draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt		draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-05.txt
	INTERNET-DRAFT Donald Eastlake		INTERNET-DRAFT Donald Eastlake
	Obsoletes: 6195 Huawei		Obsoletes: 6195 Huawei
	Updates: 1183, 2845, 2930, 3597		Updates: 1183, 2845, 2930, 3597
	Intended status: Best Current Practice		Intended status: Best Current Practice
	Expires: January 14, 2013 July 15, 2012		Expires: April 12, 2013 October 13, 2012
	Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations		Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
	<draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt>		<draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-05.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, 2845, 2930,		subtypes. It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates RFCs 1183, 2845, 2930,
	and 3597.		and 3597.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 11		skipping to change at page 2, line 11
	http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html. The list of Internet-Draft		http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html. The list of Internet-Draft
	Shadow Directories can be accessed at		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 Acknowledgements.......................................3
	2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................4		2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................4
	2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................5		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....................................8		3. DNS Resource Records....................................8
	3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................9		3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................9
	3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy........................10		3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy........................10
	3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines........................11		3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines........................11
	3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................11		3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................12
	3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................12		3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................12
	3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................12		3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................12
	3.3. Label Considerations.................................14		3.3. Label Considerations.................................14
	3.3.1 Label Types.........................................14		3.3.1 Label Types.........................................14
	3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................14		3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................15
	4. Security Considerations................................16		4. Security Considerations................................16
	5. IANA Considerations....................................16		5. IANA Considerations....................................16
	Appendix A: RRTYPE Allocation Template....................17		Appendix A: RRTYPE Allocation Template....................17
	Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195.........................18		Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195.........................18
	Normative References......................................19		Normative References......................................19
	Informative References....................................20		Informative References....................................20
	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]. The key words "MUST",		"Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226].
	"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 Acknowledgements
	Alfred Hoenes contributions are gratefully acknowledged as are those		Alfred Hoenes' contributions are gratefully acknowledged as are those
	by Mark Andrews, Dick Franks, and Michael Sheldon.		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]:
	1 1 1 1 1 1		1 1 1 1 1 1
	0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5		0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+		+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
	| ID |		| ID |
	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+		+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
	|QR| OpCode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE |		|QR| OpCode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE |
	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+		+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
	| QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT |		| QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT |
	+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+		+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
	skipping to change at page 5, line 32		skipping to change at page 5, line 32
	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
	Although the Status OpCode is reserved in [RFC1035], its behavior has		Although the Status OpCode is reserved in [RFC1035], its behavior has
	not been specified. New OpCode assignments require a Standards Action		not been specified. New OpCode assignments require a Standards Action
	as modified by [RFC4020].		with early allocation permitted as specified in [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
	TSIG RRs [RFC2845], TKEY RRs [RFC2930], and extended by OPT RRs		TSIG RRs [RFC2845], TKEY RRs [RFC2930], and extended by OPT RRs
	[RFC2671bis]. The OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension to the 4 header		[RFC2671bis]. The OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension to the 4 header
	bits resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field, and the TSIG and TKEY RRs		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.		have a 16-bit field designated in their RFCs as the "Error" field.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 7		skipping to change at page 6, line 7
	code 16, which has a different meaning in the OPT RR than in the TSIG		code 16, which has a different meaning in the OPT RR than in the TSIG
	RR, and error code 9 whose variations are described after the table		RR, and error code 9 whose variations are described after the table
	below. The duplicate assignment of 16 was accidental. To the extent		below. The duplicate assignment of 16 was accidental. To the extent
	that any prior RFCs imply any sort of different error number space		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		for the OPT, TSIG, or TKEY RRs, they are superseded by this unified
	DNS error number space. (This paragraph is the reason this document		DNS error number space. (This paragraph is the reason this document
	updates [RFC2845] and [RFC2930].) With the existing exceptions of		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		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		for different errors even if they would only occur in different RR
	types. See table below.		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 See note below after table		9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC2136]
			9 NotAuth Not Authorized [RFC2845]
	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 52		skipping to change at page 6, line 53
	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		Note on error number 9 (NotAuth): This error number means either "Not
	Authoritative" [RFC2136] or "Not Authorized" [RFC2845]. If 9		Authoritative" [RFC2136] or "Not Authorized" [RFC2845]. If 9
	appears as the RCODE in the header of a DNS response without a		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		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		INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
			"Not Authoritative". If 9 appears as the RCODE in the header of a
	DNS response that includes a TSIG RR with a non-zero error field,		DNS response that includes a TSIG RR with a non-zero error field,
	then it means "Not Authorized".		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
	skipping to change at page 10, line 36		skipping to change at page 10, line 36
	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. Some		interest, IANA may select another Expert from the pool. Some
	guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2.		guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2.
	RRTYPEs that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be		RRTYPEs that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be
	allocated by a Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020].		allocated by a Standards Action with early allocation permitted as
			specified in [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@ietf.org mailing list and received by		the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.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
	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,
	INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations		INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
			Note that such RRs may include additional section processing,
	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 copying the applicant.		and sends the completed template to the Expert copying the applicant.
	No more than two weeks after receiving the application the Expert		No more than two weeks after receiving the application the Expert
	shall explicitly approve or reject the application, informing IANA,		shall explicitly approve or reject the application, informing IANA,
	the applicant, and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list. The Expert		the applicant, and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list. A rejection
	should consult with other technical experts and the dnsext@ietf.org		should include the reason for rejection and may include suggestions
	mailing list as necessary. If the Expert does not approve the		for improvement. The Expert should consult with other technical
	application within this period, it is considered rejected. IANA		experts and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list as necessary. If the
	should report non-responsive Experts to the IESG.		Expert does not 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 Designated Expert should normally be lenient, preferring to
	meets one or more of the following criteria:		approve most requests. However, the Expert should usually reject any
			RRTYPE allocation request that 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.
			INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	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
	subtype as shown below. Use of the AFSDB RR to locate AFS cell		subtype as shown below. Use of the AFSDB RR to locate AFS cell
	database servers was deprecated by [RFC5864]. This subtype registry		database servers was deprecated by [RFC5864]. This subtype registry
	is hereby closed and allocation of new subtypes is no longer		is hereby closed and allocation of new subtypes is no longer
	permitted.		permitted.
	skipping to change at page 12, line 44		skipping to change at page 13, line 5
	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.
			INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	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
	INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	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
	"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.
	skipping to change at page 13, line 47		skipping to change at page 14, line 5
	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
			INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	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
	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
	skipping to change at page 14, line 44		skipping to change at page 15, line 5
	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 [US-ASCII]. 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].
			INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	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.
	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
	skipping to change at page 17, line 39		skipping to change at page 17, line 39
	experts that may have limited knowledge of your application space.		experts that may have limited knowledge of your application space.
	E. Description of the proposed RR type.		E. Description of the proposed RR type.
	This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an		This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an
	attachment, or with a publicly available URL.		attachment, or with a publicly available URL.
	F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need		F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need
	and why are they unsatisfactory?		and why are they unsatisfactory?
	G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?		G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
	Note: this can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the		Note: If a mnemonic is not supplied, not allowed, or duplicates an
	template is accepted.		existing RRTYPE or CLASS mnemonic, the Expert will assign a
			mnemonic.
	H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA registry		H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA registry
	or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in DNS		or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in DNS
	Parameters? If so, please indicate which registry is to be used		Parameters? If so, please indicate which registry is to be used
	or created. If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the		or created. If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the
	allocation policy for it and its initial contents. Also include		allocation policy for it and its initial contents. Also include
	what the modification procedures will be.		what the modification procedures will be.
	I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS		I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
	servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed		servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed
	skipping to change at page 18, line 37		skipping to change at page 18, line 37
	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 a slight generalization of the generic		and 3.2 to prohibit the use of a slight generalization of the generic
	CLASS and RRTYPE names specified in [RFC3597] as the mnemonics for		CLASS and RRTYPE names specified in [RFC3597] as the mnemonics for
	new CLASSes and RRTYPEes.		new CLASSes and RRTYPEes.
	Parenthetically list "ANY" and well as "ALL" as a meaning for the "*"		Parenthetically list "ANY" and well as "ALL" as a meaning for the "*"
	RRTYPE.		RRTYPE.
	Clarify that there is one DNS error number space for headers, OPT		Clarify that there is one DNS error number space for headers, OPT
	extended headers, TSIG RRs, and TKEY RRs. Note that this can be		extended headers, TSIG RRs, and TKEY RRs. Note that this is
	considered to update [RFC2845] and [RFC2930]. Note the overloading of		considered to update [RFC2845] and [RFC2930]. Note the overloading of
	error number 9 as well as 16.		error number 9 as well as 16.
	Update references for revised versions.		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 20, line 5		skipping to change at page 19, line 54
	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		[RFCdnssecbisup] - Weiler, A. and D. Blacka, "Clarifications and
	Implementation Notes for DNSSECbis", draft-ietf-dnsext-		Implementation Notes for DNSSECbis", draft-ietf-dnsext-
	skipping to change at page 21, line 5		skipping to change at page 20, line 51
	[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.
	INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
	[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		[RFC5864] - Allbery, R., "DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS", RFC
	5864, April 2010.		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
End of changes. 35 change blocks.
	46 lines changed or deleted		45 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/