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/