GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6195

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd Request for Comments: 6195 Huawei BCP: 42 March 2011 Obsoletes: 5395 Updates: 1183, 3597 Category: Best Current Practice ISSN: 2070-1721

            Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations

Abstract

 This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
 parameter assignment considerations 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.

Status of This Memo

 This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 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.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6195.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2011 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.  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.

Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
    1.1. Terminology ................................................3
 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
 Appendix B. Changes from RFC 5395 .................................15
 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.  Familiarity with  [RFC1034], [RFC1035],
 [RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] 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 [RFC5395]; however, the only
 significant change is the change to the public review mailing list to
 dnsext@ietf.org.
 IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from
 http://www.iana.org.

Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

1.1. Terminology

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

2. DNS Query/Response Headers

 The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the
 following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC5395]:
                                         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 a 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 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

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 a 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 a 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.
    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 than in other contexts.  This duplicate assignment was
    accidental.  See table below.

Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

        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 a
                        Standards Action.
    Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for
    interoperability, assignment of a new RCODE in the ranges listed
    above as "Available for assignment" requires an IETF Review.

Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

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 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 6] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

 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\-]*[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] [RFC4034] 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 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 7] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

    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 a 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 a Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020].
 1.  A complete template as specified in Appendix A has been posted
     for three weeks to the dnsext@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 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 8] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

 After the applicant posts their formal application with their
 template as specified in Appendix A, IANA appoints an Expert and the
 template is posted, with an indication that it is a formal
 application, to the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list.  No less than three
 weeks and no more than six weeks after this posting to
 dnsext@ietf.org, the selected Expert shall post a message, explicitly
 accepting or rejecting the application, to IANA, dnsext@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 resubmitted to IANA.  IANA should report non-responsive
 Experts to the IESG.
 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 dnsext@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 criteria:
 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 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 9] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

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 [RFC1035], 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 a 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 a 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 been 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 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 10] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

 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\-]*[A-Z0-9]
 The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future
 assignments are as follows:
   Decimal
 Hexadecimal
      0
 0x0000 - Reserved; assignment requires a 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 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 11] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

 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 a 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 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 12] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

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.
 IANA has established a process for accepting Appendix A templates and
 selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form
 applications.  IANA archives and makes available all approved RRTYPE
 allocation templates.  It is the duty of the applicant to post the
 formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org
 mailing list, which IANA will monitor.  The dnsext@ietf.org mailing
 list is for community discussion and comment.  See Section 3.1 and
 Appendix A for more details.

Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 13] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

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 (will be publicly posted):
       Name:
       Email Address:
       International telephone number:
       Other contact handles:
 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.  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.
 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:

Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 14] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

Appendix B. Changes From RFC 5395

 Replaced "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" with "dnsext@ietf.org".
 Dropped description of changes from RFC 2929 to RFC 5395 since those
 changes have already happened, and we don't need to do them again.
 Updated the boilerplate text.
 Fixed Section 5 to say that it is the duty of the applicant, not the
 expert, to post the application to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org.
 Changed the regular expression for RRTYPE and CLASS names so as to
 prohibit trailing hyphen ("-") and require a minimum length of 2
 characters.
 Made a number of minor editorial and typos fixes.

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.

Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 15] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

 [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.
 [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.

Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 16] RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011

 [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.
 [RFC2931]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
            ( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000.
 [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.
 [RFC5395]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
            Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 5395, November 2008.

Author's Address

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
 Huawei Technologies
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 Phone: +1-508-333-2270
 EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com

Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice [Page 17]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6195.txt · Last modified: 2011/03/28 22:32 (external edit)