<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd' []>
<rfc ipr="trust200902" category="std" docName="draft-dickinson-dnsop-deprecating-status-opcode-00" updates="1035">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc private=""?>
<?rfc topblock="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="no"?>
<front>
<title abbrev="Depreciating the DNS Status OpCode">Depreciating the DNS Status OpCode</title>

<author initials="J." surname="Dickinson" fullname="John Dickinson">
<organization>Sinodun IT</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street></street>
<street>Magdalen Centre</street>
<street>Oxford Science Park</street>
<city>Oxford</city>
<code>OX4 4GA</code>
<country></country>
<region></region>
</postal>
<phone></phone>
<email>jad@sinodun.com</email>
<uri></uri>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2019" month="May" day="13"/>

<area>Internet</area>
<workgroup>dnsop</workgroup>
<keyword>DNS</keyword>


<abstract>
<t>This document updates RFC1035 to depreciate the Status DNS OpCode.
</t>
</abstract>


</front>

<middle>

<section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">
<t>The Status OpCode was given the value of 2 in <xref target="RFC1035"/>. However, no RFC defines what it means or how it should be used. This document makes the Status OpCode obsolete.
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="terminology" title="Terminology">
<t>The key words &quot;MUST&quot;, &quot;MUST NOT&quot;, &quot;REQUIRED&quot;, &quot;SHALL&quot;, &quot;SHALL NOT&quot;, &quot;SHOULD&quot;, &quot;SHOULD NOT&quot;, &quot;RECOMMENDED&quot;, &quot;NOT RECOMMENDED&quot;, &quot;MAY&quot;, and &quot;OPTIONAL&quot; in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="implementation-status" title="Implementation Status">
<t>To the author's knowledge there is no implementation of the Status OpCode. A quick test shows inconsistent responses to a Status request with different DNS server implementations returning NotImp, Refused or giving no response at all.
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="depreciating-the-status-opcode" title="Depreciating the Status OpCode">
<t>The Status OpCode MUST be marked OBSOLETE.
</t>
<t>The correct response to the Status OpCode MUST be NotImp.
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="security-considerations" title="Security Considerations">
<t>None
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="iana-considerations" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This documents updates the IANA registry &quot;Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters OpCode registry&quot; <xref target="DNS-IANA"/>.
</t>
<texttable>
<ttcol align="left">OpCode</ttcol>
<ttcol align="left">Name</ttcol>
<ttcol align="left">Reference</ttcol>

<c>2</c><c>Status (OBSOLETE)</c><c>This Document</c>
</texttable>
</section>

<section anchor="acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgments">
<t>Thanks to Mark Andrews, Matt Pounsett, Roy Arends and all the people at IETF 104 that I asked if they knew of any usage of this OpCode. Also thanks to Shane Kerr for reminding me to write this document.
</t>
</section>

</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1035.xml"?>
<?rfc include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?>
<?rfc include="http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"?>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor='DNS-IANA' target='https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-parameters-5'>
    <front>
        <title>Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters OpCode registry</title>
        <author>
            <organization>IANA</organization>
        </author>
        <date year=''/>
    </front>
</reference>
</references>

</back>
</rfc>
