draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-00.txt   draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-01.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT Donald Eastlake INTERNET-DRAFT Donald Eastlake
Obsoletes: 6195 Huawei Obsoletes: 6195 Huawei
Updates: 1183, 3597 Updates: 1183, 3597
Intended status: Best Current Practice Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: September 26, 2012 March 27, 2012 Expires: November 1, 2012 May 2, 2012
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
<draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-00.txt> <draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-01.txt>
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
parameter assignment considerations for the allocation of Domain Name parameter assignment considerations for the allocation of Domain Name
System (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error System (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error
codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record
subtypes. It obsoletes RFC 6195. subtypes. It obsoletes RFC 6195.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 2, line 23 skipping to change at page 2, line 23
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
3. DNS Resource Records....................................7 3. DNS Resource Records....................................7
3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations............................8 3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations............................8
3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy........................9 3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy........................9
3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines.......................10 3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines.......................10
3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR.........................10 3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR.........................10
3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field.........................10 3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field.........................11
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
Appendix A: RRTYPE Allocation Template....................15 Appendix A: RRTYPE Allocation Template....................15
Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195.........................16 Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195.........................16
skipping to change at page 6, line 45 skipping to change at page 6, line 45
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 0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by a Standards
by a Standards Action. Action.
Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability, Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability,
assignment of a new RCODE in the ranges listed above as "Available assignment of a new RCODE in the ranges listed above as "Available
for assignment" requires an IETF Review. for assignment" requires an IETF Review.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations 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
skipping to change at page 8, line 38 skipping to change at page 8, line 38
expression: expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[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 Assignment Policy Hexadecimal Assignment Policy
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
RR [RFC2931] [RFC4034] and in other circumstances, and it SIG (0) RR [RFC2931] [RFC4034] and in other
must never be allocated for ordinary use. circumstances, and it must 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 data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
in Section 3.1.1. specified in Section 3.1.1.
128 - 255 128 - 255
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
specified in Section 3.1.1. as specified in Section 3.1.1.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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
0x8001) have been assigned.) (0x8000 and 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 a 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 judged by an Expert selected by IANA. In any case where the be judged 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.
skipping to change at page 9, line 48 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
community review can be expected to increase the probability of community review can be expected to increase the probability of
initial rejection leading to a need to re-submit after initial rejection leading to a need to re-submit after
modification. modification.
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,
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
provided such processing is optional. provided such processing is optional.
After the applicant submits their formal application to IANA by After the applicant submits their formal application to IANA by
sending the completed template specified in Appendix A to the dns- sending the completed template specified in Appendix A to the dns-
rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list, IANA appoints an Expert rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list, IANA appoints an Expert
and sends the completed template to the Expert. No more than two and sends the completed template to the Expert copying the applicant.
weeks after receiving the application the Expert shall explicitly No more than two weeks after receiving the application the Expert
shall explicitly approve or reject the application, informing IANA,
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations the applicant, and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list. The Expert
should consult with other technical experts and the dnsext@ietf.org
approve or reject the application, informing IANA and the applicant. mailing list as necessary. If the Expert does not approve the
The Expert should consult with other technical experts and the application within this period, it is considered rejected. IANA
dnsext@ietf.org mailing list as necessary. If the Expert does not should report non-responsive Experts to the IESG.
approve the application within this period, it is considered
rejected. IANA should report non-responsive Experts to the IESG.
IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates. In IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates. In
addition, if the required description of the RRTYPE applied for is addition, if the required description of the RRTYPE applied for is
referenced by URL, a copy of the document so referenced should be referenced by URL, a copy of the document so referenced should be
included in the archive. included in the archive.
3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines 3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines
The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that
meets one or more of the following criteria: meets one or more of the following criteria:
skipping to change at page 10, line 46 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
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 [RFC2671bis]. Its primary purpose is to extend the specified in [RFC2671bis]. 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.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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 [RFC1035], but the 16-bit unsigned RDATA field structure as the MX RR [RFC1035], but the 16-bit unsigned
integer field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a integer field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
subtype as show below. This subtype registry is closed and allocation subtype as show below. This subtype registry is closed and allocation
of new subtypes is no longer permitted. of new subtypes is no longer permitted.
Decimal Decimal
Hexadecimal Assignment Policy Hexadecimal Assignment Policy
0 0
0x0000 Reserved, registry closed 0x0000 Reserved, registry closed
1 1
0x0001 AFS v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183] 0x0001 AFS 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 Not allocated, registry closed 0x0003 - 0xFEFF Not allocated, registry closed
65,280 - 65,534 65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use
65,535 65,535
0xFFFF Reserved, registry closed 0xFFFF Reserved, registry closed
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
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 been a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That As yet, there has not been a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That
would be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a would be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a
particular DNS message, which might be usable in queries. However, it particular DNS message, which might be usable in queries. However, it
is possible that there might be a future requirement for one or more is possible that there might be a future requirement for one or more
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
"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:
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9] [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 Assignment / Policy, Reference Hexadecimal Assignment / Policy, Reference
0 0
0x0000 Reserved; assignment requires a Standards Action 0x0000 Reserved; assignment requires a Standards Action
1 1
0x0001 Internet (IN) [RFC1035] 0x0001 Internet (IN) [RFC1035]
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 Available for assignment 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; Specification
Specification Required Required for new assignments
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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;
on Specification Required Specification Required for new assignments
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 a 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 19 skipping to change at page 14, line 19
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 has established a process for accepting Appendix A templates and IANA has established a process for accepting Appendix A templates and
selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form
applications. IANA archives and makes available all approved RRTYPE applications. IANA forwards the template to the Expert copying the
applicant. IANA archives and makes available all approved RRTYPE
allocation templates and referred documentation (unless it is readily allocation templates and referred documentation (unless it is readily
available at a stable URI). It is the duty of the applicant to post available at a stable URI). It is the duty of the applicant to post
the formal application template to the dns-rrtype- the formal application template to the dns-rrtype-
applications@ietf.org mailing list, which IANA will monitor. The applications@ietf.org mailing list, which IANA will monitor. The
dnsext@ietf.org mailing list is for community discussion and comment. dnsext@ietf.org mailing list is for community discussion and comment.
See Section 3.1 and Appendix A for more details. See Section 3.1 and Appendix A for more details.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
Appendix 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 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.1 Submission Type: [ ] New RRTYPE [ ] Modification to RRTYPE
[ ] New RRTYPE B.2 Kind of RR: [ ] Data RR [ ] Meta-RR
[ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
C. Contact Information for submitter (will be publicly posted): 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:
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. Most reviewers will be DNS reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Most reviewers will be DNS
skipping to change at page 16, line 26 skipping to change at page 16, line 26
practice. practice.
Close AFSDB sub-type registry. Close AFSDB sub-type registry.
Update references for revised versions and change ASCII reference to Update references for revised versions and change ASCII reference to
[RFC20]. [RFC20].
Clarify IANA archiving of referenced documentation as well as Clarify IANA archiving of referenced documentation as well as
approved RRTYPE application template. approved RRTYPE application template.
In the RRTYPE application template, change the label of question "B"
to "B.1" and add "B.2" to ask about the kind of RR.
A number of editorial changes and typo fixes. A number of editorial changes and typo fixes.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
Normative References Normative References
[RFC20] - Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20, [RFC20] - Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20,
October 1969. October 1969.
[RFC1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and [RFC1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and
 End of changes. 40 change blocks. 
62 lines changed or deleted 70 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/