draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt   draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-03.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT Donald Eastlake 3rd INTERNET-DRAFT Donald Eastlake
Obsoletes: 5395 Stellar Switches Obsoletes: 5395 Huawei
Updates: 1183, 3597 Updates: 1183, 3597
Intended status: Best Current Practice Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: May 25, 2011 November 26, 2010 Expires: July 15, 2011 January 16, 2011
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
<draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt> <draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-03.txt>
Abstract Abstract
Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
considerations are specified for the allocation of Domain Name System parameter assignment considerations are specified for the allocation
(DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes, of Domain Name System (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation
DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes. codes, error codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB
resource record subtypes.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Distribution of this draft is unlimited. It is intended to become the Distribution of this draft is unlimited. It is intended to become the
new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 5395. Comments should be sent to the DNS new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 5395. Comments should be sent to the DNS
Extensions Working Group mailing list <dnsext@ietf.org>. Extensions Working Group mailing list <dnsext@ietf.org>.
skipping to change at page 2, line 5 skipping to change at page 2, line 5
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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................3 1. Introduction............................................3
1.1. Terminology...........................................3 1.1. Terminology...........................................3
2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................4 2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................4
2.1. One Spare Bit?........................................4 2.1. One Spare Bit?........................................4
2.2. OpCode Assignment.....................................5 2.2. OpCode Assignment.....................................5
2.3. RCODE Assignment......................................5 2.3. RCODE Assignment......................................5
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field.........................10 3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field.........................10
3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations.........................11 3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations.........................11
3.3. Label Considerations.................................13 3.3. Label Considerations.................................13
3.3.1. Label Types........................................13 3.3.1. Label Types........................................13
3.3.2. Label Contents and Use.............................13 3.3.2. Label Contents and Use.............................13
4. Security Considerations................................14 4. Security Considerations................................14
5. IANA Considerations....................................14 5. IANA Considerations....................................14
Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template.......................15 Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template.......................15
Annex B: Changes From RFC 5395............................17 Annex B: Changes From RFC 5395............................16
Normative References......................................18 INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
Informative References....................................19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure
hierarchical databases that store "resource records" (RRs) under hierarchical databases that store "resource records" (RRs) under
domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones that 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 that apply 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 [RFC5395]; however, the only included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC5395]; however, the only
significant change is the change is the public review mailing list to significant change is the change to the public review mailing list to
dnsext@ietf.org. dnsext@ietf.org.
IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from
http://www.iana.org. http://www.iana.org.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
"IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and "Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and
"Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226]. "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226].
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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 [RFC5395]: following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC5395]:
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 37 skipping to change at page 4, line 39
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 a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define
a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing
implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an Standards
Standards Action. 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 structure
and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the zone and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the zone
(ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and 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 implementations a zone is acceptable. It is believed that current DNS implementations
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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 a 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 a Standards Action as modified by
by [RFC4020]. [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 8-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field, OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE 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. This duplicate assignment was accidental.
See table below.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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]
5 Refused Query Refused [RFC1035] 5 Refused Query Refused [RFC1035]
skipping to change at page 6, line 38 skipping to change at page 6, line 40
23 - 3,840 23 - 3,840
0x0017 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment 0x0017 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment
3,841 - 4,095 3,841 - 4,095
0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Private Use 0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Private Use
4,096 - 65,534 4,096 - 65,534
0x1000 - 0xFFFE Available for assignment 0x1000 - 0xFFFE Available for assignment
65,535 65,535
0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by an IETF 0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by a
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.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | | |
/ / / /
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used 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 TYPE
and, in some cases, the CLASS of the resource record. and, in some cases, the CLASS of the resource record.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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 particular DNS message and, in some cases, can also be used in
queries. Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward plus queries. 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 the block from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and
skipping to change at page 8, line 28 skipping to change at page 8, line 30
the bottom byte of the 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 that must be completely disjoint from the RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the
mnemonics used for CLASSes and that 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\-]*[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 (0) 0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG (0)
RR [RFC2931], [RFC4034] and in other circumstances, and it RR [RFC2931], [RFC4034] and in other circumstances, and it
must never be allocated for ordinary use. must never be allocated for ordinary use.
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
0x0080 - 0x00FF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range 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 data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
specified in Section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and specified in Section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and
0x8001) have been assigned.) 0x8001) have been assigned.)
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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 a 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 a Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020].
1. A complete template as specified in Appendix A has been posted for 1. A complete template as specified in Appendix A has been posted for
three weeks to the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list before the Expert three weeks to the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list before the Expert
Review decision. 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 an 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 that 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 After the applicant posts their formal application with their
template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected template as specified in Annex A, IANA appoints an Expert and the
Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the template is posted, with an indication that it is a formal
application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided application, to the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list. No less than three
by the applicant. If the Expert does not post such a message, the weeks and no more than six weeks after this posting to
application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected Expert shall post a message, explicitly
IANA. accepting or rejecting the application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and
the email address provided by the applicant. If the Expert does not
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
post such a message, the application shall be considered rejected but
may be re-submitted to IANA. IANA should report non-responsive
Experts to the IESG.
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 dnsext@ietf.org mailing the proposed RRTYPE, which may occur on the dnsext@ietf.org mailing
list, and may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The list, and may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The
Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that
meets one or more of the following criterion: meets one or more of the following criterion:
skipping to change at page 10, line 44 skipping to change at page 10, line 50
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 resolvers
and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field from 4 to and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field 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 [RFC1035], but the 16-bit unsigned
field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a subtype as
follows: INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
integer field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a
subtype as follows:
Decimal Decimal
Hexadecimal Hexadecimal
0 0
0x0000 - Reserved; allocation requires IETF Standards Action. 0x0000 - Reserved; allocation requires a 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 a 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-
containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries
or updates. or updates.
DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of
the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary
relationship between the name space or root servers for one data relationship between the name space or root servers for one data
skipping to change at page 11, line 51 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
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, 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 that must be completely disjoint from the CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the
mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the following regular mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the following regular
expression: expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]* INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[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 a 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].
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
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.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
65,535 65,535
0xFFFF - Reserved; can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action. 0xFFFF - Reserved; can only be assigned by a 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
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
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 [Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use. The IN, or
Internet, CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet, CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the
Internet at 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].
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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. This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations.
IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates, IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates,
selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form
applications, and archive and make available all approved RRTYPE applications, and archive and make available all approved RRTYPE
allocation templates. It is the duty of the applicant to post the allocation templates. It is the duty of the applicant to post the
formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org
mailing list. See Section 3.1 and Annex A for more details. mailing list which IANA will monitor. The dnsext@ietf.org mailing
list is for community discussion and comment. See Section 3.1 and
Annex A for more details.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template Annex 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 dns-rrtype- to IANA for processing by emailing the template to dns-rrtype-
applications@ietf.org. 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 (will be publicly posted):
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.)
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
will be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your application
application space. 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
need and why are they unsatisfactory? 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
Registry or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in DNS
DNS Parameters? 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
If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy for it
for it and its initial contents. Also include what the and its initial contents. Also include what the modification
modification procedures will be. 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
processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])? as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?
J. Comments: J. Comments:
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
Annex B: Changes From RFC 5395 Annex B: Changes From RFC 5395
Replace "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" with "dnsext@ietf.org". Replace "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" with "dnsext@ietf.org".
Drop description of changes from RFC 2929 to RFC 5395 since those Drop description of changes from RFC 2929 to RFC 5395 since those
changes have already happened and we don't need to do them again. changes have already happened and we don't need to do them again.
Updates to boilerplate text. Updates to boilerplate text.
Fix Section 5 to say that it is the duty of the applicant, not the Fix Section 5 to say that it is the duty of the applicant, not the
expert, to post the application to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org. expert, to post the application to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org.
Change the regular expression for RRTYPE and CLASS names so as to
prohibit trailing hypen ("-") and require a minimum length of 2
characters.
A number of minor editorial and typos fixes.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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
specification", 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.
skipping to change at page 18, line 54 skipping to change at page 18, line 5
2005. 2005.
[RFC4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034,
March 2005. March 2005.
[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.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
[RFC4635] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message [RFC4635] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message
Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm
Identifiers", RFC 4635, August 2006. Identifiers", RFC 4635, August 2006.
[RFC5226] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. 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.
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at page 19, line 5
[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.
[RFC5395] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA [RFC5395] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 5395, November 2008. Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 5395, November 2008.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
Author's Address Author's Address
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Donald Eastlake
Stellar Switches Huawei
155 Beaver Street 155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA Milford, MA 01757 USA
Telephone: +1-508-333-2270 Telephone: +1-508-333-2270
email: d3e3e3@gmail.com email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Copyright and IPR Provisions Copyright and IPR Provisions
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 End of changes. 48 change blocks. 
77 lines changed or deleted 126 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/