draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt   draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt 
Network Working Group M. Andrews Network Working Group M. Andrews
Internet-Draft ISC Internet-Draft ISC
Expires: December 17, 2006 June 15, 2006 Intended status: Best Current March 2, 2007
Practice
Expires: September 3, 2007
Locally-served Zones Locally-served DNS Zones
draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00 draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 17, 2006. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2007.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
Practice has shown that there are a number of DNS zones all iterative Practice has shown that there are a number of DNS zones all iterative
resolvers and recursive nameservers should, unless configured resolvers and recursive nameservers should, unless configured
otherwise, automatically serve. RFC 4193 already specifies that this otherwise, automatically serve. RFC 4193 already specifies that this
should occur for D.F.IP6.ARPA. This document extends the practice to should occur for D.F.IP6.ARPA. This document extends the practice to
cover the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for RFC 1918 address space and other cover the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for RFC 1918 address space and other
well known zones with similar usage constraints. well known zones with similar usage constraints.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Reserved Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Reserved Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Effects on sites using RFC 1918 addresses. . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Effects on sites using RFC 1918 addresses. . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Changes Iterative Resolver Behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Lists Of Zones Covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Lists Of Zones Covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. RFC 1918 Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. RFC 1918 Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. RFC 3330 Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. RFC 3330 Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. IPv6 Link Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.5. IPv6 Link Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Zones that are Out-Of-Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Zones that are Out-Of-Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Change History [To Be Removed on Publication] . . . . 8 Appendix A. Change History [To Be Removed on Publication] . . . . 9
A.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt . . . . . . . 8 A.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt . . . . . . . 9
A.2. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-03.txt . . . . . . . 8 A.2. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt . . . . . . . 9
A.3. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-02.txt . . . . . . . 8 A.3. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-03.txt . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B. Proposed Status [To Be Removed on Publication] . . . 8 A.4. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-02.txt . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B. Proposed Status [To Be Removed on Publication] . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Practice has shown that there are a number of DNS [RFC 1034] [RFC Practice has shown that there are a number of DNS [RFC 1034] [RFC
1035] zones all iterative resolvers and recursive nameservers should, 1035] zones all iterative resolvers and recursive nameservers should,
unless configured otherwise, automatically serve. These zones unless configured otherwise, automatically serve. These zones
include, but are not limited to, the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for the include, but are not limited to, the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for the
address space allocated by [RFC 1918] and the IP6.ARPA zones for address space allocated by [RFC 1918] and the IP6.ARPA zones for
skipping to change at page 3, line 28 skipping to change at page 3, line 28
these zones from excessive, unintentional, query load [AS112]. There these zones from excessive, unintentional, query load [AS112]. There
is every expectation that the query load will continue to increase is every expectation that the query load will continue to increase
unless steps are taken as outlined here. unless steps are taken as outlined here.
Additionally, queries from clients behind badly configured firewalls Additionally, queries from clients behind badly configured firewalls
that allow outgoing queries but drop responses for these name spaces that allow outgoing queries but drop responses for these name spaces
also puts a significant load on the root servers. They also cause also puts a significant load on the root servers. They also cause
operational load for the root server operators as they have to reply operational load for the root server operators as they have to reply
to queries about why the root servers are "attacking" these clients. to queries about why the root servers are "attacking" these clients.
Changing the default configuration will address all these issues for Changing the default configuration will address all these issues for
the zones below. the zones listed below in Section 4.
[RFC 4193] already recommends that queries for D.F.IP6.ARPA be [RFC 4193] already recommends that queries for D.F.IP6.ARPA be
handled locally. This document extends the recommendation to cover handled locally. This document extends the recommendation to cover
the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for [RFC 1918] and other well known IN- the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for [RFC 1918] and other well known IN-
ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA zones for which queries should not appear on ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA zones for which queries should not appear on
the Internet. the public Internet.
It is hoped that by doing this the number of sacrificial servers It is hoped that by doing this the number of sacrificial servers
[AS112] will not have to be increased and may in time be reduced. [AS112] will not have to be increased and may in time be reduced.
It should also help DNS responsiveness for sites which are using [RFC It should also help DNS responsiveness for sites which are using [RFC
1918] addresses but are misconfigured. 1918] addresses but do not follow the last paragraph in section 3 of
[RFC 1918].
1.1. Reserved Words 1.1. Reserved Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].
2. Effects on sites using RFC 1918 addresses. 2. Effects on sites using RFC 1918 addresses.
Sites using [RFC 1918] addresses should already be serving these For most sites using [RFC 1918] addresses, the changes here will have
queries internally, without referring them to public name servers on little or no detrimental effect. If the site does not already have
the Internet. the reverse tree populated the only effect will be that the answers
are generated locally rather than remotely.
The main impact will be felt on sites that make use of recursion for For sites that do have the reverse tree populated, most will either
have a local copy of the zones or will be forwarding the queries to
servers which have local copies of the zone. In either case the
local resolver has a pre-existing configuration for the namespace and
won't add the automatic zone.
The main impact will be felt at sites that make use of delegation for
reverse lookups for [RFC 1918] addresses and have populated these reverse lookups for [RFC 1918] addresses and have populated these
zones. Typically, such sites will be fully disconnected from the zones. Typically, such sites will be fully disconnected from the
Internet and have their own root servers for their own non-Internet Internet and have their own root servers for their own non-Internet
DNS tree or make use of local delegation overrides (otherwise known DNS tree. These sites will need to override the default
as "forwarding") to reach the private servers for these reverse configuration expressed in this document to allow resolution to
zones. These sites will need to override the default configuration continue.
proposed in this draft to allow resolution to continue.
Other sites that use [RFC 1918] addresses and either have local
copies of the reverse zones or don't have reverse zones configured
should see no difference other than the name error appearing to come
from a different source.
3. Changes Iterative Resolver Behaviour. 3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour.
Unless configured otherwise, a iterative resolver will return name Unless configured otherwise, an iterative resolver will now return
errors for queries within the lists of zones covered below. One name errors (RCODE=3) for queries within the lists of zones covered
common way to do this is to serve empty (SOA and NS only) zones. below, with the obvious exception of queries for the zone name itself
where SOA, NS and "no data" responses will be returned as appropriate
to the query type. One common way to do this is to serve empty (SOA
and NS only) zones.
A server doing this MUST provide a mechanism to disable this A implementation doing this MUST provide a mechanism to disable this
behaviour, preferably on a zone by zone basis. new behaviour, preferably on a zone by zone basis.
If using empty zones one should not use the same NS and SOA records If using empty zones one SHOULD NOT use the same NS and SOA records
as used on the public Internet servers as that will make it harder to as used on the public Internet servers as that will make it harder to
detect leakage from the public Internet servers. This document detect leakage to the public Internet servers. This document
recommends that the NS record default to the name of the zone and the recommends that the NS record defaults to the name of the zone and
SOA MNAME default to the name of the zone. The SOA RNAME should the SOA MNAME defaults to the name of the only NS RR's target. The
default to ".". Implementations SHOULD provide a mechanism to set SOA RNAME should default to ".". Implementations SHOULD provide a
these values. No address records need to be provided for the name mechanism to set these values. No address records need to be
server. provided for the name server.
Below is a example of a generic empty zone in master file format. It
will produce a negative cache ttl of 3 hours.
@ 10800 IN SOA @ . 1 3600 1200 604800 10800 @ 10800 IN SOA @ . 1 3600 1200 604800 10800
@ 10800 IN NS @ @ 10800 IN NS @
The SOA RR is needed to support negative caching [RFC 2308] of name
error responses and to point clients to the primary master for DNS
dynamic updates.
SOA values of particular importance are the MNAME, the SOA RR's TTL
and the negTTL value. Both TTL values SHOULD match. The rest of the
SOA timer values may be chosen arbitrarily since it they are not
intended to control any zone transfer activity.
The NS RR is needed as some UPDATE clients use NS queries to discover
they zone to be updated. Having no address records for the name
server should abort UPDATE processing in the client
4. Lists Of Zones Covered 4. Lists Of Zones Covered
The lists below are expected to seed a IANA registry. The lists below are expected to seed a IANA registry.
4.1. RFC 1918 Zones 4.1. RFC 1918 Zones
10.IN-ADDR.ARPA 10.IN-ADDR.ARPA
16.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA 16.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA
17.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA 17.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA
18.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA 18.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA
skipping to change at page 5, line 24 skipping to change at page 5, line 42
26.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA 26.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA
27.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA 27.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA
28.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA 28.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA
29.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA 29.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA
30.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA 30.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA
31.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA 31.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA
168.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA 168.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA
4.2. RFC 3330 Zones 4.2. RFC 3330 Zones
See [RFC 3330].
0.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 "THIS" NETWORK */ 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 "THIS" NETWORK */
127.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 LOOP-BACK NETWORK */ 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 LOOP-BACK NETWORK */
254.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 LINK LOCAL */ 254.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 LINK LOCAL */
2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 TEST NET */ 2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 TEST NET */
255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 BROADCAST */ 255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 BROADCAST */
4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses 4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
See [RFC 4291], sections 2.4, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3.
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP
6.ARPA 6.ARPA
1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP
6.ARPA 6.ARPA
4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses 4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses
See [RFC 4193].
D.F.IP6.ARPA D.F.IP6.ARPA
4.5. IPv6 Link Local Addresses 4.5. IPv6 Link Local Addresses
See [RFC 4291], sections 2.4 and 2.5.6.
8.E.F.IP6.ARPA 8.E.F.IP6.ARPA
9.E.F.IP6.ARPA 9.E.F.IP6.ARPA
A.E.F.IP6.ARPA A.E.F.IP6.ARPA
B.E.F.IP6.ARPA B.E.F.IP6.ARPA
5. Zones that are Out-Of-Scope 5. Zones that are Out-Of-Scope
IPv6 site-local addresses and IPv6 Globally Assigned Local addresses IPv6 site-local addresses, [RFC 4291] sections 2.4 and 2.57, and IPv6
are not covered here. It is expected that IPv6 site-local addresses Globally Assigned Local [RFC 4193] addresses are not covered here.
will be self correcting as IPv6 implementations remove support for It is expected that IPv6 site-local addresses will be self correcting
site-local addresses however, sacrificial servers for C.E.F.IP6.ARPA as IPv6 implementations remove support for site-local addresses.
to F.E.F.IP6.ARPA may still need to be deployed in the short term if However, sacrificial servers for C.E.F.IP6.ARPA to F.E.F.IP6.ARPA may
the traffic becomes excessive. still need to be deployed in the short term if the traffic becomes
excessive.
For IPv6 Globally Assigned Local addresses there has been no decision For IPv6 Globally Assigned Local addresses [RFC 4291] there has been
made about whether the registries will provide delegations in this no decision made about whether the registries will provide
space or not. If they don't then C.F.IP6.ARPA will need to be added delegations in this space or not. If they don't, then C.F.IP6.ARPA
to the list above. If they do then registries will need to take will need to be added to the list above. If they do, then registries
steps to ensure that name servers are provided for these addresses. will need to take steps to ensure that name servers are provided for
these addresses.
This document is also ignoring the IP6.INT counterpart for the This document is also ignoring IP6.INT. IP6.INT has been wound up
IP6.ARPA addresses above. IP6.INT is in the process of being wound with only legacy resolvers now generating reverse queries under
up with clients already not querying for this suffix. IP6.INT.
This document has also deliberately ignored zones immediately under This document has also deliberately ignored names immediately under
the root. The author believes other methods would be more applicable the root. While there is a subset of queries to the roots which
for dealing with the excess / bogus traffic these generate. could be addressed using the techniques described here (e.g. .local
and IPv4 addresses) there is also a vast amount of traffic that
requires a different strategy (e.g. lookups for unqualied hostnames,
IPv6 addresses).
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document recommends that IANA establish a registry of zones This document recommends that IANA establish a registry of zones
which require this default behaviour, the initial contents are above. which require this default behaviour, the initial contents of which
More zones are expected to be added, and possibly deleted from this are in Section 4. More zones are expected to be added, and possibly
registry over time. Name server implementors are encouraged to check deleted from this registry over time. Name server implementors are
this registry and adjust their implementations to reflect changes encouraged to check this registry and adjust their implementations to
therein. reflect changes therein.
This registry can be amended through IESG reviewed RFC publication. This registry can be amended through "IETF Consensus" as per [RFC
2434] or IETF Review in 2434bis.
IANA should co-ordinate with the RIRs and ICANN to ensure the DNSSEC
deployment in the reverse trees that these zone are delegated in a
unsecure manner as per Security Considerations.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
During the initial deployment phase, particularly where [RFC 1918] During the initial deployment phase, particularly where [RFC 1918]
addresses are in use, there may be some clients that unexpectedly addresses are in use, there may be some clients that unexpectedly
receive name error rather than a PTR record. This may cause some receive a name error rather than a PTR record. This may cause some
service disruption until full service resolvers have been re- service disruption until full service resolvers have been re-
configured. configured.
When DNSSEC is deployed within the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA When DNSSEC is deployed within the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA
namespaces, the zones listed above will need to be delegated as namespaces, the zones listed above will need to be delegated as
insecure delegations. This will allow DNSSEC validation to succeed insecure delegations. This will allow DNSSEC validation to succeed
for queries in these spaces despite not being answered from the for queries in these spaces despite not being answered from the
delegated servers. delegated servers.
It is recommended that sites actively using these namespaces secure It is recommended that sites actively using these namespaces secure
them using DNSSEC [RFC 4035] by publishing and using DNSSEC trust them using DNSSEC [RFC 4035] by publishing and using DNSSEC trust
anchors. This is good just on general principles. It will also anchors. This will protect the clients from accidental leakage of
protect the clients from accidental leakage of answers from the unsigned answers from the Internet.
Internet which will be unsigned.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation
(research grant SCI-0427144) and DNS-OARC. (research grant SCI-0427144) and DNS-OARC.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
skipping to change at page 7, line 35 skipping to change at page 8, line 26
[RFC 1918] [RFC 1918]
Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
RFC 1918, February 1996. RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC 2119] [RFC 2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 2308]
Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS
NCACHE)", RFC 2398, March 1998.
[RFC 2434]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC 3330]
"Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330, September 2002.
[RFC 4035] [RFC 4035]
Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 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.
[RFC 4291]
Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[AS112] "AS112 Project", <http://as112.net/>. [AS112] "AS112 Project", <http://as112.net/>.
[RFC 4193] [RFC 4193]
Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
Appendix A. Change History [To Be Removed on Publication] Appendix A. Change History [To Be Removed on Publication]
A.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt A.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt
Revised impact description.
Updated to reflect change in IP6.INT status.
A.2. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt
Adopted by DNSOP. Adopted by DNSOP.
"Author's Note" re-titled "Zones that are Out-Of-Scope" "Author's Note" re-titled "Zones that are Out-Of-Scope"
Add note that these zone are expected to seed the IANA registry. Add note that these zone are expected to seed the IANA registry.
Title changed. Title changed.
A.2. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-03.txt A.3. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-03.txt
Added "Proposed Status". Added "Proposed Status".
A.3. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-02.txt A.4. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-02.txt
Added 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA. Added 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA.
Appendix B. Proposed Status [To Be Removed on Publication] Appendix B. Proposed Status [To Be Removed on Publication]
This Internet-Draft is being submitted for eventual publication as an This Internet-Draft is being submitted for eventual publication as an
RFC with a proposed status of Best Current Practice. RFC with a proposed status of Best Current Practice.
Author's Address Author's Address
Mark P. Andrews Mark P. Andrews
Internet Systems Consortium Internet Systems Consortium
950 Charter Street 950 Charter Street
Redwood City, CA 94063 Redwood City, CA 94063
US US
Email: Mark_Andrews@isc.org Email: Mark_Andrews@isc.org
Intellectual Property Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 10, line 29 skipping to change at page 10, line 45
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Internet Society. Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Download this as a file
 End of changes. 39 change blocks. 
98 lines changed or deleted 161 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/