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/