GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5395

Network Working Group D. Eastlake 3rd Request for Comments: 5395 Stellar Switches BCP: 42 November 2008 Obsoletes: 2929 Updates: 1183, 3597 Category: Best Current Practice

            Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations

Status of This Memo

 This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
 Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2008 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
 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.

Abstract

 Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment
 considerations are specified for the allocation of Domain Name System
 (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes,
 DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
    1.1. Terminology ................................................2
 2. DNS Query/Response Headers ......................................3
    2.1. One Spare Bit? .............................................4
    2.2. OpCode Assignment ..........................................4
    2.3. RCODE Assignment ...........................................4
 3. DNS Resource Records ............................................6
    3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations .................................7
         3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy ........................8
         3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines ........................9
         3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR ..........................9
         3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field .........................10
    3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations ..............................10
    3.3. Label Considerations ......................................12
         3.3.1. Label Types ........................................12
         3.3.2. Label Contents and Use .............................12
 4. Security Considerations ........................................13
 5. IANA Considerations ............................................13
 Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template ............................14
 Normative References ..............................................15
 Informative References ............................................16

1. Introduction

 The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure
 hierarchical databases that store "resource records" (RRs) under
 domain names.  DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones that can
 be independently maintained.  See [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2136],
 [RFC2181], and [RFC4033], familiarity with which is assumed.
 This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general
 IANA parameter assignment considerations that apply across DNS query
 and response headers and all RRs.  There may be additional IANA
 considerations that apply to only a particular RRTYPE or
 query/response OpCode.  See the specific RFC defining that RRTYPE or
 query/response OpCode for such considerations if they have been
 defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC1183], which are
 included herein.  This RFC obsoletes [RFC2929].
 IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from
 http://www.iana.org.

1.1. Terminology

 "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and
 "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226].

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

2. DNS Query/Response Headers

 The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the
 following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC2929]:
                                            1  1  1  1  1  1
              0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  0  1  2  3  4  5
             +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
             |                      ID                       |
             +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
             |QR|   OpCode  |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD|   RCODE   |
             +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
             |                QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT                |
             +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
             |                ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT                |
             +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
             |                NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT                |
             +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
             |                    ARCOUNT                    |
             +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
 The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so
 they can be matched.
 The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response.
 The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful
 only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit.  However,
 some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value
 of the response header without clearing bits.  Thus, any attempt to
 use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define
 a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing
 implementation.  Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF
 Standards Action.
 The unsigned integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count
 (ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information
 count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all
 OpCodes except Update [RFC2136].  These fields have the same
 structure and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the
 zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and
 additional information (ARCOUNT) sections.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

2.1. One Spare Bit?

 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
 a zone is acceptable.  It is believed that current DNS
 implementations ignore this bit.
 Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires an IETF Standards Action.

2.2. OpCode Assignment

 Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows:
       OpCode Name                               Reference
        0     Query                              [RFC1035]
        1     IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete)   [RFC3425]
        2     Status                             [RFC1035]
        3     available for assignment
        4     Notify                             [RFC1996]
        5     Update                             [RFC2136]
       6-15   available for assignment
 New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified
 by [RFC4020].

2.3. RCODE Assignment

 It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of
 RCODE, or response/error code, are available.  However, RCODEs can
 appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside
 OPT RRs [RFC2671], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930].  The
 OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field,
 and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit RCODE field.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

 Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR types
 all refer to the same error code space with the single exception of
 error code 16, which has a different meaning in the OPT RR from its
 meaning in other contexts.  See table below.
      RCODE   Name    Description                        Reference
      Decimal
        Hexadecimal
       0    NoError   No Error                           [RFC1035]
       1    FormErr   Format Error                       [RFC1035]
       2    ServFail  Server Failure                     [RFC1035]
       3    NXDomain  Non-Existent Domain                [RFC1035]
       4    NotImp    Not Implemented                    [RFC1035]
       5    Refused   Query Refused                      [RFC1035]
       6    YXDomain  Name 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]
       9    NotAuth   Server Not Authoritative for zone  [RFC2136]
      10    NotZone   Name not contained in zone         [RFC2136]
      11 - 15         Available for assignment
      16    BADVERS   Bad OPT Version                    [RFC2671]
      16    BADSIG    TSIG Signature Failure             [RFC2845]
      17    BADKEY    Key not recognized                 [RFC2845]
      18    BADTIME   Signature out of time window       [RFC2845]
      19    BADMODE   Bad TKEY Mode                      [RFC2930]
      20    BADNAME   Duplicate key name                 [RFC2930]
      21    BADALG    Algorithm not supported            [RFC2930]
      22    BADTRUC   Bad Truncation                     [RFC4635]
      23 - 3,840
  0x0017 - 0x0F00     Available for assignment
   3,841 - 4,095
  0x0F01 - 0x0FFF     Private Use
   4,096 - 65,534
  0x1000 - 0xFFFE     Available for assignment
  65,535
  0xFFFF              Reserved, can only be allocated by an IETF
                      Standards Action.
 Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability,
 assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment"
 requires an IETF Review.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

3. DNS Resource Records

 All RRs have the same top-level format, shown in the figure below
 taken from [RFC1035].
                                     1  1  1  1  1  1
       0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  0  1  2  3  4  5
     +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
     |                                               |
     /                                               /
     /                      NAME                     /
     /                                               /
     +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
     |                      TYPE                     |
     +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
     |                     CLASS                     |
     +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
     |                      TTL                      |
     |                                               |
     +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
     |                   RDLENGTH                    |
     +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
     /                     RDATA                     /
     /                                               /
     +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
 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
 in section 3.2.  NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence of one or more
 labels, each of which has a label type [RFC1035] [RFC2671].
 TYPE is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE
 codes.  See section 3.1.
 CLASS is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS
 codes.  See section 3.2.
 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
 before the source of the information should again be consulted.  Zero
 is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the
 transaction in progress.
 RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16-bit integer that specifies the length in
 octets of the RDATA field.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 6] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

 RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the
 resource.  The format of this information varies according to the
 TYPE and, in some cases, the CLASS of the resource record.

3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations

 There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs,
 and Meta-TYPEs.
 Data TYPEs are the means of storing data.  QTYPES can only be used in
 queries.  Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a
 particular DNS message and, in some cases, can also be used in
 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
 Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward except for the OPT
 Meta-RR, which is assigned TYPE 41.  There have been DNS
 implementations that made caching decisions based on the top bit of
 the bottom byte of the RRTYPE.
 There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671], TSIG
 [RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930].  There are currently five QTYPEs
 assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR.
 RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the
 mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the following regular
 expression:
       [A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*
 Considerations for the allocation of new RRTYPEs are as follows:
   Decimal
 Hexadecimal
      0
 0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG (0)
        RR [RFC2931] and in other circumstances, and it must never be
        allocated for ordinary use.
      1 - 127
 0x0001 - 0x007F - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
          data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified
          in Section 3.1.1.
    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.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 7] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

    256 - 61,439
 0x0100 - 0xEFFF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
          data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
          specified in Section 3.1.1.  (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and
          0x8001) have been assigned.)
 61,440 - 65,279
 0xF000 - 0xFEFF - Reserved for future use.  IETF Review required to
          define use.
 65,280 - 65,534
 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
 65,535
 0xFFFF - Reserved; can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.

3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy

 Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above, as assigned based on
 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy, are allocated by Expert Review if they
 meet the two requirements listed below.  There will be a pool of a
 small number of Experts appointed by the IESG.  Each application will
 be ruled on by an Expert selected by IANA.  In any case where the
 selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of
 interest, IANA may select another Expert from the pool.
 Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2.  RRTYPEs
 that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be allocated
 by IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020].
 1. A complete template as specified in Appendix A has been posted for
    three weeks to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list before
    the Expert Review decision.
    Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted
    directly by the applicant for comment and discussion, but the
    formal posting to start the three week period is made by the
    Expert.
 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
    [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
    responses.
    Note that such RRs may include additional section processing,
    provided such processing is optional.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 8] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

 No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
 template has been formally posted to namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, the
 selected Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or
 rejecting the application, to IANA, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, and
 the email address provided by the applicant.  If the Expert does not
 post such a message, the application shall be considered rejected but
 may be re-submitted to IANA.
 IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates.

3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines

 The selected DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of
 the proposed RRTYPE, which may occur on the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
 mailing list, and may consult with other technical experts as
 necessary.  The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation
 request that meets one or more of the following criterion:
 1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to
    evaluate or implement.
 2. The proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not
    meet the criteria in point 2 of Section 3.1.1 above.
 3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete.
    (Additional documentation can be provided during the public
    comment period or by the Expert.)
 4. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about
    DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME, etc.
 5. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the
    purpose could be met with a smaller number or with Private Use
    values.

3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR

 The OPT (OPTion) RR (RRTYPE 41) and its IANA Considerations are
 specified in [RFC2671].  Its primary purpose is to extend the
 effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label
 type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size.  In particular, for
 resolvers and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field
 from 4 to 12 bits.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 9] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field

 The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] is a CLASS-insensitive RR that has the same
 RDATA field structure as the MX RR, but the 16-bit unsigned integer
 field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a subtype as
 follows:
   Decimal
 Hexadecimal
      0
 0x0000 - Reserved; allocation requires IETF Standards Action.
      1
 0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183].
      2
 0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183].
      3 - 65,279
 0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Review.
 65,280 - 65,534
 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
 65,535
 0xFFFF - Reserved; allocation requires IETF Standards Action.

3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations

 There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal,
 data-containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in
 queries or updates.
 DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of
 the DNS distributed database.  In particular, there is no necessary
 relationship between the name space or root servers for one data
 CLASS and those for another data CLASS.  The same DNS NAME can have
 completely different meanings in different CLASSes.  The label types
 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
 Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use.
 As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes".  That would
 be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular
 DNS message, which might be usable in queries.  However, it is
 possible that there might be a future requirement for one or more
 "meta-CLASSes".

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 10] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

 CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the
 mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the following regular
 expression:
       [A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*
 The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future
 assignments are as follows:
   Decimal
 Hexadecimal
      0
 0x0000 - Reserved; assignment requires an IETF Standards Action.
      1
 0x0001 - Internet (IN).
      2
 0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Review as a data CLASS.
      3
 0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981].
      4
 0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987].
      5 - 127
 0x0005 - 0x007F - Available for assignment by IETF Review for data
                   CLASSes only.
    128 - 253
 0x0080 - 0x00FD - Available for assignment by IETF Review for
                   QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only.
    254
 0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136].
    255
 0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035].
    256 - 32,767
 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Review.
 32,768 - 57,343
 0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only, based on
                   Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226].

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 11] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

 57,344 - 65,279
 0xE000 - 0xFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only, based
                   on Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226].
 65,280 - 65,534
 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
 65,535
 0xFFFF - Reserved; can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.

3.3. Label Considerations

 DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035].

3.3.1. Label Types

 At the present time, there are two categories of label types: data
 labels and compression labels.  Compression labels are pointers to
 data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to
 shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs.
 The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text
 and Binary.  Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value
 including zero-value octets, but many current uses involve only
 [US-ASCII].  For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII
 upper and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343].  Binary
 labels are bit sequences [RFC2673].  The Binary label type is
 Experimental [RFC3363].
 IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC2671].

3.3.2. Label Contents and Use

 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
 other NAME purpose.
 NAMEs are local to a CLASS.  The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos
 [Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use.  The IN, or
 Internet, CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the
 Internet at this time.
 A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class
 is given in [RFC1591].  Some information on reserved top-level domain
 names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606].

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 12] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

4. Security Considerations

 This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of
 general DNS parameters, not security.  See [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and
 [RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations.

5. IANA Considerations

 This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations and
 includes the following changes from its predecessor [RFC2929].  It
 affects the DNS Parameters registry and its subregistries, which are
 available from http://www.iana.org.
 1. In the Domain Name System "Resource record (RR) TYPES and QTYPEs"
    registry, it changes most "IETF Consensus" and all "Specification
    Required" allocation policies for RRTYPEs to be "DNS TYPE
    Allocation Policy" and changes the policy for RRTYPE 0xFFFF to be
    "IETF Standards Action".  Remaining instances of "IETF Consensus"
    are changed to "IETF Review", per [RFC5226].  It also specifies
    the "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy", which is based on Expert Review
    with additional provisions and restrictions, including the
    submittal of a completed copy of the template in Appendix A to
    dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org, in most cases, and requires
    "IETF Standards Action" as modified by [RFC4020] in other cases.
    IANA shall establish a process for accepting such templates,
    selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template
    form applications, archiving, and making available all approved
    RRTYPE allocation templates.  It is the duty of the selected
    Expert to post the formal application template to the
    namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list.  See Section 3.1 and
    Appendix A for more details.
 2. For OpCodes (see Section 2.2), it changes "IETF Standards Action"
    allocation requirements to add "as modified by [RFC4020]".
 3. It changes the allocation status of RCODE 0xFFFF to be "IETF
    Standards Action required".  See Section 2.3.
 4. It adds an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field,
    which requires the creation of a new registry.  See Section 3.1.4.
 5. It splits Specification Required CLASSes into data CLASSes and
    query or meta CLASSes.  See Section 3.2.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 13] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template

               DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE
 When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted
 to IANA for processing by emailing the template to
 dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org.
 A.    Submission Date:
 B.    Submission Type:
       [ ] New RRTYPE
       [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
 C.    Contact Information for submitter:
          Name:
          Email Address:
          International telephone number:
          Other contact handles:
          (Note: This information will be publicly posted.)
 D.    Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?
       Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and
       reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE.  Remember most reviewers
       will be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your
       application space.
 E.    Description of the proposed RR type.
       This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an
       attachment, or with a publicly available URL:
 F.    What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
       need and why are they unsatisfactory?
 G.    What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
       Note: This can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the
       template is accepted.
 H.    Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
       Registry or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in
       DNS Parameters?
       If so, please indicate which registry is to be used or created.
       If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy
       for it and its initial contents.  Also include what the
       modification procedures will be.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 14] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

 I.    Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
       servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being
       processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?
 J.    Comments:

Normative References

 [RFC1034]   Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and
             facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
 [RFC1035]   Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
             specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
 [RFC1996]   Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
             Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996.
 [RFC2136]   Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
             "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
             RFC 2136, April 1997.
 [RFC2181]   Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
             Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.
 [RFC2671]   Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
             2671, August 1999.
 [RFC2845]   Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B.
             Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for
             DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000.
 [RFC2930]   Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
             RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000.
 [RFC3425]   Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November
             2002.
 [RFC3597]   Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
             (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
 [RFC4020]   Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
             Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February
             2005.
 [RFC4033]   Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
             Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
             4033, March 2005.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 15] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

 [RFC4034]   Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
             Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
             RFC 4034, March 2005.
 [RFC4035]   Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
             Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
             Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
 [RFC4635]   Eastlake 3rd, D., "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message
             Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG
             Algorithm Identifiers", RFC 4635, August 2006.
 [RFC5226]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
             IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
             May 2008.
 [US-ASCII]  ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange",
             X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York,
             1968.

Informative References

 [Dyer1987]  Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical
             Plan - Name Service, April 1987.
 [Moon1981]  Moon, D., "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
             Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence
             Laboratory, June 1981.
 [RFC1183]   Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P.
             Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October
             1990.
 [RFC1591]   Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and
             Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994.
 [RFC2606]   Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
             Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
 [RFC2673]   Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
             RFC 2673, August 1999.
 [RFC2929]   Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning,
             "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42,
             RFC 2929, September 2000.
 [RFC2931]   Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
             ( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000.

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 16] RFC 5395 DNS IANA Considerations November 2008

 [RFC3363]   Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
             Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
             Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
             August 2002.
 [RFC4343]   Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
             Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.

Author's Address

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
 Stellar Switches
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 Phone: +1-508-634-2066 (h)
 EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com

Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 17]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5395.txt · Last modified: 2008/11/25 20:40 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki