draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt   draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-07.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Obsoletes RFC 2929 Motorola Laboratories Obsoletes: RFC 2929 Eastlake Enterprises
Updates RFCs 1183 and 3597 Updates: RFCs 1183 and 3597
Expires: February 2008 August 2007 Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: January 12, 2009 July 13, 2008
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
------ ---- ------ ----- -------------------
<draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt> <draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-07.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
the new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 2929. Comments should be sent to the new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 2929. Comments should be sent to the DNS
DNS Working Group mailing list <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>. Extensions 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 as "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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
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) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes, (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes,
DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record 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
1. Introduction............................................3 1. Introduction............................................3
2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................3 1.1 Terminology............................................3
2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................4
2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4 2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4
2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................4 2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................5
2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5 2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5
3. DNS Resource Records....................................6
3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................7
3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy.........................8
3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines.........................9
3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR...........................9
3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field...........................9
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................10
3.3 Label Considerations..................................12
3.3.1 Label Types.........................................12
3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................12
4. Security Considerations................................12
5. IANA Considerations....................................13
Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template.......................14 3. DNS Resource Records....................................7
3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................8
3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy.........................9
3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines........................10
3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................10
3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................10
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................11
3.3 Label Considerations..................................13
3.3.1 Label Types.........................................13
3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................13
Additional IPR Provisions.................................16 4. Security Considerations................................14
Copyright.................................................16 5. IANA Considerations....................................14
Normative References......................................17 Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template.......................16
Informative References....................................18
Author's Address..........................................19 Additional IPR Provisions.................................18
Expiration and File Name..................................19 Copyright.................................................18
Disclaimer................................................19 Normative References......................................19
Informative References....................................20
Author's Address..........................................21
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 store "resource records" (RRs) under hierarchical databases which store "resource records" (RRs) under
domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones which domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones which can
can be independently maintained. See [RFC1034], [RFC1035], be independently maintained. See [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2136],
[RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] familiarity with which is [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] familiarity with which is assumed.
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 RRTYPE or considerations that apply to only a particular RRTYPE or
query/response opcode. See the specific RFC defining that RRTYPE 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 [RFC1183] which are defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC1183] which are
included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC2929]. included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC2929].
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", 1.1 Terminology
and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC2434].
"IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and
"Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226].
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 [RFC2136] and [RFC2929]: 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 |
skipping to change at page 4, line 10 skipping to change at page 4, line 34
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so
they can be matched. they can be matched.
The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response. The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response.
The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful
only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. However, only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. However,
some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value some 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
use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define a
a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous given existing 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 integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count The unsigned integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count
(ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information (ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information
count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all
opcodes except Update [RFC2136]. These fields have the same opcodes except Update [RFC2136]. These fields have the same structure
structure and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the zone
zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional
additional information (ARCOUNT) sections. information (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
implementations ignore this bit. ignore this bit.
Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires an IETF Standards Action. Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires an IETF Standards Action.
2.2 Opcode Assignment 2.2 Opcode Assignment
Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows: Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows:
OpCode Name Reference OpCode Name Reference
0 Query [RFC1035] 0 Query [RFC1035]
skipping to change at page 5, line 11 skipping to change at page 5, line 31
New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified
by [RFC4020]. by [RFC4020].
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 [RFC2671], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930]. The OPT RRs [RFC2671], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930]. The
OPT RR provides an eight bit extension resulting in a 12 bit RCODE OPT RR provides an eight-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE
field and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16 bit RCODE field. 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 [RFC1035] 0 NoError No Error [RFC1035]
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 43
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 Review.
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 [RFC1035]. 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 /
/ / / /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
skipping to change at page 6, line 52 skipping to change at page 7, line 48
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) 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 RRTYPE IANA Considerations 3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations
There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs, There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs,
and Meta-TYPEs. and Meta-TYPEs.
Data TYPEs are the means of storing data. QTYPES can only be used in Data TYPEs are the means of storing data. QTYPES can only be used in
queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a
particular DNS message and in some cases can also be used in queries. particular DNS message and in some cases can also be used in queries.
Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upwards plus the block Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward plus the block
from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and Meta-TYPEs from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and Meta-TYPEs
have been assigned from 255 downwards except for the OPT Meta-RR have been assigned from 255 downwards except for the OPT Meta-RR
which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS implementations which which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS implementations which
made caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the made caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the
RRTYPE. RRTYPE.
There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671], TSIG There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671], TSIG
[RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs [RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs
assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR. assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR.
skipping to change at page 8, line 11 skipping to change at page 8, line 51
0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for 0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE 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 RRTYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q 0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining RRTYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q
and Meta TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as and Meta TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
specified in section 3.1.1. specified in section 3.1.1.
256 - 61,439 256 - 61,439
0x0100 - 0xEFFF - assigned for data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE 0x0100 - 0xEFFF - remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
Allocation Policy as specified in section 3.1.1. data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified
in section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and 0x8001) have
been assigned.)
61,440 - 65,279 61,440 - 65,279
0xF000 - 0xFEFF - reserved for future use. IETF Consensus required to 0xF000 - 0xFEFF - reserved for future use. IETF Review required to
define use. 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 RRTYPE 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 RRTYPE 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. There will be a pool of a meet the two requirements listed below. There will be a pool of a
small number of Experts appointed by the IESG. Each application will small number of Experts appointed by the IESG. Each application will
be ruled on by an Expert selected by IANA. In any case where the be ruled on by an Expert selected by IANA. In any case where the
selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of
interest, IANA may selected another Expert from the pool. interest, IANA may select another Expert from the pool.
Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2. RRTYPEs Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2. RRTYPEs
that do not meet the requirements below, may nonetheless be allocated that do not meet the requirements below, may nonetheless be allocated
by IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]. by IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020].
1. A complete template as specified in Annex A has been posted for 1. A complete template as specified in Annex A has been posted for
three weeks to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list before three weeks to the TBD2@TBD mailing list before the Expert Review
the Expert Review decision. decision.
Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted
directly by the applicant for comment and discussion but the directly by the applicant for comment and discussion but the
formal posting to start the three week period is made by IANA. formal posting to start the three week period is made by the
Expert.
2. The RR for which a RRTYPE 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
[RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type who processing is optional, i.e., [RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type whose processing is optional, i.e.,
which it is safe to simply discard. it is safe to simply discard RRs with that Meta-Type in queries or
responses.
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.
No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
template has been formally posted to TBD2@TBD, the selected Expert
shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the
application, to IANA, TBD2@TBD, and the email address provided by
the applicant. If the Expert does not post such a message, the
application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted to
IANA.
IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates. IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates.
3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines 3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines
The selected DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of The selected 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 TBD2@TBD2 mailing list and
and may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The Expert may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The Expert
should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request which meets one should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request which meets one
or more of the following criterion: or more of the following criterion:
1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to 1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to
evaluate or implement. evaluate or implement.
2. Proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not meet 2. Proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not meet
the criteria in point 2 in Section 3.1.1 above. the criteria in point 2 in Section 3.1.1 above.
3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete. 3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete.
skipping to change at page 9, line 35 skipping to change at page 10, line 37
5. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the 5. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the
purpose could be met with a smaller number or with Private Use purpose could be met with a smaller number or with Private Use
values. values.
3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR 3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR
The OPT (OPTion) RR, RRTYPE 41, and its IANA Considerations are The OPT (OPTion) RR, RRTYPE 41, and its IANA Considerations are
specified in [RFC2671]. Its primary purpose is to extend the specified in [RFC2671]. Its primary purpose is to extend the
effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label
type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size. In particular, for type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size. In particular, for resolvers
resolvers and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field from 4 to
from 4 to 12 bits. 12 bits.
3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field 3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field
The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] is a CLASS insensitive RR that has the same The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] 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 12 skipping to change at page 11, line 18
0 0
0x0000 - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action. 0x0000 - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action.
1 1
0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183]. 0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183].
2 2
0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183]. 0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183].
3 - 65,279 3 - 65,279
0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Consensus. 0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Review.
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 currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data
skipping to change at page 10, line 38 skipping to change at page 11, line 44
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 DNS 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 there might be a future requirement for one or more
"meta-CLASSes". "meta-CLASSes".
CLASSes have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the CLASSes have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the
mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and which must match the following regular mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and which must match the following regular
expression: expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]* [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 15 skipping to change at page 12, line 17
Decimal Decimal
Hexadecimal Hexadecimal
0 0
0x0000 - Reserved, assignment requires an IETF Standards Action. 0x0000 - Reserved, assignment requires an IETF Standards Action.
1 1
0x0001 - Internet (IN). 0x0001 - Internet (IN).
2 2
0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Consensus as a data CLASS. 0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Review as a data CLASS.
3 3
0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981]. 0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981].
4 4
0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987]. 0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987].
5 - 127 5 - 127
0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for data 0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Review 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 Review for
QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only. QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only.
254 254
0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136]. 0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136].
255 255
0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035]. 0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035].
256 - 32,767 256 - 32,767
0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Consensus. 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Review.
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 [RFC2434]. Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226].
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 [RFC2434]. on Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226].
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 Label Considerations 3.3 Label Considerations
DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035]. DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035].
skipping to change at page 13, line 16 skipping to change at page 14, line 22
This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations and This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations and
includes the following changes from its predecessor [RFC2929]. It includes the following changes from its predecessor [RFC2929]. It
affects the registry currently at affects the registry currently at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters and its subregistries. http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters and its subregistries.
1. In the Domain Name System "Resource record (RR) TYPES and QTYPEs" 1. In the Domain Name System "Resource record (RR) TYPES and QTYPEs"
registry, it changes most "IETF Consensus" and all "Specification registry, it changes most "IETF Consensus" and all "Specification
Required" allocation policies for RRTYPEs to be "DNS TYPE Required" allocation policies for RRTYPEs to be "DNS TYPE
Allocation Policy" and changes the policy for RRTYPE 0xFFFF to be Allocation Policy" and changes the policy for RRTYPE 0xFFFF to be
"IETF Standards Action". It also specifies the "DNS TYPE "IETF Standards Action". Remaining instances of "IETF Consensus"
Allocation Policy" which is based on Expert Review with additional are changed to "IETF Review" per [RFC5226]. It also specifies the
provisions and restrictions, including the sending of a completed "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy" which is based on Expert Review with
copy of the template in Annex A to <TBD@iana.org>, in most cases, additional provisions and restrictions, including the submittal of
and requires "IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]" in a completed copy of the template in Annex A to TBD1@TBD, in most
other cases. IANA shall establish a process for accepting such cases, and requires "IETF Standards Action as modified by
templates, posting them to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing [RFC4020]" in other cases.
list, selecting one of such Experts as have been appointed to
review such template form applications, and archive and make IANA shall establish a process for accepting such templates,
available all approved RRTYPE allocation templates. See Section selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template
3.1 and Annex A for more details. form applications, and archive and make available all approved
RRTYPE allocation templates. It is the duty of the selected Expert
to post the formal application template to the TBD2@TBD mailing
list. See Section 3.1 and Annex A for more details.
< Note to IANA/IESG/RFC Editor: An email address for the formal
submission of RR Type allocation templates and a email address
for the discussion of RR Type allocations will be decided and
the mailing lists created. All occurrences of TBD1@TBD in this
document will be replaced by the formal submission email
address. All occurrences of TBD2@TBD in this document will be
replaced by the discussion email address. This note is to be
deleted before publication. >
2. For Opcodes (see Section 2.2), it changes "IETF Standards Action" 2. For Opcodes (see Section 2.2), it changes "IETF Standards Action"
allocation requirements to add "as modified by [RFC4020]". allocation requirements to add "as modified by [RFC4020]".
3. It changes the allocation status of RCODE 0xFFFF to be IETF 3. It changes the allocation status of RCODE 0xFFFF to be IETF
Standards Action required. See Section 2.3. Standards Action required. See Section 2.3.
4. It adds an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field 4. It adds an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field
which requires the creation of a new registry. See Section 3.1.4. which requires the creation of a new registry. See Section 3.1.4.
5. It splits Specification Required CLASSes into data CLASSes and 5. It splits Specification Required CLASSes into data CLASSes and
query or meta CLASSes. See Section 3.2. query or meta CLASSes. See Section 3.2.
Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template
DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE
This template is to be submitted to IANA for processing by emailing When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted
the template to <TDB>@iana.org. to IANA for processing by emailing the template to TBD1@TBD.
A. Submission Date: A. Submission Date:
B. Contact Information for submitter: B. Submission Type:
[ ] New RRTYPE
[ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
C. Contact Information for submitter:
Name: Name:
Email Address: Email Address:
International telephone number: International telephone number:
Other contact handles: Other contact handles:
(Note: This information will be publicly posted)
C. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application? D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?
Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and
reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Remember most reviewers reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Remember most reviewers
will be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your will be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your
application space. application space.
D. Description of the proposed RR type. This description can be E. Description of the proposed RR type.
provided in-line in the template, as an attachment or with a This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an
publicly available URL: attachment or with a publicly available URL:
E. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
need and why are they unsatisfactory? need and why are they unsatisfactory?
F. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)? G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
Note: this can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the Note: this can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the
template is accepted. template is accepted.
G. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
Registry or require the creation of a new IANA Registry and if Registry or require the creation of a new IANA Sub-registry and
so what is that registry or registries? in DNS Parameters?
If a new registry is needed, specify allocation policy for it If so, please indicate which registry is to be used or created.
and initial contents. If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy
for it and initial contents. Also include what the modification
procedures will be.
H. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being
processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])? processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?
I. Comments:
J. Comments:
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 16, line 31 skipping to change at page 18, line 31
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.
Copyright Copyright
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
Normative References Normative References
[RFC1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and [RFC1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and
Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
skipping to change at page 17, line 23 skipping to change at page 19, line 23
[RFC1996] - Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone [RFC1996] - Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996. Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996.
[RFC2136] - Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound, [RFC2136] - Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136,
April 1997. April 1997.
[RFC2181] - Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS [RFC2181] - Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.
[RFC2434] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[RFC2671] - Vixie, P., "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC [RFC2671] - Vixie, P., "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
2671, August 1999. 2671, August 1999.
[RFC2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B. [RFC2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B.
Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)",
RFC 2845, May 2000. RFC 2845, May 2000.
[RFC2930] - Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY [RFC2930] - Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
RR)", September 2000. RR)", September 2000.
skipping to change at page 18, line 9 skipping to change at page 20, line 6
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034,
March 2005. March 2005.
[RFC4035] - 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.
[RFC4635] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication [RFC4635] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication
Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers". Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers".
[RFC5226] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
[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
[Dyer1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical [Dyer1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical
Plan - Name Service, April 1987, Plan - Name Service, April 1987,
[Moon1981] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts [Moon1981] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June
skipping to change at page 19, line 8 skipping to change at page 21, line 8
[RFC3363] - Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. [RFC3363] - 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.
[RFC4343] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case [RFC4343] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, December 2005. Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, December 2005.
Author's Address Author's Address
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Motorola Laboratories Eastlake Enterprises
155 Beaver Street 155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA Milford, MA 01757 USA
Telephone: +1-508-786-7554 (w) Telephone: +1-508-634-2066 (h)
email: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Expiration and File Name Expiration and File Name
This draft expires February 2008. This draft expires January 2009.
Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06.txt. Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-07.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, THE IETF TRUST AND OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE 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. 60 change blocks. 
116 lines changed or deleted 145 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/