idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-00.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 RFC5393, 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 (November 10, 2010) is 4915 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 459, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'A-Z0-9-' is mentioned on line 459, 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 3rd 2 Obsoletes: 5393 Stellar Switches 3 Updates: 1183, 3597 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice 5 Expires: May 9, 2011 November 10, 2010 7 Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations 8 10 Abstract 12 Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment 13 considerations are specified for the allocation of Domain Name System 14 (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes, 15 DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Distribution of this draft is unlimited. It is intended to become the 23 new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 5395. Comments should be sent to the DNS 24 Extensions Working Group mailing list . 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 28 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 29 Drafts. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 37 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 39 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 40 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 42 Table of Contents 44 1. Introduction............................................3 45 1.1 Terminology............................................3 47 2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................4 48 2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4 49 2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................5 50 2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5 52 3. DNS Resource Records....................................7 53 3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................8 54 3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy.........................9 55 3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines........................10 56 3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................10 57 3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................10 58 3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................11 59 3.3 Label Considerations..................................13 60 3.3.1 Label Types.........................................13 61 3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................13 63 4. Security Considerations................................14 64 5. IANA Considerations....................................14 66 Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template.......................15 67 Annex B: Changes From RFC 5395............................17 69 Normative References......................................18 70 Informative References....................................19 72 1. Introduction 74 The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure 75 hierarchical databases which store "resource records" (RRs) under 76 domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones which can 77 be independently maintained. See [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2136], 78 [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] familiarity with which is assumed. 80 This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general 81 IANA parameter assignment considerations applying across DNS query 82 and response headers and all RRs. There may be additional IANA 83 considerations that apply to only a particular RRTYPE or 84 query/response opcode. See the specific RFC defining that RRTYPE or 85 query/response opcode for such considerations if they have been 86 defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC1183] which are 87 included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC5395]; however, the only 88 significant change is the change is the mailing list xxx 90 IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters. See 91 . 93 1.1 Terminology 95 "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and 96 "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226]. 98 2. DNS Query/Response Headers 100 The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the 101 following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC5395]: 103 1 1 1 1 1 1 104 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 105 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 106 | ID | 107 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 108 |QR| Opcode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE | 109 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 110 | QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT | 111 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 112 | ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT | 113 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 114 | NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT | 115 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 116 | ARCOUNT | 117 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 119 The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so 120 they can be matched. 122 The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response. 124 The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful 125 only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. However, 126 some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value 127 of the response header without clearing bits. Thus any attempt to use 128 a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define a 129 query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous given existing 130 implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF 131 Standards Action. 133 The unsigned integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count 134 (ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information 135 count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all 136 opcodes except Update [RFC2136]. These fields have the same structure 137 and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the zone 138 (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional 139 information (ARCOUNT) sections. 141 2.1 One Spare Bit? 143 There have been ancient DNS implementations for which the Z bit being 144 on in a query meant that only a response from the primary server for 145 a zone is acceptable. It is believed that all current DNS 146 implementations ignore this bit. 148 Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires an IETF Standards Action. 150 2.2 Opcode Assignment 152 Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows: 154 OpCode Name Reference 156 0 Query [RFC1035] 157 1 IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC3425] 158 2 Status [RFC1035] 159 3 available for assignment 160 4 Notify [RFC1996] 161 5 Update [RFC2136] 162 6-15 available for assignment 164 New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified 165 by [RFC4020]. 167 2.3 RCODE Assignment 169 It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of 170 RCODE, or response/error code are available. However, RCODEs can 171 appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside 172 OPT RRs [RFC2671], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930]. The 173 OPT RR provides an eight-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE 174 field and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit RCODE field. 176 Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR types 177 all refer to the same error code space with the single exception of 178 error code 16 which has a different meaning in the OPT RR from its 179 meaning in other contexts. 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 an IETF 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 two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE 253 codes. See section 3.1. 255 CLASS is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS 256 codes. See section 3.2. 258 TTL is a four octet (32 bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for 259 data TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be 260 cached before the source of the information should again be 261 consulted. Zero is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used 262 for the 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 queries. 279 Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward plus the block 280 from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and Meta-TYPEs 281 have been assigned from 255 downwards except for the OPT Meta-RR 282 which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS implementations which 283 made caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the 284 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 which must be completely disjoint from the 291 mnemonics used for CLASSes and which must match the following regular 292 expression: 294 [A-Z][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 RR 303 [RFC2931], [RFC4034] and in other circumstances and must never 304 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 in 309 section 3.1.1. 311 128 - 255 312 0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining RRTYPEs in this rage 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 specified 319 in section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and 0x8001) have 320 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 an IETF 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 IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]. 346 1. A complete template as specified in Annex 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 a RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a) a 355 data TYPE which 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 No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed 363 template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected 364 Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the 365 application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided 366 by the applicant. If the Expert does not post such a message, the 367 application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted to 368 IANA. 370 IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates. 372 3.1.2 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines 374 The selected DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of 375 the proposed RRTYPE which may occur on the dnsext@ietf.org mailing 376 list and may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The 377 Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request which 378 meets one or more of the following criterion: 380 1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to 381 evaluate or implement. 383 2. Proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not meet 384 the criteria in point 2 in Section 3.1.1 above. 386 3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete. 387 (Additional documentation can be provided during the public 388 comment period or by the Expert.) 390 4. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about 391 DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME etc. 393 5. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the 394 purpose could be met with a smaller number or with Private Use 395 values. 397 3.1.3 Special Note on the OPT RR 399 The OPT (OPTion) RR, RRTYPE 41, and its IANA Considerations are 400 specified in [RFC2671]. Its primary purpose is to extend the 401 effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label 402 type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size. In particular, for resolvers 403 and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field from 4 to 404 12 bits. 406 3.1.4 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field 408 The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] is a CLASS insensitive RR that has the same 409 RDATA field structure as the MX RR but the 16 bit unsigned integer 410 field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a subtype as 411 follows: 413 Decimal 414 Hexadecimal 416 0 417 0x0000 - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action. 419 1 420 0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183]. 422 2 423 0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183]. 425 3 - 65,279 426 0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Review. 428 65,280 - 65,534 429 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 431 65,535 432 0xFFFF - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action. 434 3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations 436 There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data 437 containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries 438 or updates. 440 DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of 441 the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary 442 relationship between the name space or root servers for one data 443 CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have 444 completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types 445 are the same and the null label is usable only as root in every 446 CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or 447 Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use. 449 As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would 450 be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular 451 DNS message and which might be usable in queries. However, it is 452 possible that there might be a future requirement for one or more 453 "meta-CLASSes". 455 CLASSes have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the 456 mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and which must match the following regular 457 expression: 459 [A-Z][A-Z0-9-]* 461 The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future 462 assignments are as follows: 464 Decimal 465 Hexadecimal 467 0 468 0x0000 - Reserved, assignment requires an IETF Standards Action. 470 1 471 0x0001 - Internet (IN). 473 2 474 0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Review as a data CLASS. 476 3 477 0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981]. 479 4 480 0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987]. 482 5 - 127 483 0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Review for data 484 CLASSes only. 486 128 - 253 487 0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by IETF Review for 488 QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only. 490 254 491 0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136]. 493 255 494 0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035]. 496 256 - 32,767 497 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Review. 499 32,768 - 57,343 500 0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only based on 501 Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226]. 503 57,344 - 65,279 504 0xE000 - 0xFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only based 505 on Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226]. 507 65,280 - 65,534 508 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 510 65,535 511 0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action. 513 3.3 Label Considerations 515 DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035]. 517 3.3.1 Label Types 519 At the present time, there are two categories of label types, data 520 labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to 521 data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to 522 shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs. 524 The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text 525 and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value 526 including zero value octets but many current uses involve only [US- 527 ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII upper 528 and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343]. Binary labels are 529 bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary label type is Experimental 530 [RFC3363]. 532 IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC2671]. 534 3.3.2 Label Contents and Use 536 The last label in each NAME is "ROOT" which is the zero length label. 537 By definition, the null or ROOT label cannot be used for any other 538 NAME purpose. 540 NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos 541 [Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use. The IN or Internet 542 CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at 543 this time. 545 A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class 546 is given in [RFC1591]. Some information on reserved top level domain 547 names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606]. 549 4. Security Considerations 551 This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of 552 general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and 553 [RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations. 555 5. IANA Considerations 557 This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations. 559 IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates, 560 selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form 561 applications, and archive and make available all approved RRTYPE 562 allocation templates. It is the duty of the selected Expert to post 563 the formal application template to the dns-rrtype- 564 applications@ietf.org mailing list. See Section 3.1 and Annex A for 565 more details. 567 Annex A: RRTYPE Allocation Template 569 DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE 571 When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted 572 to IANA for processing by emailing the template to dns-rrtype- 573 applications@ietf.org. 575 A. Submission Date: 577 B. Submission Type: 578 [ ] New RRTYPE 579 [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE 581 C. Contact Information for submitter: 582 Name: 583 Email Address: 584 International telephone number: 585 Other contact handles: 586 (Note: This information will be publicly posted) 588 D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application? 589 Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and 590 reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Remember most reviewers 591 will be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your 592 application space. 594 E. Description of the proposed RR type. 595 This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an 596 attachment or with a publicly available URL: 598 F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that 599 need and why are they unsatisfactory? 601 G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)? 602 Note: this can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the 603 template is accepted. 605 H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA 606 Registry or require the creation of a new IANA Sub-registry and 607 in DNS Parameters? 608 If so, please indicate which registry is to be used or created. 609 If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy 610 for it and initial contents. Also include what the modification 611 procedures will be. 613 I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS 614 servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being 615 processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])? 617 J. Comments: 619 Annex B: Changes From RFC 5395 621 Replace "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" with "dnsext@ietf.org". 623 Drop description of changes from RFC 2929 to RFC 5395 since those 624 changes have already happened and we don't need to do them again. 626 Updates to boilerplate text. 628 Normative References 630 [RFC1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and 631 Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 633 [RFC1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and 634 Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 636 [RFC1996] - Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone 637 Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996. 639 [RFC2136] - Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound, 640 "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, 641 April 1997. 643 [RFC2181] - Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS 644 Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. 646 [RFC2671] - Vixie, P., "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 647 2671, August 1999. 649 [RFC2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B. 650 Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", 651 RFC 2845, May 2000. 653 [RFC2930] - Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY 654 RR)", September 2000. 656 [RFC3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November 657 2002. 659 [RFC3597] - Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record 660 (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. 662 [RFC4020] - Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of 663 Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005. 665 [RFC4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 666 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March 667 2005. 669 [RFC4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 670 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, 671 March 2005. 673 [RFC4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 674 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 675 4035, March 2005. 677 [RFC4635] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication 678 Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers". 680 [RFC5226] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 681 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. 683 [US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange", 684 X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968. 686 Informative References 688 [Dyer1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical 689 Plan - Name Service, April 1987, 691 [Moon1981] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts 692 Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June 693 1981. 695 [RFC1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P. 696 Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990. 698 [RFC1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and 699 Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994. 701 [RFC2606] - Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS 702 Names", RFC 2606, June 1999. 704 [RFC2673] - Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", 705 RFC 2673, August 1999. 707 [RFC2931] - Eastlake, E., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( 708 SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000. 710 [RFC3363] - Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. 711 Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in 712 the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002. 714 [RFC4343] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case 715 Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, December 2005. 717 [RFC5395] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA 718 Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 5395, November 2008. 720 Author's Address 722 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd 723 Stellar Switches 724 155 Beaver Street 725 Milford, MA 01757 USA 727 Telephone: +1-508-333-2270 728 email: d3e3e3@gmail.com 730 Copyright and IPR Provisions 732 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 733 document authors. All rights reserved. 735 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 736 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 737 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 738 publication of this document. Please review these documents 739 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 740 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 741 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 742 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 743 described in the BSD License. The definitive version of an IETF 744 Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. 745 Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties, 746 including those that are translated into other languages, should not 747 be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The 748 definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or 749 under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions 750 that are published by third parties, including those that are 751 translated into other languages, should not be considered to be 752 definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. For the avoidance of 753 doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each 754 Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards 755 Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No 756 language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ 757 from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under 758 RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether 759 published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such 760 Contribution.