draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-05.txt   rfc6895.txt 
INTERNET-DRAFT Donald Eastlake Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd
Obsoletes: 6195 Huawei Request for Comments: 6895 Huawei
BCP: 42 April 2013
Obsoletes: 6195
Updates: 1183, 2845, 2930, 3597 Updates: 1183, 2845, 2930, 3597
Intended status: Best Current Practice Category: Best Current Practice
Expires: April 12, 2013 October 13, 2012 ISSN: 2070-1721
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
<draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-05.txt>
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) This document specifies Internet Assigned Numbers 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.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Distribution of this draft is unlimited. It is intended to become the This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 6195. Comments should be sent to the DNS (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
Extensions Working Group mailing list <dnsext@ietf.org>. received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895.
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Copyright Notice
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html. The list of Internet-Draft document authors. All rights reserved.
Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1 Terminology............................................3 1.1. Terminology ................................................3
1.2 Acknowledgements.......................................3 2. DNS Query/Response Headers ......................................3
2.1. One Spare Bit? .............................................4
2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................4 2.2. OpCode Assignment ..........................................4
2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................5 2.3. RCODE Assignment ...........................................4
2.2 OpCode Assignment......................................5 3. DNS Resource Records ............................................6
2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5 3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations .................................7
3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy ........................8
3. DNS Resource Records....................................8 3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines .......................10
3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................9 3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR .........................10
3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy........................10 3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field .........................10
3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines........................11 3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations ..............................11
3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................12 3.3. Label Considerations ......................................13
3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................12 3.3.1. Label Types ........................................13
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................12 3.3.2. Label Contents and Use .............................13
3.3. Label Considerations.................................14 4. Security Considerations ........................................14
3.3.1 Label Types.........................................14 5. IANA Considerations ............................................14
3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................15 Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template ............................15
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 6195 .................................16
4. Security Considerations................................16 Normative References ..............................................17
5. IANA Considerations....................................16 Informative References ............................................18
Acknowledgements ..................................................19
Appendix A: RRTYPE Allocation Template....................17
Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195.........................18
Normative References......................................19
Informative References....................................20
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.
This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general
IANA parameter assignment considerations that apply across DNS query IANA parameter assignment considerations that apply across DNS query
and response headers and all RRs. There may be additional IANA and response headers and all RRs. There may be additional IANA
considerations that apply to only a particular RRTYPE or considerations that apply to only a particular RRTYPE or
query/response OpCode. See the specific RFC defining that RRTYPE or query/response OpCode. See the specific RFC defining that RRTYPE or
query/response OpCode for such considerations if they have been query/response OpCode for such considerations if they have been
defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC1183], which are defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC1183], which are
included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC6195]; however, the only included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC6195]; however, the only
significant changes are those to the RRTYPE IANA allocation process, significant changes are those to the RRTYPE IANA allocation process,
aimed at streamlining it and clarifying the expected behavior of the aimed at streamlining it and clarifying the expected behavior of the
parties involved, and the closing of the AFSDB sub-type registry. parties involved, and the closing of the AFSDB subtype registry.
IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from
http://www.iana.org. <http://www.iana.org>.
1.1 Terminology 1.1. Terminology
"Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and "Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and
"Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226]. "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226].
1.2 Acknowledgements 2. DNS Query/Response Headers
Alfred Hoenes' contributions are gratefully acknowledged as are those
by Mark Andrews, Dick Franks, and Michael Sheldon.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
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]: 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 |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT | | ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| 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, 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. The AD only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. The AD
bit was only meaningful in responses but is expected to have a bit was only meaningful in responses but is expected to have a
separate but related meaning in queries (see Section 5.7 of separate but related meaning in queries (see Section 5.7 of
[RFCdnssecbisup]). Only the RD and CD bits are expected to be copied [RFC6840]). Only the RD and CD bits are expected to be copied from
from the query to the response; however, some DNS implementations the query to the response; however, some DNS implementations copy all
copy all the query header as the initial value of the response the query header as the initial value of the response header. Thus,
header. Thus, any attempt to use a "query" bit with a different any attempt to use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a
meaning in a response or to define a query meaning for a "response" response or to define a query meaning for a "response" bit may be
bit may be dangerous, given existing implementation. Meanings for dangerous, given the existing implementation. Meanings for these
these bits may only be assigned by a Standards Action. 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
and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the zone structure and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the
(ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and
information (ARCOUNT) sections. additional 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
ignore this bit. implementations 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 Unassigned
4 Notify [RFC1996] 4 Notify [RFC1996]
5 Update [RFC2136] 5 Update [RFC2136]
6-15 available for assignment 6-15 Unassigned
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
with early allocation permitted as specified in [RFC4020]. Action 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 [RFC6891]. 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.
Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these other 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 exception of error all refer to the same error code space with the exception of error
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
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 Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC2136] 9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC2136]
9 NotAuth Not Authorized [RFC2845] 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 Unassigned
16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC2671bis] 16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC6891]
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]
20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC2930] 20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC2930]
21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC2930] 21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC2930]
22 BADTRUC Bad Truncation [RFC4635] 22 BADTRUNC Bad Truncation [RFC4635]
23 - 3,840 23 - 3,840
0x0017 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment 0x0017 - 0x0F00 Unassigned
3,841 - 4,095 3,841 - 4,095
0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Private Use 0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Reserved for Private Use
4,096 - 65,534 4,096 - 65,534
0x1000 - 0xFFFE Available for assignment 0x1000 - 0xFFFE Unassigned
65,535 65,535
0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by a Standards 0xFFFF Reserved; can only be allocated by 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
Authoritative" [RFC2136] or "Not Authorized" [RFC2845]. If 9 "Not 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
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
"Not Authoritative". If 9 appears as the RCODE in the header of a "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 "Unassigned"
for assignment" requires an IETF Review. requires an IETF Review.
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].
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
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| | | |
/ / / /
/ NAME / / NAME /
/ / / /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TYPE | | TYPE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| CLASS | | CLASS |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TTL | | TTL |
| | | |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| RDLENGTH | | RDLENGTH |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
/ RDATA / / RDATA /
/ / / /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
NAME is an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this NAME is an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this
resource record pertains. NAMEs are specific to a CLASS as described resource record pertains. NAMEs are specific to a CLASS as described
in Section 3.2. NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence of one or more in Section 3.2. NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence of one or more
labels, each of which has a label type [RFC1035] [RFC2671bis]. labels, each of which has a label type [RFC1035] [RFC6891].
TYPE is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE TYPE is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE
codes. See Section 3.1. codes. See Section 3.1.
CLASS is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS CLASS is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS
codes. See Section 3.2. codes. See Section 3.2.
TTL is a 4-octet (32-bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for data TTL is a 4-octet (32-bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for data
TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be cached TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be cached
before the source of the information should again be consulted. Zero before the source of the information should again be consulted. Zero
is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the
transaction in progress. transaction in progress.
RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16-bit integer that specifies the length in RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16-bit integer that specifies the length in
octets of the RDATA field. octets of the RDATA field.
RDATA is a variable-length string of octets that constitutes the RDATA is a variable-length string of octets that constitutes the
resource. The format of this information varies according to the TYPE resource. The format of this information varies according to the
and, in some cases, the CLASS of the resource record. TYPE and, in some cases, the CLASS of the resource record.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations 3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations
There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs, There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs,
and Meta-TYPEs. and Meta-TYPEs.
Data TYPEs are the means of storing data. QTYPES can only be used in Data TYPEs are the means of storing data. QTYPES can only be used in
queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a
particular DNS message and, in some cases, can also be used in particular DNS message and, in some cases, can also be used in
queries. Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward, plus queries. Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward, plus
the block from 100 through 103, and from 32,768 upward, while Q and the block from 100 through 103, and from 32,768 upward, while Q and
Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward except for the OPT Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward except for the OPT
Meta-RR, which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS Meta-RR, which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS
implementations that made caching decisions based on the top bit of implementations that made caching decisions based on the top bit of
the bottom byte of the RRTYPE. the bottom byte of the RRTYPE.
There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671bis], TSIG There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC6891], TSIG
[RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs [RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs
assigned: * (ALL/ANY), 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)[0-9]* (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
0x0000 RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the
SIG (0) RR [RFC2931] [RFC4034] and in other
circumstances, and it must never be allocated for
ordinary use.
1 - 127 0
0x0001 - 0x007F Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for 0x0000 RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the
data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as SIG(0) RR [RFC2931] [RFC4034] and in other
specified in Section 3.1.1. circumstances and must never be allocated for
ordinary use.
128 - 255 1 - 127
0x0080 - 0x00FF Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for Q 0x0001 - 0x007F Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
and Meta-TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
as specified in Section 3.1.1. specified in Section 3.1.1.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations 128 - 255
0x0080 - 0x00FF Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for Q
and Meta-TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy
as specified in Section 3.1.1.
256 - 61,439 256 - 61,439
0x0100 - 0xEFFF Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for 0x0100 - 0xEFFF Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy
specified in Section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769 as specified in Section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769
(0x8000 and 0x8001) have been assigned.) (0x8000 and 0x8001) have been assigned.)
61,440 - 65,279 61,440 - 65,279
0xF000 - 0xFEFF Reserved for future use. IETF Review required to 0xF000 - 0xFEFF Reserved for future use. IETF Review required to
define use. define use.
65,280 - 65,534 65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use. 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Reserved for Private Use.
65,535 65,535
0xFFFF Reserved, can only be assigned by a Standards 0xFFFF Reserved (Standards Action)
Action.
3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy 3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy
Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above as assigned based on Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above, as assigned based on
DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy, are allocated by Expert Review if they DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy, are allocated by Expert Review if they
meet the two requirements listed below. There will be a pool of a meet the two requirements listed below. There will be a pool of a
small number of Experts appointed by the IESG. Each application will small number of Experts appointed by the IESG. Each application will
be judged by an Expert selected by IANA. In any case where the be judged by an Expert selected by IANA. In any case where the
selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of
interest, IANA may select another Expert from the pool. 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 with early allocation permitted as allocated by a Standards Action with early allocation permitted as
specified in [RFC4020]. 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
formally submitted templates to dnsext@ietf.org by the applicant Note that the posting of partially completed, draft, or formally
or Expert for comment and discussion is highly encouraged. Formal submitted templates to dnsext@ietf.org by the applicant or Expert
submission of an RRTYPE template without consideration of some for comment and discussion is highly encouraged. Before formal
community review can be expected to increase the probability of submission of an RRTYPE template, we recommend submitting it for
initial rejection leading to a need to re-submit after community review and considering the responses in order to reduce
modification. the probability of initial rejection and the need for modification
and resubmission.
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.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations Note that such RRs may include additional section processing,
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
rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list, IANA appoints an Expert dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list, IANA appoints an
and sends the completed template to the Expert copying the applicant. Expert and sends the completed template to the Expert, copying the
No more than two weeks after receiving the application the Expert applicant. No more than two weeks after receiving the application,
shall explicitly approve or reject the application, informing IANA, the Expert shall explicitly approve or reject the application,
the applicant, and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list. A rejection informing IANA, the applicant, and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list.
should include the reason for rejection and may include suggestions A rejection should include the reason for rejection and may include
for improvement. The Expert should consult with other technical suggestions for improvement. The Expert should consult with other
experts and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list as necessary. If the technical experts and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list as necessary.
Expert does not approve the application within this period, it is If the Expert does not approve the application within this period, it
considered rejected. IANA should report non-responsive Experts to the is considered rejected. IANA should report non-responsive Experts to
IESG. 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 Designated Expert should normally be lenient, preferring to The Designated Expert should normally be lenient, preferring to
approve most requests. However, the Expert should usually reject any approve most requests. However, the Expert should usually reject any
RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of the following RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of the following
criteria: criteria:
1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear or 1. The request was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently
complete to evaluate or implement. (Additional documentation can clear or complete to evaluate or implement. (Additional
be provided during the Expert review period.) documentation can 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 wildcards, 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 of values or with
values. Private Use 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 [RFC6891]. 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
and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field from 4 to resolvers and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field
12 bits. from 4 to 12 bits.
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.
Decimal Decimal
Hexadecimal Assignment Policy Hexadecimal Assignment Policy
0 0
0x0000 Reserved, registry closed 0x0000 Reserved; registry closed
1 1
0x0001 AFS v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183] 0x0001 AFS v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183]
2 2
0x0002 DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183] 0x0002 DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183]
3 - 65,279 3 - 65,279
0x0003 - 0xFEFF Not allocated, registry closed 0x0003 - 0xFEFF Not allocated; registry closed
65,280 - 65,534 65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use
65,535 65,535
0xFFFF Reserved, registry closed 0xFFFF Reserved; registry closed
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations 3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations
There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data- There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data-
containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries containing classes; and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries
or updates. or updates.
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 namespace or root servers for one data CLASS
CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have
completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types
are the same, and the null label is usable only as root in every are the same, and the null label is usable only as root in every
CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or
Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use. Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use.
As yet, there has not been a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That As yet, there has not been a requirement for "Meta-CLASSes". That
would be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a would be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a
particular DNS message, which might be usable in queries. However, it particular DNS message, which might be usable in queries. However,
is possible that there might be a future requirement for one or more it is possible that there might be a future requirement for one or
"meta-CLASSes". more "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)[0-9]* (CLASS|TYPE)[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
0x0000 Reserved; assignment requires a Standards Action
1 0
0x0001 Internet (IN) [RFC1035] 0x0000 Reserved; assignment requires a Standards Action.
2 1
0x0002 Available for assignment by IETF Review as a data 0x0001 Internet (IN) [RFC1035]
CLASS
3 2
0x0003 Chaos (CH) [Moon1981] 0x0002 Available for assignment by IETF Review as a data
CLASS.
4 3
0x0004 Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987] 0x0003 Chaos (CH) [Moon1981]
5 - 127 4
0x0005 - 0x007F Available for assignment by IETF Review for data 0x0004 Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987]
CLASSes only
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations 5 - 127
0x0005 - 0x007F Available for assignment by IETF Review for data
CLASSes only.
128 - 253 128 - 253
0x0080 - 0x00FD Available for assignment by IETF Review for 0x0080 - 0x00FD Available for assignment by IETF Review for
QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only QCLASSes and Meta-CLASSes only.
254 254
0x00FE QCLASS NONE [RFC2136] 0x00FE QCLASS NONE [RFC2136]
255 255
0x00FF QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035] 0x00FF QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035]
256 - 32,767 256 - 32,767
0x0100 - 0x7FFF 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
CLASSes only; Specification Required Meta-CLASSes only; Specification Required.
65,280 - 65,534 65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use
65,535 65,535
0xFFFF Reserved; can only be assigned by a Standards 0xFFFF Reserved; can only be assigned by a Standards
Action Action.
3.3. Label Considerations 3.3. Label Considerations
DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035]. DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035].
3.3.1 Label Types 3.3.1. Label Types
At the present time, there are two categories of label types: data At the present time, there are two categories of label types: data
labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to
data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to
shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs. shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs.
The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text
and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value
including zero-value octets, but many current uses involve only including zero-value octets, but many current uses involve only
printing ASCII characters [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 uppercase and lowercase letter codes as
[RFC4343]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary matching [RFC4343]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC2673]. The
label type is Historic [RFC2671bis]. Binary Label type is Historic [RFC6891].
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
[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 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
[RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations. [RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations. This document consists entirely of DNS IANA considerations.
IANA has established a process for accepting Appendix A templates and IANA has established a process for accepting Appendix A templates and
selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form
applications. IANA forwards the template to the Expert copying the applications. IANA forwards the template to the Expert, copying the
applicant. IANA archives and makes available all approved RRTYPE applicant. IANA archives and makes available all approved RRTYPE
allocation templates and referred documentation (unless it is readily allocation templates and referred documentation (unless it is readily
available at a stable URI). It is the duty of the applicant to post available at a stable URI). It is the duty of the applicant to post
the formal application template to the dns-rrtype- the formal application template to the
applications@ietf.org mailing list, which IANA will monitor. The dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list, which IANA will
dnsext@ietf.org mailing list is for community discussion and comment. monitor. The dnsext@ietf.org mailing list is for community
See Section 3.1 and Appendix A for more details. discussion and comment. See Section 3.1 and Appendix A for more
details.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations
Appendix A: RRTYPE Allocation Template Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template
DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE
When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted
to IANA for processing by emailing the template to dns-rrtype- to IANA for processing by emailing the template to dns-rrtype-
applications@ietf.org. applications@ietf.org.
A. Submission Date: A. Submission Date:
B.1 Submission Type: [ ] New RRTYPE [ ] Modification to RRTYPE B.1 Submission Type: [ ] New RRTYPE [ ] Modification to RRTYPE
B.2 Kind of RR: [ ] Data RR [ ] Meta-RR B.2 Kind of RR: [ ] Data RR [ ] Meta-RR
C. Contact Information for submitter (will be publicly posted): C. Contact Information for submitter (will be publicly posted):
Name: Name: Email Address:
Email Address: International telephone number:
International telephone number: Other contact handles:
Other contact handles:
D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application. D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application.
Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and
reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Most reviewers will be DNS reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Most reviewers will be DNS
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)?
skipping to change at page 17, line 39 skipping to change at page 15, line 36
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: If a mnemonic is not supplied, not allowed, or duplicates an Note: If a mnemonic is not supplied, not allowed, or duplicates an
existing RRTYPE or CLASS mnemonic, the Expert will assign a existing RRTYPE or CLASS mnemonic, the Expert will assign a
mnemonic. 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 subregistry 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 subregistry 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
as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])? as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?
J. Comments: J. Comments:
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations Appendix B. Changes from RFC 6195
Appendix B: Changes From RFC 6195
Drop description of changes from RFC 5395 to [RFC6195] since those Dropped description of changes from RFC 5395 to [RFC6195], since
changes have already happened and we don't need to do them again. Add those changes have already happened and we don't need to do them
description of changes from [RFC6195] to this document. again. Added 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 eliminated the
mandatory dnsext@ietf.org comment period. Change workflow description mandatory dnsext@ietf.org comment period. Changed workflow
for RRTYPE review and allocation to correspond more closely to actual description for RRTYPE review and allocation to correspond more
practice. closely to actual practice.
Close the AFSDB sub-type registry and add an informative reference to Closed the AFSDB subtype registry and added an informative reference
[RFC5864] where the use of the AFSDB RR to locate AFS cell database to [RFC5864] where the use of the AFSDB RR to locate AFS cell
servers is deprecated. database servers is deprecated.
Clarify IANA archiving of referenced documentation as well as Clarified 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, changed the label of question "B"
to "B.1" and add "B.2" to ask about the kind of RR. to "B.1" and added "B.2" to ask about the kind of RR.
Addition of text and an exclusory regular expression to Sections 3.1 Added text and an exclusory regular expression to Sections 3.1 and
and 3.2 to prohibit the use of a slight generalization of the generic 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 RRTYPEs.
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 Parenthetically listed "ANY" as well as "ALL" as a meaning for the
extended headers, TSIG RRs, and TKEY RRs. Note that this is "*" RRTYPE.
considered to update [RFC2845] and [RFC2930]. Note the overloading of
error number 9 as well as 16.
Update references for revised versions. Clarified that there is one DNS error number space for headers, OPT
extended headers, TSIG RRs, and TKEY RRs. Noted that this is
considered to update [RFC2845] and [RFC2930]. Noted the overloading
of error number 9 as well as 16.
A number of editorial changes and typo fixes. Updated references for revised versions.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations Incorporated a number of editorial changes and typo fixes.
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.
[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.
[RFC2930] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY [RFC2930] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000. RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000.
[RFC3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November [RFC3425] Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425,
2002. November 2002.
[RFC3597] - Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record [RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
[RFC4020] - Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of [RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020,
2005. February 2005.
[RFC4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
4033, March 2005. RFC 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.
[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 [RFC6840] Weiler, S., Ed., and D. Blacka, Ed., "Clarifications and
Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", draft-ietf-dnsext- Implementation Notes for DNS Security (DNSSEC)",
rfc2671bis-edns0, work in progress. RFC 6840, February 2013.
[RFCdnssecbisup] - Weiler, A. and D. Blacka, "Clarifications and [RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and Vixie, P., "Extension
Implementation Notes for DNSSECbis", draft-ietf-dnsext- Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, April
dnssec-bis-updates, work in progress. 2013.
[US-ASCII] - American National Standards Institute (formerly United [US-ASCII] American National Standards Institute (formerly United
States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for
Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968. ANSI Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968.
X3.4-1968 has been replaced by newer versions with slight
modifications, but the 1968 version remains definitive ANSI X3.4-1968 has been replaced by newer versions with
for the Internet. slight modifications, but the 1968 version remains
definitive for the Internet.
Informative References Informative References
[Dyer1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical [Dyer1987] Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical
Plan - Name Service, April 1987. Plan - Name Service, April 1987.
[Moon1981] - Moon, D., "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts [Moon1981] Moon, D., "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory, June 1981. Laboratory, June 1981.
[RFC1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P. [RFC1183] Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P.
Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183,
1990. October 1990.
[RFC1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and [RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and
Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994. Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994.
[RFC2606] - Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS [RFC2606] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999. Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC2673] - Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", [RFC2673] Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
RFC 2673, August 1999. RFC 2673, August 1999.
[RFC2931] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures [RFC2931] Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000. ( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000.
[RFC4343] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case [RFC4343] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006. Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations [RFC5864] Allbery, R., "DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS",
RFC 5864, April 2010.
[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 Acknowledgements
Alfred Hoenes' contributions are gratefully acknowledged as are those
by Mark Andrews, Dick Franks, and Michael Sheldon.
Author's Address Author's Address
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Huawei R&D USA Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street 155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA Milford, MA 01757
USA
Telephone: +1-508-333-2270
email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Copyright and IPR Provisions
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Phone: +1-508-333-2270
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
 End of changes. 176 change blocks. 
476 lines changed or deleted 428 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/