draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02.txt   draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT Donald Eastlake INTERNET-DRAFT Donald Eastlake
Obsoletes: 6195 Huawei Obsoletes: 6195 Huawei
Updates: 1183, 3597 Updates: 1183, 2845, 2930, 3597
Intended status: Best Current Practice Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: December 9, 2012 June 10, 2012 Expires: January 1, 2013 July 2, 2012
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
<draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02.txt> <draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03.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 and updates RFCs 1183 and 3597. subtypes. It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates RFCs 1183, 2845, 2930,
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 2, line 14 skipping to change at page 2, line 14
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?.........................................5
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....................................8
3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................8 3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................9
3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy.........................9 3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy........................10
3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines........................10 3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines........................11
3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................10 3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................11
3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................11 3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................12
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................11 3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................12
3.3. Label Considerations.................................13 3.3. Label Considerations.................................14
3.3.1 Label Types.........................................13 3.3.1 Label Types.........................................14
3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................13 3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................14
4. Security Considerations................................15 4. Security Considerations................................16
5. IANA Considerations....................................15 5. IANA Considerations....................................16
Appendix A: RRTYPE Allocation Template....................16 Appendix A: RRTYPE Allocation Template....................17
Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195.........................17 Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195.........................18
Normative References......................................18 Normative References......................................19
Informative References....................................19 Informative References....................................20
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 33 skipping to change at page 3, line 33
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]. The key words "MUST",
"MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.2 Acknowledgement 1.2 Acknowledgement
Alfred Hoenes contributions are gratefully acknowledged. Alfred Hoenes contributions are gratefully acknowledged as are those
by Mark Andrews, Dick Franks, and Michael Sheldon.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations 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 [RFC6195]: following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC6195]:
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 4, line 33 skipping to change at page 4, line 33
| NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT | | NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ARCOUNT | | ARCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so
they can be matched. they can be matched.
The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response. The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response.
The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful The AA, TC, RD, RA, 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. The AD
some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value bit was only meaningful in responses but is expected to have a
of the response header without clearing bits. Thus, any attempt to separate but related meaning in queries (see Section 5.7 of
use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define [RFCdnssecbisup]). Only the RD and CD bits are expected to be copied
a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing from the query to the response; however, some DNS implementations
implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by a Standards copy all the query header as the initial value of the response
Action. header. Thus, any attempt to use a "query" bit with a different
meaning in a response or to define a query meaning for a "response"
bit may be dangerous, given existing implementation. Meanings for
these bits may only be assigned by a Standards Action.
The unsigned integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count The unsigned integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count
(ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information (ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information
count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all
OpCodes except Update [RFC2136]. These fields have the same structure OpCodes except Update [RFC2136]. These fields have the same 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.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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 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 Although the Status OpCode is reserved in [RFC1035], its behavior has
[RFC4020]. not been specified. New OpCode assignments require a Standards Action
as modified by [RFC4020].
2.3 RCODE Assignment 2.3 RCODE Assignment
It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of
RCODE, or response/error code, are available. However, RCODEs can RCODE, or response/error code, are available. However, RCODEs can
appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside
OPT RRs [RFC2671bis], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930]. The TSIG RRs [RFC2845], TKEY RRs [RFC2930], and extended by OPT RRs
OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field, [RFC2671bis]. The OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension to the 4 header
and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit RCODE field. bits resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field, and the TSIG and TKEY RRs
have a 16-bit field designated in their RFCs as the "Error" field.
Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR types Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these other 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 exception of error
error code 16, which has a different meaning in the OPT RR than in code 16, which has a different meaning in the OPT RR than in the TSIG
other contexts. This duplicate assignment was accidental. See table RR, and error code 9 whose variations are described after the table
below. below. The duplicate assignment of 16 was accidental. To the extent
that any prior RFCs imply any sort of different error number space
for the OPT, TSIG, or TKEY RRs, they are superseded by this unified
DNS error number space. (This paragraph is the reason this document
updates [RFC2845] and [RFC2930].) With the existing exceptions of
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
error numbers 9 and 16, the same error number MUST NOT be assigned
for different errors even if they would only occur in different RR
types. See table below.
RCODE Name Description Reference RCODE Name Description Reference
Decimal Decimal
Hexadecimal Hexadecimal
0 NoError No Error [RFC1035] 0 NoError No Error [RFC1035]
1 FormErr Format Error [RFC1035] 1 FormErr Format Error [RFC1035]
2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC1035] 2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC1035]
3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC1035] 3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC1035]
4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC1035] 4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC1035]
5 Refused Query Refused [RFC1035] 5 Refused Query Refused [RFC1035]
6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC2136] 6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC2136]
7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC2136] 7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC2136]
8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC2136] 8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC2136]
9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC2136] 9 NotAuth See note below after table
10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC2136] 10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC2136]
11 - 15 11 - 15
0xB - 0xF Available for assignment 0xB - 0xF Available for assignment
16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC2671bis] 16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC2671bis]
16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC2845] 16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC2845]
17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC2845] 17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC2845]
18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC2845] 18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC2845]
19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC2930] 19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC2930]
skipping to change at page 6, line 48 skipping to change at page 6, line 52
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 a Standards 0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by a Standards
Action. Action.
Note on error number 9 (NOTAUTH): This error number means either "Not
Authoritative" [RFC2136] or "Not Authorized" [RFC2845]. If 9
appears as the RCODE in the header of a DNS response without a
TSIG RR or with a TSIG RR having a zero error field, then it means
"Not Authoritative". If 9 appears as the RCODE in the header of a
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
DNS response that includes a TSIG RR with a non-zero error field,
then it means "Not Authorized".
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
taken from [RFC1035]. taken from [RFC1035].
skipping to change at page 8, line 24 skipping to change at page 9, line 24
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/ANY), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR.
Allocated RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint Allocated RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint
from the mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the regular from the mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the regular
expression below. In addition, the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names expression below. In addition, the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names
specified in Section 5 of [RFC3597] cannot be assigned as new RRTYPE specified in Section 5 of [RFC3597] cannot be assigned as new RRTYPE
mnemonics. mnemonics.
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9] [A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]
but not but not
(TYPE|CLASS)(0|[1-9][0-9]*) (TYPE|CLASS)[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
skipping to change at page 11, line 12 skipping to change at page 12, line 12
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 shown below. This subtype registry is closed and subtype as shown below. Use of the AFSDB RR to locate AFS cell
allocation of new subtypes is no longer permitted. database servers was deprecated by [RFC5864]. This subtype registry
is hereby closed and 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 53 skipping to change at page 13, line 4
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
is possible that there might be a future requirement for one or more
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
particular DNS message, which might be usable in queries. However, it
is possible that there might be a future requirement for one or more
"meta-CLASSes". "meta-CLASSes".
Assigned CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from Assigned CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from
the mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the regular the mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the regular
expression below. In addition, the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names expression below. In addition, the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names
specified in Section 5 of [RFC3597] cannot be assigned as new CLASS specified in Section 5 of [RFC3597] cannot be assigned as new CLASS
mnemonics. mnemonics.
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9] [A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]
but not but not
(CLASS|RRTYPE)(0|[1-9][0-9]*) (CLASS|RRTYPE)[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 55 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
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]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
256 - 32,767 256 - 32,767
0x0100 - 0x7FFF Available for assignment by IETF Review 0x0100 - 0x7FFF Available for assignment by IETF Review
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
32,768 - 57,343 32,768 - 57,343
0x8000 - 0xDFFF Available for assignment to data CLASSes only; 0x8000 - 0xDFFF Available for assignment to data CLASSes only;
Specification Required Specification Required
57,344 - 65,279 57,344 - 65,279
0xE000 - 0xFEFF Available for assignment to QCLASSes and meta- 0xE000 - 0xFEFF Available for assignment to QCLASSes and meta-
CLASSes only; Specification Required CLASSes only; Specification Required
65,280 - 65,534 65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use
skipping to change at page 13, line 48 skipping to change at page 15, line 4
[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
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
[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 17, line 18 skipping to change at page 18, line 18
Drop description of changes from RFC 5395 to [RFC6195] 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 [RFC6195] to this document. 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 the AFSDB sub-type registry. Close the AFSDB sub-type registry and add an informative reference to
[RFC5864] where the use of the AFSDB RR to locate AFS cell database
Update references for revised versions. servers is deprecated.
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 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 and 3.2 to prohibit the use of a slight generalization of the generic
specified in [RFC3597] as the mnemonics for new CLASSes and RRTYPEes. CLASS and RRTYPE names specified in [RFC3597] as the mnemonics for
new CLASSes and RRTYPEes.
Parenthetically list "ANY" and well as "ALL" as a meaning for the "*"
RRTYPE.
Clarify that there is one DNS error number space for headers, OPT
extended headers, TSIG RRs, and TKEY RRs. Note the overloading of
error number 9 as well as 16. Note that this can be considered to
update [RFC2845] and [RFC2930].
Update references for revised versions.
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
[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.
[RFC2119] - Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[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)", "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
RFC 2136, 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 Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for
DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000. DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000.
skipping to change at page 18, line 54 skipping to change at page 20, line 5
4033, March 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", Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, 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 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 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 Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG
Algorithm 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, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. 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- Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", draft-ietf-dnsext-
rfc2671bis-edns0, work in progress. rfc2671bis-edns0, work in progress.
[RFCdnssecbisup] - Weiler, A. and D. Blacka, "Clarifications and
Implementation Notes for DNSSECbis", draft-ietf-dnsext-
dnssec-bis-updates, work in progress.
[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, X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York,
1968 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
skipping to change at page 19, line 47 skipping to change at page 21, line 5
[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.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
[RFC5864] - Allbery, R., "DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS", RFC
5864, April 2010.
[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
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
63 lines changed or deleted 117 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/