draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-07.txt   rfc5395.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Network Working Group D. Eastlake 3rd
Obsoletes: RFC 2929 Eastlake Enterprises Request for Comments: 5395 Eastlake Enterprises
Updates: RFCs 1183 and 3597 BCP: 42 November 2008
Intended status: Best Current Practice Obsoletes: 2929
Expires: January 12, 2009 July 13, 2008 Updates: 1183, 3597
Category: Best Current Practice
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
<draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-07.txt> Status of This Memo
Status of This Document
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
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
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Distribution of this draft is unlimited. It is intended to become the
new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 2929. Comments should be sent to the DNS
Extensions Working Group mailing list <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Copyright Notice
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Copyright (c) 2008 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt document authors. All rights reserved.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
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 1. Introduction ....................................................2
Abstract...................................................1 1.1. Terminology ................................................2
2. DNS Query/Response Headers ......................................3
1. Introduction............................................3 2.1. One Spare Bit? .............................................4
1.1 Terminology............................................3 2.2. OpCode Assignment ..........................................4
2.3. RCODE Assignment ...........................................4
2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................4 3. DNS Resource Records ............................................6
2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4 3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations .................................7
2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................5 3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy ........................8
2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5 3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines ........................9
3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR ..........................9
3. DNS Resource Records....................................7 3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field .........................10
3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................8 3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations ..............................10
3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy.........................9 3.3. Label Considerations ......................................12
3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines........................10 3.3.1. Label Types ........................................12
3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................10 3.3.2. Label Contents and Use .............................12
3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................10 4. Security Considerations ........................................13
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................11 5. IANA Considerations ............................................13
3.3 Label Considerations..................................13 Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template ............................14
3.3.1 Label Types.........................................13 Normative References ..............................................15
3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................13 Informative References ............................................16
4. Security Considerations................................14
5. IANA Considerations....................................14
Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template.......................16
Additional IPR Provisions.................................18
Copyright.................................................18
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 that store "resource records" (RRs) under
domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones which can domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones that can
be independently maintained. See [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2136], be independently maintained. See [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2136],
[RFC2181], and [RFC4033] familiarity with which is assumed. [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 that apply 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 available from
<http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm>. http://www.iana.org.
1.1 Terminology 1.1. Terminology
"IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and
"Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226]. "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 |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|QR| Opcode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE | |QR| OpCode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT | | QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT | | ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT | | NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ARCOUNT | | ARCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
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 use of the response header without clearing bits. Thus, any attempt to
a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define a use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define
query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous given existing a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing
implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF
Standards Action. Standards Action.
The unsigned 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 structure OpCodes except Update [RFC2136]. These fields have the same
and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the zone structure and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the
(ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and
information (ARCOUNT) sections. additional 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 implementations a zone is acceptable. It is believed that current DNS
ignore this bit. implementations 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]
1 IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC3425] 1 IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC3425]
2 Status [RFC1035] 2 Status [RFC1035]
3 available for assignment 3 available for assignment
4 Notify [RFC1996] 4 Notify [RFC1996]
5 Update [RFC2136] 5 Update [RFC2136]
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 [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 8-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field,
field and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit RCODE 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]
1 FormErr Format Error [RFC1035] 1 FormErr Format Error [RFC1035]
2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC1035] 2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC1035]
3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC1035] 3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC1035]
4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC1035] 4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC1035]
skipping to change at page 7, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
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 Review. 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 7, line 34 skipping to change at page 6, line 34
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| 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 [RFC1035], [RFC2671]. labels, each of which has a label type [RFC1035] [RFC2671].
TYPE is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE TYPE is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE
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 2-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 4-octet (32-bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for data
data TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be cached
cached before the source of the information should again be before the source of the information should again be consulted. Zero
consulted. Zero is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the
for the transaction in progress. 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
and in some cases the CLASS of the resource record. TYPE 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
Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward plus the block queries. Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward plus
from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and Meta-TYPEs the block from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and
have been assigned from 255 downwards except for the OPT Meta-RR Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward except for the OPT
which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS implementations which Meta-RR, which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS
made caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the implementations that made caching decisions based on the top bit of
RRTYPE. the bottom byte of the 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.
RRTYPEs have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the
mnemonics used for CLASSes and which must match the following regular mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the following regular
expression: expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]* [A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*
Considerations for the allocation of new RRTYPEs are as follows: Considerations for the allocation of new RRTYPEs are as follows:
Decimal Decimal
Hexadecimal Hexadecimal
0 0
0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG RR 0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG RR
[RFC2931], [RFC4034] and in other circumstances and must never [RFC2931] [RFC4034] and also in other circumstances; it must
be allocated for ordinary use. never be allocated for ordinary use.
1 - 127 1 - 127
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 range 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 - remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for 0x0100 - 0xEFFF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified
in section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and 0x8001) have in section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and 0x8001) have
been assigned.) been assigned.)
61,440 - 65,279 61,440 - 65,279
0xF000 - 0xFEFF - reserved for future use. IETF Review 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 select 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 Appendix A has been posted for
three weeks to the TBD2@TBD mailing list before the Expert Review three weeks to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list before
decision. the Expert Review 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 the formal posting to start the three week period is made by the
Expert. Expert.
2. The RR for which a RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a) a 2. The RR for which an RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a) a
data TYPE which can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in data TYPE that can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in
[RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type whose processing is optional, i.e., [RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type whose processing is optional, i.e.,
it is safe to simply discard RRs with that Meta-Type in queries or it is safe to simply discard RRs with that Meta-Type in queries or
responses. 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 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 template has been formally posted to namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, the
shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the selected Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or
application, to IANA, TBD2@TBD, and the email address provided by rejecting the application, to IANA, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, and
the applicant. If the Expert does not post such a message, the the email address provided by the applicant. If the Expert does not
application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted to post such a message, the application shall be considered rejected but
IANA. 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 TBD2@TBD2 mailing list and the proposed RRTYPE, which may occur on the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The Expert mailing list, and may consult with other technical experts as
should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request which meets one necessary. The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation
or more of the following criterion: request that meets one 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. The proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPE(s) affect DNS processing and do not
the criteria in point 2 in Section 3.1.1 above. meet the criteria in point 2 of Section 3.1.1 above.
3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete. 3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPE(s) is
(Additional documentation can be provided during the public incomplete. (Additional documentation can be provided during the
comment period or by the Expert.) public comment period or by the Expert.)
4. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about 4. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about
DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME etc. DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME, etc.
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 resolvers type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size. In particular, for
and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field from 4 to resolvers and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field
12 bits. from 4 to 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
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 Review. 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,
containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries data-containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in
or updates. queries or updates.
DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of
the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary
relationship between the name space or root servers for one 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, which might be usable in queries. However, it is
possible that there 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 that must be completely disjoint from the
mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and which must match the following regular mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that 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
0x0001 - Internet (IN). 0x0001 - Internet (IN).
2 2
0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Review 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 Review 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 Review 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 Review. 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 [RFC5226]. 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 [RFC5226]. 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].
3.3.1 Label Types 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. shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs.
The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text
and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value
including zero value octets but many current uses involve only [US- including zero-value octets, but many current uses involve only
ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII upper [US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII
and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343]. Binary labels are upper and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343]. Binary
bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary label type is Experimental labels are bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary label type is
[RFC3363]. Experimental [RFC3363].
IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC2671]. IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC2671].
3.3.2 Label Contents and Use 3.3.2. Label Contents and Use
The last label in each NAME is "ROOT" which is the zero length label. The last label in each NAME is "ROOT", which is the zero-length
By definition, the null or ROOT label cannot be used for any other label. By definition, the null or ROOT label cannot be used for any
NAME purpose. other NAME purpose.
NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos
[Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use. The IN or Internet [Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use. The IN, or
CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at Internet, CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the
this time. Internet at 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 [RFC1591]. Some information on reserved top level domain is given in [RFC1591]. Some information on reserved top-level domain
names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606]. 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 [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and
[RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations. [RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
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 DNS Parameters registry and its subregistries, which are
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters and its subregistries. available from http://www.iana.org.
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". Remaining instances of "IETF Consensus" "IETF Standards Action". Remaining instances of "IETF Consensus"
are changed to "IETF Review" per [RFC5226]. It also specifies the are changed to "IETF Review", per [RFC5226]. It also specifies
"DNS TYPE Allocation Policy" which is based on Expert Review with the "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy", which is based on Expert Review
additional provisions and restrictions, including the submittal of with additional provisions and restrictions, including the
a completed copy of the template in Annex A to TBD1@TBD, in most submittal of a completed copy of the template in Appendix A to
cases, and requires "IETF Standards Action as modified by dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org, in most cases, and requires
[RFC4020]" in other cases. "IETF Standards Action" as modified by [RFC4020] in other cases.
IANA shall establish a process for accepting such templates, IANA shall establish a process for accepting such templates,
selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template
form applications, and archive and make available all approved form applications, archiving, and making available all approved
RRTYPE allocation templates. It is the duty of the selected Expert RRTYPE allocation templates. It is the duty of the selected
to post the formal application template to the TBD2@TBD mailing Expert to post the formal application template to the
list. See Section 3.1 and Annex A for more details. namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list. See Section 3.1 and
Appendix 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 Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template
DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE
When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted
to IANA for processing by emailing the template to TBD1@TBD. to IANA for processing by emailing the template to
dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org.
A. Submission Date: A. Submission Date:
B. Submission Type: B. Submission Type:
[ ] New RRTYPE [ ] New RRTYPE
[ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
C. Contact Information for submitter: 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)
(Note: This information will be publicly posted.)
D. 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.
E. Description of the proposed RR type. E. Description of the proposed RR type.
This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an
attachment or with a publicly available URL: attachment, or with a publicly available URL:
F. 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?
G. 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.
H. 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 Sub-registry and Registry or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in
in DNS Parameters? DNS Parameters?
If so, please indicate which registry is to be used or created. If so, please indicate which registry is to be used or created.
If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy
for it and initial contents. Also include what the modification for it and its initial contents. Also include what the
procedures will be. modification procedures will be.
I. 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])?
J. Comments: J. Comments:
Additional IPR Provisions
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Copyright
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
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.
[RFC1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[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., Ed., 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)",
April 1997. RFC 2136, 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.
[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 3rd, D., and B.
Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for
RFC 2845, May 2000. DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000.
[RFC2930] - Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY [RFC2930] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
RR)", September 2000. RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000.
[RFC3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November [RFC3425] Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November
2002. 2002.
[RFC3597] - Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record [RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
[RFC4020] - Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005. Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February
[RFC4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March
2005. 2005.
[RFC4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
March 2005. 4033, March 2005.
[RFC4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
4035, March 2005. RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4635] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers". Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC5226] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC4635] Eastlake 3rd, D., "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG
Algorithm Identifiers", RFC 4635, August 2006.
[US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange", [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968. IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[US-ASCII] ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange",
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] Moon, D., "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence
1981. Laboratory, June 1981.
[RFC1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P. [RFC1183] Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P. Mockapetris,
Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990. "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990.
[RFC1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and [RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and
Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994. Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994.
[RFC2606] - Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS [RFC2606] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", RFC 2606, June 1999. Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC2673] - Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", [RFC2673] Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
RFC 2673, August 1999. RFC 2673, August 1999.
[RFC2929] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning, [RFC2929] Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning,
"Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929, "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42,
September 2000. RFC 2929, September 2000.
[RFC2931] - Eastlake, E., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( [RFC2931] Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000. ( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000.
[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)
the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002. Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
August 2002.
[RFC4343] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case [RFC4343] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, December 2005. Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.
Author's Address Author's Address
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Eastlake Enterprises Eastlake Enterprises
155 Beaver Street 155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA Milford, MA 01757 USA
Telephone: +1-508-634-2066 (h) Phone: +1-508-634-2066 (h)
email: d3e3e3@gmail.com EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Expiration and File Name
This draft expires January 2009.
Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-07.txt.
Disclaimer
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 121 change blocks. 
306 lines changed or deleted 256 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/