idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC5395, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC1183, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC1183, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1990-10-01) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 16, 2011) is 4848 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'A-Z' is mentioned on line 463, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'A-Z0-9' is mentioned on line 463, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2671 (Obsoleted by RFC 6891) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2845 (Obsoleted by RFC 8945) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4020 (Obsoleted by RFC 7120) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4635 (Obsoleted by RFC 8945) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'US-ASCII' -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2673 (Obsoleted by RFC 6891) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5395 (Obsoleted by RFC 6195) Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT Donald Eastlake 2 Obsoletes: 5395 Huawei 3 Updates: 1183, 3597 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice 5 Expires: July 15, 2011 January 16, 2011 7 Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations 8 10 Abstract 12 This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) 13 parameter assignment considerations are specified for the allocation 14 of Domain Name System (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation 15 codes, error codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB 16 resource record subtypes. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Distribution of this draft is unlimited. It is intended to become the 24 new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 5395. Comments should be sent to the DNS 25 Extensions Working Group mailing list . 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 29 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 30 Drafts. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 38 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 40 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 41 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 43 Table of Contents 45 1. Introduction............................................3 46 1.1. Terminology...........................................3 48 2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................4 49 2.1. One Spare Bit?........................................4 50 2.2. OpCode Assignment.....................................5 51 2.3. RCODE Assignment......................................5 53 3. DNS Resource Records....................................7 54 3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations............................8 55 3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy........................9 56 3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines.......................10 57 3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR.........................10 58 3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field.........................10 59 3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations.........................11 60 3.3. Label Considerations.................................13 61 3.3.1. Label Types........................................13 62 3.3.2. Label Contents and Use.............................13 64 4. Security Considerations................................14 65 5. IANA Considerations....................................14 67 Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template.......................15 68 Annex B: Changes From RFC 5395............................16 70 1. Introduction 72 The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure 73 hierarchical databases that store "resource records" (RRs) under 74 domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones that can 75 be independently maintained. See [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2136], 76 [RFC2181], and [RFC4033], familiarity with which is assumed. 78 This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general 79 IANA parameter assignment considerations that apply across DNS query 80 and response headers and all RRs. There may be additional IANA 81 considerations that apply to only a particular RRTYPE or 82 query/response OpCode. See the specific RFC defining that RRTYPE or 83 query/response OpCode for such considerations if they have been 84 defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC1183], which are 85 included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC5395]; however, the only 86 significant change is the change to the public review mailing list to 87 dnsext@ietf.org. 89 IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from 90 http://www.iana.org. 92 1.1. Terminology 94 "Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and 95 "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226]. 97 2. DNS Query/Response Headers 99 The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the 100 following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC5395]: 102 1 1 1 1 1 1 103 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 104 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 105 | ID | 106 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 107 |QR| OpCode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE | 108 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 109 | QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT | 110 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 111 | ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT | 112 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 113 | NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT | 114 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 115 | ARCOUNT | 116 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 118 The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so 119 they can be matched. 121 The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response. 123 The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful 124 only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. However, 125 some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value 126 of the response header without clearing bits. Thus, any attempt to 127 use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define 128 a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing 129 implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an Standards 130 Action. 132 The unsigned integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count 133 (ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information 134 count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all 135 OpCodes except Update [RFC2136]. These fields have the same structure 136 and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the zone 137 (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional 138 information (ARCOUNT) sections. 140 2.1. One Spare Bit? 142 There have been ancient DNS implementations for which the Z bit being 143 on in a query meant that only a response from the primary server for 144 a zone is acceptable. It is believed that current DNS implementations 145 ignore this bit. 147 Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires a Standards Action. 149 2.2. OpCode Assignment 151 Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows: 153 OpCode Name Reference 155 0 Query [RFC1035] 156 1 IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC3425] 157 2 Status [RFC1035] 158 3 available for assignment 159 4 Notify [RFC1996] 160 5 Update [RFC2136] 161 6-15 available for assignment 163 New OpCode assignments require a Standards Action as modified by 164 [RFC4020]. 166 2.3. RCODE Assignment 168 It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of 169 RCODE, or response/error code, are available. However, RCODEs can 170 appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside 171 OPT RRs [RFC2671], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930]. The 172 OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field, 173 and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit RCODE field. 175 Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR types 176 all refer to the same error code space with the single exception of 177 error code 16 which has a different meaning in the OPT RR from its 178 meaning in other contexts. This duplicate assignment was accidental. 179 See table below. 181 RCODE Name Description Reference 182 Decimal 183 Hexadecimal 184 0 NoError No Error [RFC1035] 185 1 FormErr Format Error [RFC1035] 186 2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC1035] 187 3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC1035] 188 4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC1035] 189 5 Refused Query Refused [RFC1035] 190 6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC2136] 191 7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC2136] 192 8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC2136] 193 9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC2136] 194 10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC2136] 195 11 - 15 Available for assignment 196 16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC2671] 197 16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC2845] 198 17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC2845] 199 18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC2845] 200 19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC2930] 201 20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC2930] 202 21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC2930] 203 22 BADTRUC Bad Truncation [RFC4635] 204 23 - 3,840 205 0x0017 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment 207 3,841 - 4,095 208 0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Private Use 210 4,096 - 65,534 211 0x1000 - 0xFFFE Available for assignment 213 65,535 214 0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by a 215 Standards Action. 217 Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability, 218 assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment" 219 requires an IETF Review. 221 3. DNS Resource Records 223 All RRs have the same top-level format, shown in the figure below 224 taken from [RFC1035]. 226 1 1 1 1 1 1 227 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 228 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 229 | | 230 / / 231 / NAME / 232 / / 233 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 234 | TYPE | 235 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 236 | CLASS | 237 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 238 | TTL | 239 | | 240 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 241 | RDLENGTH | 242 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--| 243 / RDATA / 244 / / 245 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 247 NAME is an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this 248 resource record pertains. NAMEs are specific to a CLASS as described 249 in section 3.2. NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence of one or more 250 labels, each of which has a label type [RFC1035] [RFC2671]. 252 TYPE is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE 253 codes. See section 3.1. 255 CLASS is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS 256 codes. See section 3.2. 258 TTL is a 4-octet (32-bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for data 259 TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be cached 260 before the source of the information should again be consulted. Zero 261 is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the 262 transaction in progress. 264 RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16-bit integer that specifies the length in 265 octets of the RDATA field. 267 RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the 268 resource. The format of this information varies according to the TYPE 269 and, in some cases, the CLASS of the resource record. 271 3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations 273 There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs, 274 and Meta-TYPEs. 276 Data TYPEs are the means of storing data. QTYPES can only be used in 277 queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a 278 particular DNS message and, in some cases, can also be used in 279 queries. Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward plus 280 the block from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and 281 Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward except for the OPT 282 Meta-RR, which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS 283 implementations that made caching decisions based on the top bit of 284 the bottom byte of the RRTYPE. 286 There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671], TSIG 287 [RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs 288 assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR. 290 RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the 291 mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the following regular 292 expression: 294 [A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9] 296 Considerations for the allocation of new RRTYPEs are as follows: 298 Decimal 299 Hexadecimal 301 0 302 0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG (0) 303 RR [RFC2931], [RFC4034] and in other circumstances, and it 304 must never be allocated for ordinary use. 306 1 - 127 307 0x0001 - 0x007F - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for 308 data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified 309 in Section 3.1.1. 311 128 - 255 312 0x0080 - 0x00FF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for Q 313 and Meta TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as 314 specified in Section 3.1.1. 316 256 - 61,439 317 0x0100 - 0xEFFF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for 318 data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as 319 specified in Section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and 320 0x8001) have been assigned.) 322 61,440 - 65,279 323 0xF000 - 0xFEFF - Reserved for future use. IETF Review required to 324 define use. 326 65,280 - 65,534 327 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 329 65,535 330 0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by a Standards Action. 332 3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy 334 Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above as assigned based on 335 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy, are allocated by Expert Review if they 336 meet the two requirements listed below. There will be a pool of a 337 small number of Experts appointed by the IESG. Each application will 338 be ruled on by an Expert selected by IANA. In any case where the 339 selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of 340 interest, IANA may select another Expert from the pool. 342 Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2. RRTYPEs 343 that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be allocated 344 by a Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]. 346 1. A complete template as specified in Appendix A has been posted for 347 three weeks to the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list before the Expert 348 Review decision. 349 Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted 350 directly by the applicant for comment and discussion, but the 351 formal posting to start the three week period is made by the 352 Expert. 354 2. The RR for which an RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a) a 355 data TYPE that can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in 356 [RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type whose processing is optional, i.e., 357 it is safe to simply discard RRs with that Meta-Type in queries or 358 responses. 359 Note that such RRs may include additional section processing, 360 provided such processing is optional. 362 After the applicant posts their formal application with their 363 template as specified in Annex A, IANA appoints an Expert and the 364 template is posted, with an indication that it is a formal 365 application, to the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list. No less than three 366 weeks and no more than six weeks after this posting to 367 dnsext@ietf.org, the selected Expert shall post a message, explicitly 368 accepting or rejecting the application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and 369 the email address provided by the applicant. If the Expert does not 370 post such a message, the application shall be considered rejected but 371 may be re-submitted to IANA. IANA should report non-responsive 372 Experts to the IESG. 374 IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates. 376 3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines 378 The selected DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of 379 the proposed RRTYPE, which may occur on the dnsext@ietf.org mailing 380 list, and may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The 381 Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that 382 meets one or more of the following criterion: 384 1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to 385 evaluate or implement. 387 2. The proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not 388 meet the criteria in point 2 of Section 3.1.1 above. 390 3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete. 391 (Additional documentation can be provided during the public 392 comment period or by the Expert.) 394 4. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about 395 DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME, etc. 397 5. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the 398 purpose could be met with a smaller number or with Private Use 399 values. 401 3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR 403 The OPT (OPTion) RR (RRTYPE 41) and its IANA Considerations are 404 specified in [RFC2671]. Its primary purpose is to extend the 405 effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label 406 type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size. In particular, for resolvers 407 and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field from 4 to 408 12 bits. 410 3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field 412 The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] is a CLASS-insensitive RR that has the same 413 RDATA field structure as the MX RR [RFC1035], but the 16-bit unsigned 414 integer field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a 415 subtype as follows: 417 Decimal 418 Hexadecimal 420 0 421 0x0000 - Reserved; allocation requires a Standards Action. 423 1 424 0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183]. 426 2 427 0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183]. 429 3 - 65,279 430 0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Review. 432 65,280 - 65,534 433 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 435 65,535 436 0xFFFF - Reserved; allocation requires a Standards Action. 438 3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations 440 There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data- 441 containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries 442 or updates. 444 DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of 445 the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary 446 relationship between the name space or root servers for one data 447 CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have 448 completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types 449 are the same, and the null label is usable only as root in every 450 CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or 451 Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use. 453 As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would 454 be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular 455 DNS message, which might be usable in queries. However, it is 456 possible that there might be a future requirement for one or more 457 "meta-CLASSes". 459 CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the 460 mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the following regular 461 expression: 463 [A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9] 465 The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future 466 assignments are as follows: 468 Decimal 469 Hexadecimal 471 0 472 0x0000 - Reserved; assignment requires a Standards Action. 474 1 475 0x0001 - Internet (IN). 477 2 478 0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Review as a data CLASS. 480 3 481 0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981]. 483 4 484 0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987]. 486 5 - 127 487 0x0005 - 0x007F - Available for assignment by IETF Review for data 488 CLASSes only. 490 128 - 253 491 0x0080 - 0x00FD - Available for assignment by IETF Review for 492 QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only. 494 254 495 0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136]. 497 255 498 0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035]. 500 256 - 32,767 501 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Review. 503 32,768 - 57,343 504 0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only, based on 505 Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226]. 507 57,344 - 65,279 508 0xE000 - 0xFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only, based 509 on Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226]. 511 65,280 - 65,534 512 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 514 65,535 515 0xFFFF - Reserved; can only be assigned by a Standards Action. 517 3.3. Label Considerations 519 DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035]. 521 3.3.1. Label Types 523 At the present time, there are two categories of label types: data 524 labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to 525 data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to 526 shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs. 528 The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text 529 and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value 530 including zero-value octets, but many current uses involve only [US- 531 ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII upper 532 and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343]. Binary labels are 533 bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary label type is Experimental 534 [RFC3363]. 536 IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC2671]. 538 3.3.2. Label Contents and Use 540 The last label in each NAME is "ROOT", which is the zero-length 541 label. By definition, the null or ROOT label cannot be used for any 542 other NAME purpose. 544 NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos 545 [Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use. The IN, or 546 Internet, CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the 547 Internet at this time. 549 A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class 550 is given in [RFC1591]. Some information on reserved top-level domain 551 names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606]. 553 4. Security Considerations 555 This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of 556 general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and 557 [RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations. 559 5. IANA Considerations 561 This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations. 563 IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates, 564 selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form 565 applications, and archive and make available all approved RRTYPE 566 allocation templates. It is the duty of the applicant to post the 567 formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org 568 mailing list which IANA will monitor. The dnsext@ietf.org mailing 569 list is for community discussion and comment. See Section 3.1 and 570 Annex A for more details. 572 Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template 574 DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE 576 When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted 577 to IANA for processing by emailing the template to dns-rrtype- 578 applications@ietf.org. 580 A. Submission Date: 582 B. Submission Type: 583 [ ] New RRTYPE 584 [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE 586 C. Contact Information for submitter (will be publicly posted): 587 Name: 588 Email Address: 589 International telephone number: 590 Other contact handles: 592 D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application? 593 Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and 594 reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Remember most reviewers will 595 be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your application 596 space. 598 E. Description of the proposed RR type. 599 This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an 600 attachment or with a publicly available URL. 602 F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need 603 and why are they unsatisfactory? 605 G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)? 606 Note: this can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the 607 template is accepted. 609 H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA Registry 610 or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in DNS 611 Parameters? 612 If so, please indicate which registry is to be used or created. If 613 a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy for it 614 and its initial contents. Also include what the modification 615 procedures will be. 617 I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS 618 servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed 619 as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])? 621 J. Comments: 623 Annex B: Changes From RFC 5395 625 Replace "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" with "dnsext@ietf.org". 627 Drop description of changes from RFC 2929 to RFC 5395 since those 628 changes have already happened and we don't need to do them again. 630 Updates to boilerplate text. 632 Fix Section 5 to say that it is the duty of the applicant, not the 633 expert, to post the application to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org. 635 Change the regular expression for RRTYPE and CLASS names so as to 636 prohibit trailing hypen ("-") and require a minimum length of 2 637 characters. 639 A number of minor editorial and typos fixes. 641 Normative References 643 [RFC1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and 644 facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 646 [RFC1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 647 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 649 [RFC1996] - Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone 650 Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996. 652 [RFC2136] - Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, 653 "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, 654 April 1997. 656 [RFC2181] - Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS 657 Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. 659 [RFC2671] - Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 660 2671, August 1999. 662 [RFC2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B. 663 Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", 664 RFC 2845, May 2000. 666 [RFC2930] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY 667 RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000. 669 [RFC3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November 670 2002. 672 [RFC3597] - Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record 673 (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. 675 [RFC4020] - Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of 676 Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005. 678 [RFC4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 679 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March 680 2005. 682 [RFC4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 683 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, 684 March 2005. 686 [RFC4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 687 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 688 4035, March 2005. 690 [RFC4635] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message 691 Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm 692 Identifiers", RFC 4635, August 2006. 694 [RFC5226] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 695 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. 697 [US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange", 698 X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968. 700 Informative References 702 [Dyer1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical 703 Plan - Name Service, April 1987. 705 [Moon1981] - Moon, D., "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts 706 Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June 707 1981. 709 [RFC1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P. 710 Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990. 712 [RFC1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and 713 Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994. 715 [RFC2606] - Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS 716 Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999. 718 [RFC2673] - Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", 719 RFC 2673, August 1999. 721 [RFC2931] - Eastlake 3rd, E., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures 722 ( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000. 724 [RFC3363] - Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. 725 Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in 726 the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002. 728 [RFC4343] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case 729 Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, December 2005. 731 [RFC5395] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA 732 Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 5395, November 2008. 734 Author's Address 736 Donald Eastlake 737 Huawei 738 155 Beaver Street 739 Milford, MA 01757 USA 741 Telephone: +1-508-333-2270 742 email: d3e3e3@gmail.com 744 Copyright and IPR Provisions 746 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 747 document authors. All rights reserved. 749 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 750 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 751 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 752 publication of this document. Please review these documents 753 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 754 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 755 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 756 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 757 described in the BSD License. The definitive version of an IETF 758 Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. 759 Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties, 760 including those that are translated into other languages, should not 761 be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The 762 definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or 763 under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions 764 that are published by third parties, including those that are 765 translated into other languages, should not be considered to be 766 definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. For the avoidance of 767 doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each 768 Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards 769 Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No 770 language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ 771 from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under 772 RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether 773 published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such 774 Contribution.