEs by the DNS TYPE		0xF000 - 0xFEFF - reserved for future use. IETF Consensus required to
	Allocation Policy as specified in section 3.1.1..		define use.
	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.
	3.1.1 DNS TYPE Allocation Policy		3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy
	Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above as assigned based on		Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above as assigned based on
	DNS TYPE Allocation Policy are allocated by Expert Review if they		DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy are allocated by Expert Review if they
	meet the two requirements listed below. Some guidelines for the		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		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		requirements, are allocated by IETF Standards Action as modified by
	[RFC 4020].		[RFC 4020].
	1. A complete template as specified in Section 3.1.2 has been posted		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		for three weeks to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list
	before the Expert Review decision.		before the Expert Review decision.
	Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted		Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted
	for comment.		for comment. IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved
			templates.
	2. The RR for which a TYPE code is being requested is either (a) a		2. The RR for which a RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a) a
	data TYPE which can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in		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.,		[RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type who processing is optional, i.e.,
	which it is safe to simply discard.		which it is safe to simply discard.
	Note that such RRs may include additional section processing		Note that such RRs may include additional section processing
	provided such processing is optional.		provided such processing is optional.
	3.1.2 Expert Review DNS TYPE Expert Review Template		3.1.2 Expert Review DNS RRTYPE Expert Review Template
	DNS RR TYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE		DNS RR TYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE
	Date:		Date:
	Name, email, and telephone number of originator:		Name, email, and telephone number of originator:
	Pointer to internet-draft or other public document giving a		Provide a pointer to internet-draft or other public document
	detailed description of the protocol use of the new RR Type:		giving a detailed description of the protocol use of the new
			RRTYPE, or, alternatively, append detailed documentation to
			this template:
	What need is the new RR TYPE intended to satisfy?		What need is the new RR TYPE intended to satisfy?
	What existing RR TYPE or TYPEs come closest to filling that		What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
	need and why are they unsatisfactory?		need and why are they unsatisfactory?
			What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
			Does the requested RRTYPE make us of any existing IANA Registry
			or require the creation of a new IANA Registry and if so what
			is that registry or registries?
	Does the proposed RR TYPE require special handling within the		Does the proposed RR TYPE require special handling within the
	DNS different from an Unknown RR TYPE or ignorable meta-TYPE?		DNS different from an Unknown RRTYPE or ignorable Meta-TYPE?
	Comments:		Comments:
	3.1.3 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines		3.1.3 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines
	The designed DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of		The designed DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of
	the proposed RRTYPE which may occur on the namedroppers mailing list		the proposed RRTYPE which may occur on the namedroppers mailing list
	and to consult with other experts as necessary. The Expert should		and to consult with other experts as necessary. The Expert should
	reject any RRTYPE allocation request which meets the following		normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request which meets one or more
	criterion:		of the following criterion:
	1. Did not have a complete template as specified above posted to the		1. Did not have a complete template as specified above posted to the
	namedroppers mailing list for at least three weeks.		namedroppers mailing list for at least three weeks.
	2. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to		2. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to
	evaluate or ensure interoperability.		evaluate or ensure interoperability.
	3. The RRTYPE value is needed for a DNS extension, but the extension		3. The intended use of the proposed RRTYPE would cause problems with
	is not consistent with the documented (or generally understood)		existing DNS deployments or the DNS infrastructure.
	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		4. The requested RRTYPE would conflict with one under development
	within the IETF and the existence of more than one such type would		within the IETF and the existence of more than one such type would
	harm interoperability.		harm interoperability.
	6. An existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs appear to adequately meet the		5. An existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs appear to adequately meet the
	purpose of the RR for which an RRTYPE value or values are		purpose of the RR for which a RRTYPE value or values are
	requested.		requested.
	7. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the		6. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the
	purpose could be met with a smaller number.		purpose could be met with a smaller number.
	8. The request appears to be for an RRTYPE value that would not		7. The request appears to be for a RRTYPE value that would not
	genuinely be used in the DNS or whose use would be insignificant		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		or whose near term use would be better met by a value from the
	range reserved for Private Use.		range reserved for Private Use.
	3.1.4 Special Note on the OPT RR		3.1.4 Special Note on the OPT RR
	The OPT (OPTion) RR, number 41, is specified in [RFC 2671]. Its		The OPT (OPTion) RR, RRTYPE 41, and its IANA Considerations are
	primary purpose is to extend the effective field size of various DNS		specified in [RFC2671]. Its primary purpose is to extend the
	fields including RCODE, label type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA		effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label
	size. In particular, for resolvers and servers that recognize it, it		type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size. In particular, for
	extends the RCODE field from 4 to 12 bits.		resolvers and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field
			from 4 to 12 bits.
	3.1.5 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field		3.1.5 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
	skipping to change at page 10, line 43		skipping to change at page 11, line 7
	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 currentlty two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal data		There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal data
	containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries		containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries
	or updates.		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 data		relationship between the name space or root servers for one data
	CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same name can have		CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have
	completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types		completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types
	are the same and the null label is usable only as root in every		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		CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or
	Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use.		Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use.
	As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would		As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would
	be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular		be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular
	DNS message and which might be usable in queries. However, it is		DNS message and which might be usable in queries. However, it is
	possible that their might be a future requirement for one or more		possible that their might be a future requirement for one or more
	"meta-CLASSes".		"meta-CLASSes".
			CLASSes have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the
			mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and which must match the following regular
			expression:
			[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*
	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.
	1		1
	skipping to change at page 11, line 45		skipping to change at page 12, line 10
	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 and meta-CLASSes only.		QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only.
	254		254
	0x00FE - QCLASS None [RFC 2136].		0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136].
	255		255
	0x00FF - QCLASS Any [RFC 1035].		0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035].
	256 - 32,767		256 - 32,767
	0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Consensus.		0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Consensus.
	32,768 - 57,343		32,768 - 57,343
	0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only based on		0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only based on
	Specification Required as defined in [RFC 2434].		Specification Required as defined in [RFC 2434].
	57,344 - 65,279		57,344 - 65,279
	0xE000 - 0XFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only based		0xE000 - 0XFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only based
	on Specification Required as defined in [RFC 2434].		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 Label Considerations
	DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC 1035]. The last label in each		DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035].
	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.		3.3.1 Label Types
	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.
	types are sometimes referred to as Text and Binary. Text labels can,
	in fact, include any octet value including zero value octets but many		The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text
	current uses involve only [US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are		and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value
	defined to treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching		including zero value octets but many current uses involve only [US-
	[RFC 4343]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC 2673]. The Binary		ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII upper
	label type is Experimental [RFC 3363].		and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343]. Binary labels are
			bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary label type is Experimental
			[RFC3363].
	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		3.3.2 Label Contents and Use
	1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use. The IN or Internet
			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.
			NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos
			[Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially 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 [RFC1591]. Some information on reserved top level domain
	domain names is in BCP 32 [RFC 2606].		names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606].
	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 [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and
	secure DNS considerations.		[RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations.
			5. IANA Considerations
			This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations and
			includes the following changes from its predecessor [RFC2929]. It
			affect the registry currently at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-
			parameters and its subregistries.
			1. In the Domain Name System "Resource record (RR) TYPES and QTYPEs"
			resgistry, it changes most "IETF Consensus" and all "Specification
			Required" allocation policies for RRTYPEs to be "DNS TYPE
			Allocation Policy" and changes the policy for RRTYPE 0xFFFF to be
			"IETF Standards Action". It also speciies the "DNS TYPE
			Allocation Policy" which is based on Expert Review with additional
			provisions and restrictions, including the posting of a template,
			in most cases and requires "IETF Standards Action as modfiied by
			[RFC4020]" in other cases. See Section 3.1 for details. IANA
			shall archive and make available all approved RRTYPE allocation
			templates.
			2. For Opcodes (see Section 2.2), it changes "IETF Standards Action"
			allocation requirements to say "as modified by [RFC4020]".
			3. It changes the allocation status of RCODE 0xFFFF to be IETF
			Standards Action required. See Section 2.3.
			4. It adds an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field
			which requires the creation of a new registry. See Section 3.1.5.
			5. It splits Specification Required CLASSes into data CLASSes and
			query or meta CLASSes. See Section 3.2.
	Additional IPR Provisions		Additional IPR Provisions
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any		The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to		Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
	pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in		pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
	this document or the extent to which any license under such rights		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		might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
	made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information		made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
	on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be		on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
	skipping to change at page 15, line 5		skipping to change at page 16, line 5
	such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this		such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
	specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at		specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
	http://www.ietf.org/ipr.		http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
	The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any		The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
	copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary		copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
	rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement		rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
	this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-		this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
	ipr@ietf.org.		ipr@ietf.org.
	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.
	Copyright		Copyright
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2006. This document is subject to		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006). This document is subject to the
	the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except		rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
	as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.		set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
	Normative References		Normative References
	[RFC 1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and		[RFC 1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and
	Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.		Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
	[RFC 1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and		[RFC 1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
	Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.		Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
	[RFC 1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P.		[RFC 1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P.
	skipping to change at page 17, line 22		skipping to change at page 17, line 22
	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.
	[RFC 4044] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.		[RFC4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
	Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC		Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC
	4035, March 2005.		4035, March 2005.
	[TSIG-SHA] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "HMAC SHA TSIG Algorithm Identifiers",		[RFC4635] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication
	draft-ietf-dnsext-tsgi-sha-06.txt. RFC EDITOR NOTE: This draft is in		Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers".
	the RFC Editor Queue, please replace references with the RFC number
	when it is assigned.
	[US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange",		[US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange",
	X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968.		X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968.
	Informative References		Informative References
	[Dyer 1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena		[Dyer1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical
	Technical Plan - Name Service, April 1987,		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		[RFC 2606] - Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
	Names", RFC 2606, June 1999.		Names", RFC 2606, June 1999.
	skipping to change at page 19, line 17		skipping to change at page 19, line 17
	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 December 2006.		This draft expires May 2007.
	Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-03.txt.		Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-04.txt.
	Disclaimer		Disclaimer
	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, THE IETF TRUST AND
	ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,		THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
	INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE		OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
	INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED		THE 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.
End of changes. 59 change blocks.
	147 lines changed or deleted		169 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/