draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-01.txt		draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02.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: November 1, 2012 May 2, 2012		Expires: December 9, 2012 June 10, 2012
	Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations		Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
	<draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-01.txt>		<draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02.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 and updates RFCs 1183 and 3597.
	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 6195. Comments should be sent to the DNS		new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 6195. 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 1, line 40		skipping to change at page 1, line 40
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html		http://www.ietf.org/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		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
	1.2 Acknowledgement........................................3		1.2 Acknowledgement........................................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
	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.........................11		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................................15
	5. IANA Considerations....................................14		5. IANA Considerations....................................15
	Appendix A: RRTYPE Allocation Template....................15		Appendix A: RRTYPE Allocation Template....................16
	Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195.........................16		Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195.........................17
	Normative References......................................17		Normative References......................................18
	Informative References....................................18		Informative References....................................19
	INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations		INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	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. Familiarity with [RFC1034], [RFC1035],		be independently maintained. Familiarity with [RFC1034], [RFC1035],
	[RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] is assumed.		[RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] is assumed.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 30		skipping to change at page 3, line 30
	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 [RFC6195]; however, the only		included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC6195]; however, the only
	significant changes are those to the RRTYPE IANA allocation process,		significant changes are those to the RRTYPE IANA allocation process,
	aimed at streamlining it and clarifying the expected behavior of the		aimed at streamlining it and clarifying the expected behavior of the
	parties involved, and the closing of the AFSDB sub-type registry.		parties involved, and the closing of the AFSDB sub-type registry.
	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
	"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].
	1.2 Acknowledgement		1.2 Acknowledgement
	Alfred Hoenes contributions are gratefully acknowledged.		Alfred Hoenes contributions are gratefully acknowledged.
	INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations		INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	skipping to change at page 4, line 50		skipping to change at page 4, line 50
	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		INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	ignore this bit.		ignore this bit.
	Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires a 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 a Standards Action as modified by		New OpCode assignments require a Standards Action as modified 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 [RFC2671bis], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930]. The		OPT RRs [RFC2671bis], 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
	skipping to change at page 8, line 7		skipping to change at page 8, line 7
	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		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
	Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward except for the OPT		Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward except for the OPT
	Meta-RR, which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS		Meta-RR, which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS
	implementations that made caching decisions based on the top bit of		implementations that made caching decisions based on the top bit of
	the bottom byte of the RRTYPE.		the bottom byte of the RRTYPE.
	There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671bis], TSIG		There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671bis], 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		Allocated RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint
	mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the following regular		from the mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the regular
	expression:		expression below. In addition, the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names
			specified in Section 5 of [RFC3597] cannot be assigned as new RRTYPE
			mnemonics.
	[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]		[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]
			but not
			(TYPE|CLASS)(0|[1-9][0-9]*)
	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		0x0000 RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the
	SIG (0) RR [RFC2931] [RFC4034] and in other		SIG (0) RR [RFC2931] [RFC4034] and in other
	circumstances, and it must never be allocated for		circumstances, and it must never be allocated for
	ordinary use.		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		data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
	skipping to change at page 9, line 24		skipping to change at page 9, line 24
	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		0xFFFF Reserved, can only be assigned by a Standards
	Action.		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. Some
			guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2.
	Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2. RRTYPEs		RRTYPEs that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be
	that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be allocated		allocated by a 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 to		1. A complete template as specified in Appendix A has been posted to
	the dns-rrtype-applications@iana.org mailing list and received by		the dns-rrtype-applications@iana.org mailing list and received by
	the Expert.		the Expert.
	Note that the posting of partially completed, draft, or		Note that the posting of partially completed, draft, or
	formally submitted templates to dnsext@ietf.org by the applicant		formally submitted templates to dnsext@ietf.org by the applicant
	or Expert for comment and discussion is highly encouraged. Formal		or Expert for comment and discussion is highly encouraged. Formal
	submission of an RRTYPE template without consideration of some		submission of an RRTYPE template without consideration of some
	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
	skipping to change at page 10, line 26		skipping to change at page 10, line 26
	should consult with other technical experts and the dnsext@ietf.org		should consult with other technical experts and the dnsext@ietf.org
	mailing list as necessary. If the Expert does not approve the		mailing list as necessary. If the Expert does not approve the
	application within this period, it is considered rejected. IANA		application within this period, it is considered rejected. IANA
	should report non-responsive Experts to the IESG.		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:
	1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear or		1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear or
	complete to evaluate or implement. (Additional documentation can		complete to evaluate or implement. (Additional documentation can
	be provided during the Expert review period.)		be provided during the Expert review period.)
	2. The proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not		2. The proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not
	meet the criteria in point 2 of Section 3.1.1 above.		meet the criteria in point 2 of Section 3.1.1 above.
	3. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about		3. 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.
	4. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the		4. 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 [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		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
	subtype as show below. This subtype registry is closed and allocation		subtype as shown below. This subtype registry is closed and
	of new subtypes is no longer permitted.		allocation 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]
	skipping to change at page 11, line 36		skipping to change at page 11, line 36
	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
	skipping to change at page 12, line 9		skipping to change at page 12, line 9
	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		INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	"meta-CLASSes".		"meta-CLASSes".
	CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the		Assigned CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from
	mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the following regular		the mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the regular
	expression:		expression below. In addition, the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names
			specified in Section 5 of [RFC3597] cannot be assigned as new CLASS
			mnemonics.
	[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]		[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]
			but not
			(CLASS|RRTYPE)(0|[1-9][0-9]*)
	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
	skipping to change at page 12, line 54		skipping to change at page 13, line 5
	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 Available for assignment by IETF Review		0x0100 - 0x7FFF Available for assignment by IETF Review
	32,768 - 57,343
	0x8000 - 0xDFFF Assigned for data CLASSes only; Specification
	Required for new assignments
	INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations		INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
			32,768 - 57,343
			0x8000 - 0xDFFF Available for assignment to data CLASSes only;
			Specification Required
	57,344 - 65,279		57,344 - 65,279
	0xE000 - 0xFEFF Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only;		0xE000 - 0xFEFF Available for assignment to QCLASSes and meta-
	Specification Required for new assignments		CLASSes only; Specification Required
	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		0xFFFF Reserved; can only be assigned by a Standards
	Action		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		including zero-value octets, but many current uses involve only
	printing ASCII characters [RFC20]. For retrieval, Text labels are		printing ASCII characters [US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are
	defined to treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching		defined to treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching
	[RFC4343]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary		[RFC4343]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary
	label type is Historic [RFC2671bis].		label type is Historic [RFC2671bis].
	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		The last label in each NAME is "ROOT", which is the zero-length
	label. By definition, the null or ROOT label cannot be used for any		label. By definition, the null or ROOT label cannot be used for any
	other 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		[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.
			INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	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		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
	skipping to change at page 16, line 9		skipping to change at page 17, line 9
	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 processed		servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed
	as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?		as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?
	J. Comments:		J. Comments:
	INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations		INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195		Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195
	Drop description of changes from RFC 5395 to RFC 6195 since those		Drop description of changes from RFC 5395 to [RFC6195] since those
	changes have already happened and we don't need to do them again. Add		changes have already happened and we don't need to do them again. Add
	description of changes from RFC 6195.		description of changes from [RFC6195] to this document.
	Cut back RRTYPE Expert review period to two weeks and eliminate the		Cut back RRTYPE Expert review period to two weeks and eliminate the
	mandatory dnsext@ietf.org comment period. Change workflow description		mandatory dnsext@ietf.org comment period. Change workflow description
	for RRTYPE review and allocation to correspond more closely to actual		for RRTYPE review and allocation to correspond more closely to actual
	practice.		practice.
	Close AFSDB sub-type registry.		Close the AFSDB sub-type registry.
	Update references for revised versions and change ASCII reference to		Update references for revised versions.
	[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"		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.		to "B.1" and add "B.2" to ask about the kind of RR.
			Addition of text and an exclusory regular expression to Sections 3.1
			and 3.2 to prohibit the use of the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names
			specified in [RFC3597] as the mnemonics for new CLASSes and RRTYPEes.
	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,
	October 1969.
	[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.
	[RFC2136] - Vixie, P., Ed., 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.
	[RFC2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, 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 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY		[RFC2930] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
	RR)", RFC 2930, 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
			2005.
	[RFC4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.		[RFC4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
	Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March		Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
	2005.		4033, March 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",
	March 2005.		RFC 4034, 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
	4035, March 2005.		Extensions", RFC 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
	Identifiers", RFC 4635, August 2006.		Algorithm Identifiers", RFC 4635, August 2006.
			INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	[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.
	[RFC2671bis] - Damas, J., Graff, M., and Vixie, P., "Extension		[RFC2671bis] - Damas, J., Graff, M., and Vixie, P., "Extension
	Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0, work		Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", draft-ietf-dnsext-
	in progress.		rfc2671bis-edns0, work in progress.
			[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] - Moon, D., "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, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990.		Mockapetris, "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 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS		[RFC2606] - Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
	Names", BCP 32, 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.
	[RFC2931] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "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.
	[RFC4343] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case		[RFC4343] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
	Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.		Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.
	[RFC6195] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA		[RFC6195] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
	Considerations", RFC 6195, March 2011.		Considerations", RFC 6195, March 2011.
	INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations		INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Donald E. Eastlake 3rd		Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
	Huawei R&D USA		Huawei R&D USA
	155 Beaver Street		155 Beaver Street
	Milford, MA 01757 USA		Milford, MA 01757 USA
End of changes. 68 change blocks.
	103 lines changed or deleted		119 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/