idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (March 14, 2011) is 4791 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references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-04 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5735 (Obsoleted by RFC 6890) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Andrews 3 Internet-Draft ISC 4 Intended status: BCP March 14, 2011 5 Expires: September 15, 2011 7 Locally-served DNS Zones 8 draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15 10 Abstract 12 Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS) has shown that there are 13 a number of DNS zones all iterative resolvers and recursive 14 nameservers should automatically serve, unless configured otherwise. 15 RFC 4193 specifies that this should occur for D.F.IP6.ARPA. This 16 document extends the practice to cover the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for RFC 17 1918 address space and other well known zones with similar 18 characteristics. 20 Status of this Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 15, 2011. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 53 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 54 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 55 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 56 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 57 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 58 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 59 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 60 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 61 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 62 than English. 64 Table of Contents 66 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 1.1. Reserved Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 2. Effects on sites using RFC 1918 addresses. . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 4. Lists Of Zones Covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 4.1. RFC1918 Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 4.2. RFC5735 and RFC5737 Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 4.5. IPv6 Link Local Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 4.6. IPv6 Example Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 77 5. Zones that are Out-Of-Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 78 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 79 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 80 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 81 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 82 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 83 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 84 Appendix A. Change History [To Be Removed on Publication] . . . . 11 85 A.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15.txt . . . . . . . 12 86 A.2. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-14.txt . . . . . . . 12 87 A.3. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-13.txt . . . . . . . 12 88 A.4. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-12.txt . . . . . . . 12 89 A.5. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-11.txt . . . . . . . 12 90 A.6. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-10.txt . . . . . . . 12 91 A.7. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-09.txt . . . . . . . 12 92 A.8. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-08.txt . . . . . . . 12 93 A.9. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-07.txt . . . . . . . 12 94 A.10. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-06.txt . . . . . . . 12 95 A.11. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-05.txt . . . . . . . 12 96 A.12. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-04.txt . . . . . . . 13 97 A.13. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-03.txt . . . . . . . 13 98 A.14. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-02.txt . . . . . . . 13 99 A.15. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt . . . . . . . 13 100 A.16. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt . . . . . . . 13 101 A.17. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-03.txt . . . . . . . 13 102 A.18. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-02.txt . . . . . . . 13 103 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 105 1. Introduction 107 Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS, [RFC1034] and [RFC1035]) 108 has shown that there are a number of DNS zones that all iterative 109 resolvers and recursive nameservers SHOULD automatically serve, 110 unless intentionally configured otherwise. These zones include, but 111 are not limited to, the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for the address space 112 allocated by [RFC1918] and the IP6.ARPA zones for locally assigned 113 unique local IPv6 addresses defined in [RFC4193]. 115 This recommendation is made because data has shown that significant 116 leakage of queries for these name spaces is occurring, despite 117 instructions to restrict them, and because it has therefore become 118 necessary to deploy sacrificial name servers to protect the immediate 119 parent name servers for these zones from excessive, unintentional, 120 query load [AS112] [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops] 121 [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help]. There is every 122 expectation that the query load will continue to increase unless 123 steps are taken as outlined here. 125 Additionally, queries from clients behind badly configured firewalls 126 that allow outgoing queries for these name spaces but drop the 127 responses, put a significant load on the root servers (forward but no 128 reverse zones configured). They also cause operational load for the 129 root server operators as they have to reply to enquiries about why 130 the root servers are "attacking" these clients. Changing the default 131 configuration will address all these issues for the zones listed in 132 Section 4. 134 [RFC4193] recommends that queries for D.F.IP6.ARPA be handled 135 locally. This document extends the recommendation to cover the IN- 136 ADDR.ARPA zones for [RFC1918] and other well known IN-ADDR.ARPA and 137 IP6.ARPA zones for which queries should not appear on the public 138 Internet. 140 It is hoped that by doing this the number of sacrificial servers 141 [AS112] will not have to be increased, and may in time be reduced. 143 This recommendation should also help DNS responsiveness for sites 144 which are using [RFC1918] addresses but do not follow the last 145 paragraph in Section 3 of [RFC1918]. 147 1.1. Reserved Words 149 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 150 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 151 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 153 2. Effects on sites using RFC 1918 addresses. 155 For most sites using [RFC1918] addresses, the changes here will have 156 little or no detrimental effect. If the site does not already have 157 the reverse tree populated the only effect will be that the name 158 error responses will be generated locally rather than remotely. 160 For sites that do have the reverse tree populated, most will either 161 have a local copy of the zones or will be forwarding the queries to 162 servers which have local copies of the zone. Therefore this 163 recommendation will not be relevant. 165 The most significant impact will be felt at sites that make use of 166 delegations for [RFC1918] addresses and have populated these zones. 167 These sites will need to override the default configuration expressed 168 in this document to allow resolution to continue. Typically, such 169 sites will be fully disconnected from the Internet and have their own 170 root servers for their own non-Internet DNS tree. 172 3. Changes to Iterative Resolver Behaviour. 174 Unless configured otherwise, an iterative resolver will now return 175 authoritatively (aa=1) name errors (RCODE=3) for queries within the 176 zones in Section 4, with the obvious exception of queries for the 177 zone name itself where SOA, NS and "no data" responses will be 178 returned as appropriate to the query type. One common way to do this 179 all at once is to serve empty (SOA and NS only) zones. 181 An implementation of this recommendation MUST provide a mechanism to 182 disable this new behaviour, and SHOULD allow this decision on a zone 183 by zone basis. 185 If using empty zones one SHOULD NOT use the same NS and SOA records 186 as used on the public Internet servers as that will make it harder to 187 detect the origin of the responses and thus any leakage to the public 188 Internet servers. This document recommends that the NS record 189 defaults to the name of the zone and the SOA MNAME defaults to the 190 name of the only NS RR's target. The SOA RNAME should default to 191 "nobody.invalid." [RFC2606]. Implementations SHOULD provide a 192 mechanism to set these values. No address records need to be 193 provided for the name server. 195 Below is an example of a generic empty zone in master file format. 196 It will produce a negative cache TTL of 3 hours. 198 @ 10800 IN SOA @ nobody.invalid. 1 3600 1200 604800 10800 199 @ 10800 IN NS @ 200 The SOA RR is needed to support negative caching [RFC2308] of name 201 error responses and to point clients to the primary master for DNS 202 dynamic updates. 204 SOA values of particular importance are the MNAME, the SOA RR's TTL 205 and the negTTL value. Both TTL values SHOULD match. The rest of the 206 SOA timer values MAY be chosen arbitrarily since they are not 207 intended to control any zone transfer activity. 209 The NS RR is needed as some UPDATE [RFC2136] clients use NS queries 210 to discover the zone to be updated. Having no address records for 211 the name server is expected to abort UPDATE processing in the client. 213 4. Lists Of Zones Covered 215 The following subsections are intended to seed the IANA registry as 216 requested in the IANA Considerations Section. Following the caveat 217 in that section, the list contains only reverse zones corresponding 218 to permanently assigned address space. The zone name is the entity 219 to be registered. 221 4.1. RFC1918 Zones 223 The following zones correspond to the IPv4 address space reserved in 224 [RFC1918]. 226 +----------------------+ 227 | Zone | 228 +----------------------+ 229 | 10.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 230 | 16.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 231 | 17.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 232 | 18.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 233 | 19.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 234 | 20.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 235 | 21.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 236 | 22.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 237 | 23.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 238 | 24.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 239 | 25.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 240 | 26.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 241 | 27.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 242 | 28.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 243 | 29.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 244 | 30.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 245 | 31.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 246 | 168.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA | 247 +----------------------+ 249 4.2. RFC5735 and RFC5737 Zones 251 The following zones correspond to those address ranges from [RFC5735] 252 and [RFC5737] that are not expected to appear as source or 253 destination addresses on the public Internet and to not have a unique 254 name to associate with. 256 The recommendation to serve an empty zone 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA is not a 257 attempt to discourage any practice to provide a PTR RR for 258 1.0.0.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA locally. In fact, a meaningful reverse 259 mapping should exist, but the exact setup is out of the scope of this 260 document. Similar logic applies to the reverse mapping for ::1 261 (Section 4.3). The recommendations made here simply assume no other 262 coverage for these domains exists. 264 +------------------------------+------------------------+ 265 | Zone | Description | 266 +------------------------------+------------------------+ 267 | 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 "THIS" NETWORK | 268 | 127.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 LOOP-BACK NETWORK | 269 | 254.169.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 LINK LOCAL | 270 | 2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST NET 1 | 271 | 100.51.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST NET 2 | 272 | 113.0.203.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 TEST NET 3 | 273 | 255.255.255.255.IN-ADDR.ARPA | IPv4 BROADCAST | 274 +------------------------------+------------------------+ 276 4.3. Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses 278 The reverse mappings ([RFC3596], Section 2.5 IP6.ARPA Domain) for the 279 IPv6 Unspecified (::) and Loopback (::1) addresses ([RFC4291], 280 Sections 2.4, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3) are covered by these two zones: 282 +-------------------------------------------+ 283 | Zone | 284 +-------------------------------------------+ 285 | 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.\ | 286 | 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP6.ARPA | 287 | 1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.\ | 288 | 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.IP6.ARPA | 289 +-------------------------------------------+ 291 Note: Line breaks and a escapes '\' have been inserted above for 292 readability and to adhere to line width constraints. They are not 293 parts of the zone names. 295 4.4. IPv6 Locally Assigned Local Addresses 297 Section 4.4 of [RFC4193] already required special treatment of: 299 +--------------+ 300 | Zone | 301 +--------------+ 302 | D.F.IP6.ARPA | 303 +--------------+ 305 4.5. IPv6 Link Local Addresses 307 IPv6 Link-Local Addresses as of [RFC4291], Section 2.5.6 are covered 308 by four distinct reverse DNS zones: 310 +----------------+ 311 | Zone | 312 +----------------+ 313 | 8.E.F.IP6.ARPA | 314 | 9.E.F.IP6.ARPA | 315 | A.E.F.IP6.ARPA | 316 | B.E.F.IP6.ARPA | 317 +----------------+ 319 4.6. IPv6 Example Prefix 321 IPv6 example prefix [RFC3849]. 323 +--------------------------+ 324 | Zone | 325 +--------------------------+ 326 | 8.B.D.0.1.0.0.2.IP6.ARPA | 327 +--------------------------+ 329 Note: 8.B.D.0.1.0.0.2.IP6.ARPA is not being used as an example here. 331 5. Zones that are Out-Of-Scope 333 IPv6 site-local addresses (deprecated, see [RFC4291] Sections 2.4 and 334 2.5.7), and IPv6 Non-Locally Assigned Local addresses ([RFC4193]) are 335 not covered here. 337 It is expected that IPv6 site-local addresses will be self correcting 338 as IPv6 implementations remove support for site-local addresses. 339 However, sacrificial servers for the zones C.E.F.IP6.ARPA through 340 F.E.F.IP6.ARPA may still need to be deployed in the short term if the 341 traffic becomes excessive. 343 For IPv6 Non-Locally Assigned Local addresses (L = 0) [RFC4193], 344 there has been no decision made about whether the Regional Internet 345 Registries (RIRs) will provide delegations in this space or not. If 346 they don't, then C.F.IP6.ARPA will need to be added to the list in 347 Section 4.4. If they do, then registries will need to take steps to 348 ensure that name servers are provided for these addresses. 350 IP6.INT was once used to provide reverse mapping for IPv6. IP6.INT 351 was deprecated in [RFC4159] and the delegation removed from the INT 352 zone in June 2006. While it is possible that legacy software 353 continues to send queries for names under the IP6.INT domain, this 354 document does not specify that IP6.INT be considered a local zone. 356 This document has also deliberately ignored names immediately under 357 the root domain. While there is a subset of queries to the root name 358 servers which could be addressed using the techniques described here 359 (e.g. .local, .workgroup and IPv4 addresses), there is also a vast 360 amount of traffic that requires a different strategy (e.g. lookups 361 for unqualified hostnames, IPv6 addresses). 363 6. IANA Considerations 365 This document requests that IANA establish a registry of zones which 366 require this default behaviour. The initial contents of this 367 registry are defined in Section 4. Implementors are encouraged to 368 periodically check this registry and adjust their implementations to 369 reflect changes therein. 371 This registry can be amended through "IETF Review" as per [RFC5226]. 372 As part of this review process it should be noted that once a zone is 373 added it is effectively added permanently; once an address range 374 starts being configured as a local zone in systems on the Internet, 375 it will be impossible to reverse those changes. 377 IANA should co-ordinate with the RIRs to ensure that, as DNSSEC is 378 deployed in the reverse tree, delegations for these zones are made in 379 the manner described in Section 7. 381 7. Security Considerations 383 During the initial deployment phase, particularly where [RFC1918] 384 addresses are in use, there may be some clients that unexpectedly 385 receive a name error rather than a PTR record. This may cause some 386 service disruption until their recursive name server(s) have been re- 387 configured. 389 As DNSSEC is deployed within the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA 390 namespaces, the zones listed above will need to be delegated as 391 insecure delegations, or be within insecure zones. This will allow 392 DNSSEC validation to succeed for queries in these spaces despite not 393 being answered from the delegated servers. 395 It is recommended that sites actively using these namespaces secure 396 them using DNSSEC [RFC4035] by publishing and using DNSSEC trust 397 anchors. This will protect the clients from accidental import of 398 unsigned responses from the Internet. 400 8. Acknowledgements 402 This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation 403 (research grant SCI-0427144) and DNS-OARC. 405 9. References 407 9.1. Normative References 409 [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES", 410 STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 412 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "DOMAIN NAMES - IMPLEMENTATION AND 413 SPECIFICATION", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 415 [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., 416 and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", 417 BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. 419 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 420 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 422 [RFC2136] Vixie, P., Thomson, A., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, 423 "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", 424 RFC 2136, April 1997. 426 [RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS 427 NCACHE)", RFC 2308, March 1998. 429 [RFC2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS 430 Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999. 432 [RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, 433 "DNS Extensions to Support IPv6", RFC 3596, October 2003. 435 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 436 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 437 Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. 439 [RFC4159] Huston, G., "Deprecation of "ip6.int"", BCP 109, RFC 4159, 440 August 2005. 442 [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 443 Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005. 445 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 446 Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. 448 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 449 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 450 October 2008. 452 9.2. Informative References 454 [AS112] "AS112 Project", . 456 [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops] 457 Abley, J. and W. Maton, "AS112 Nameserver Operations", 458 draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops-04 (work in progress), 459 July 2010. 461 [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help] 462 Abley, J. and W. Maton, "I'm Being Attacked by 463 PRISONER.IANA.ORG!", 464 draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help-04 (work in 465 progress), July 2010. 467 [RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix 468 Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004. 470 [RFC5735] Cotton, M. and L. Vergoda, "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", 471 RFC 5735, January 2010. 473 [RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vergoda, "IPv4 Address 474 Blocks Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, 475 January 2010. 477 Appendix A. Change History [To Be Removed on Publication] 478 A.1. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-15.txt 480 refresh awaiting writeup 482 A.2. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-14.txt 484 Removed ORCHID prefix. 486 A.3. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-13.txt 488 Inclusion of ORCHID prefix. 490 reference updates. 492 A.4. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-12.txt 494 Update IP6.INT's non inclusion rational. 496 Removed Appendix B, which requested BCP status, as it was redundant. 498 A.5. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-11.txt 500 Change RFC 3330 to RFC 5735 502 A.6. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-10.txt 504 added RFC 5737 zones 506 A.7. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-09.txt 508 refresh awaiting writeup 510 A.8. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-08.txt 512 editorial, reference updates 514 A.9. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-07.txt 516 none, expiry prevention 518 A.10. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-06.txt 520 add IPv6 example prefix 522 A.11. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-05.txt 524 none, expiry prevention 526 A.12. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-04.txt 528 Centrally Assigned Local addresses -> Non-Locally Assigned Local 529 address 531 A.13. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-03.txt 533 expanded section 4 descriptions 535 Added references [RFC2136], [RFC3596], 536 [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-ops] and 537 [I-D.draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-under-attack-help-help]. 539 Revised language. 541 A.14. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-02.txt 543 RNAME now "nobody.invalid." 545 Revised language. 547 A.15. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-01.txt 549 Revised impact description. 551 Updated to reflect change in IP6.INT status. 553 A.16. draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-00.txt 555 Adopted by DNSOP. 557 "Author's Note" re-titled "Zones that are Out-Of-Scope" 559 Add note that these zone are expected to seed the IANA registry. 561 Title changed. 563 A.17. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-03.txt 565 Added "Proposed Status". 567 A.18. draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers-02.txt 569 Added 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA. 571 Author's Address 573 Mark P. Andrews 574 Internet Systems Consortium 575 950 Charter Street 576 Redwood City, CA 94063 577 US 579 Email: marka@isc.org