idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.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 (November 26, 2010) is 4900 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 460, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'A-Z0-9-' is mentioned on line 460, 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: 5395 Stellar Switches 3 Updates: 1183, 3597 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice 5 Expires: May 25, 2011 November 26, 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 that store "resource records" (RRs) under 76 domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones that 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 that apply 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 public review mailing list to 89 dnsext@ietf.org. 91 IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from 92 http://www.iana.org. 94 1.1. Terminology 96 "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and 97 "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226]. 99 2. DNS Query/Response Headers 101 The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the 102 following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC5395]: 104 1 1 1 1 1 1 105 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 106 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 107 | ID | 108 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 109 |QR| OpCode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE | 110 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 111 | QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT | 112 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 113 | ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT | 114 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 115 | NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT | 116 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 117 | ARCOUNT | 118 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 120 The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so 121 they can be matched. 123 The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response. 125 The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful 126 only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. However, 127 some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value 128 of the response header without clearing bits. Thus, any attempt to 129 use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define 130 a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing 131 implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF 132 Standards Action. 134 The unsigned integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count 135 (ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information 136 count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all 137 OpCodes except Update [RFC2136]. These fields have the same structure 138 and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the zone 139 (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional 140 information (ARCOUNT) sections. 142 2.1. One Spare Bit? 144 There have been ancient DNS implementations for which the Z bit being 145 on in a query meant that only a response from the primary server for 146 a zone is acceptable. It is believed that current DNS implementations 147 ignore this bit. 149 Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires an IETF Standards Action. 151 2.2. OpCode Assignment 153 Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows: 155 OpCode Name Reference 157 0 Query [RFC1035] 158 1 IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC3425] 159 2 Status [RFC1035] 160 3 available for assignment 161 4 Notify [RFC1996] 162 5 Update [RFC2136] 163 6-15 available for assignment 165 New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified 166 by [RFC4020]. 168 2.3. RCODE Assignment 170 It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of 171 RCODE, or response/error code, are available. However, RCODEs can 172 appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside 173 OPT RRs [RFC2671], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930]. The 174 OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field, 175 and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit RCODE field. 177 Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR types 178 all refer to the same error code space with the single exception of 179 error code 16 which has a different meaning in the OPT RR from its 180 meaning in other contexts. See table below. 182 RCODE Name Description Reference 183 Decimal 184 Hexadecimal 185 0 NoError No Error [RFC1035] 186 1 FormErr Format Error [RFC1035] 187 2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC1035] 188 3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC1035] 189 4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC1035] 190 5 Refused Query Refused [RFC1035] 191 6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC2136] 192 7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC2136] 193 8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC2136] 194 9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC2136] 195 10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC2136] 196 11 - 15 Available for assignment 197 16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC2671] 198 16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC2845] 199 17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC2845] 200 18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC2845] 201 19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC2930] 202 20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC2930] 203 21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC2930] 204 22 BADTRUC Bad Truncation [RFC4635] 205 23 - 3,840 206 0x0017 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment 208 3,841 - 4,095 209 0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Private Use 211 4,096 - 65,534 212 0x1000 - 0xFFFE Available for assignment 214 65,535 215 0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by an IETF 216 Standards Action. 218 Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability, 219 assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment" 220 requires an IETF Review. 222 3. DNS Resource Records 224 All RRs have the same top-level format, shown in the figure below 225 taken from [RFC1035]. 227 1 1 1 1 1 1 228 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 229 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 230 | | 231 / / 232 / NAME / 233 / / 234 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 235 | TYPE | 236 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 237 | CLASS | 238 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 239 | TTL | 240 | | 241 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 242 | RDLENGTH | 243 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--| 244 / RDATA / 245 / / 246 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 248 NAME is an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this 249 resource record pertains. NAMEs are specific to a CLASS as described 250 in section 3.2. NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence of one or more 251 labels, each of which has a label type [RFC1035] [RFC2671]. 253 TYPE is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE 254 codes. See section 3.1. 256 CLASS is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS 257 codes. See section 3.2. 259 TTL is a 4-octet (32-bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for data 260 TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be cached 261 before the source of the information should again be consulted. Zero 262 is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the 263 transaction in progress. 265 RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16-bit integer that specifies the length in 266 octets of the RDATA field. 268 RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the 269 resource. The format of this information varies according to the TYPE 270 and, in some cases, the CLASS of the resource record. 272 3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations 274 There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs, 275 and Meta-TYPEs. 277 Data TYPEs are the means of storing data. QTYPES can only be used in 278 queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a 279 particular DNS message and, in some cases, can also be used in 280 queries. Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward plus 281 the block from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and 282 Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward except for the OPT 283 Meta-RR, which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS 284 implementations that made caching decisions based on the top bit of 285 the bottom byte of the RRTYPE. 287 There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671], TSIG 288 [RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs 289 assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR. 291 RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the 292 mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the following regular 293 expression: 295 [A-Z][A-Z0-9-]* 297 Considerations for the allocation of new RRTYPEs are as follows: 299 Decimal 300 Hexadecimal 302 0 303 0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG (0) 304 RR [RFC2931], [RFC4034] and in other circumstances, and it 305 must never be allocated for ordinary use. 307 1 - 127 308 0x0001 - 0x007F - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for 309 data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified 310 in Section 3.1.1. 312 128 - 255 313 0x0080 - 0x00FF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for Q 314 and Meta TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as 315 specified in Section 3.1.1. 317 256 - 61,439 318 0x0100 - 0xEFFF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for 319 data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as 320 specified in Section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and 321 0x8001) have been assigned.) 323 61,440 - 65,279 324 0xF000 - 0xFEFF - Reserved for future use. IETF Review required to 325 define use. 327 65,280 - 65,534 328 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 330 65,535 331 0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action. 333 3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy 335 Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above, as assigned based on 336 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy, are allocated by Expert Review if they 337 meet the two requirements listed below. There will be a pool of a 338 small number of Experts appointed by the IESG. Each application will 339 be ruled on by an Expert selected by IANA. In any case where the 340 selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of 341 interest, IANA may select another Expert from the pool. 343 Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2. RRTYPEs 344 that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be allocated 345 by IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]. 347 1. A complete template as specified in Appendix A has been posted for 348 three weeks to the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list before the Expert 349 Review decision. 350 Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted 351 directly by the applicant for comment and discussion, but the 352 formal posting to start the three week period is made by the 353 Expert. 355 2. The RR for which an RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a) a 356 data TYPE that can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in 357 [RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type whose processing is optional, i.e., 358 it is safe to simply discard RRs with that Meta-Type in queries or 359 responses. 360 Note that such RRs may include additional section processing, 361 provided such processing is optional. 363 No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed 364 template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected 365 Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the 366 application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided 367 by the applicant. If the Expert does not post such a message, the 368 application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted to 369 IANA. 371 IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates. 373 3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines 375 The selected DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of 376 the proposed RRTYPE, which may occur on the dnsext@ietf.org mailing 377 list, and may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The 378 Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that 379 meets one or more of the following criterion: 381 1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to 382 evaluate or implement. 384 2. The proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not 385 meet the criteria in point 2 of Section 3.1.1 above. 387 3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete. 388 (Additional documentation can be provided during the public 389 comment period or by the Expert.) 391 4. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about 392 DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME, etc. 394 5. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the 395 purpose could be met with a smaller number or with Private Use 396 values. 398 3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR 400 The OPT (OPTion) RR (RRTYPE 41) and its IANA Considerations are 401 specified in [RFC2671]. Its primary purpose is to extend the 402 effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label 403 type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size. In particular, for resolvers 404 and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field from 4 to 405 12 bits. 407 3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field 409 The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] is a CLASS-insensitive RR that has the same 410 RDATA field structure as the MX RR, but the 16-bit unsigned integer 411 field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a subtype as 412 follows: 414 Decimal 415 Hexadecimal 417 0 418 0x0000 - Reserved; allocation requires IETF Standards Action. 420 1 421 0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183]. 423 2 424 0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183]. 426 3 - 65,279 427 0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Review. 429 65,280 - 65,534 430 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 432 65,535 433 0xFFFF - Reserved; allocation requires IETF Standards Action. 435 3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations 437 There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data- 438 containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries 439 or updates. 441 DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of 442 the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary 443 relationship between the name space or root servers for one data 444 CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have 445 completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types 446 are the same, and the null label is usable only as root in every 447 CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or 448 Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use. 450 As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would 451 be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular 452 DNS message, which might be usable in queries. However, it is 453 possible that there might be a future requirement for one or more 454 "meta-CLASSes". 456 CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the 457 mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the following regular 458 expression: 460 [A-Z][A-Z0-9-]* 462 The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future 463 assignments are as follows: 465 Decimal 466 Hexadecimal 468 0 469 0x0000 - Reserved; assignment requires an IETF Standards Action. 471 1 472 0x0001 - Internet (IN). 474 2 475 0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Review as a data CLASS. 477 3 478 0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981]. 480 4 481 0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987]. 483 5 - 127 484 0x0005 - 0x007F - Available for assignment by IETF Review for data 485 CLASSes only. 487 128 - 253 488 0x0080 - 0x00FD - Available for assignment by IETF Review for 489 QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only. 491 254 492 0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136]. 494 255 495 0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035]. 497 256 - 32,767 498 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Review. 500 32,768 - 57,343 501 0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only, based on 502 Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226]. 504 57,344 - 65,279 505 0xE000 - 0xFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only, based 506 on Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226]. 508 65,280 - 65,534 509 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 511 65,535 512 0xFFFF - Reserved; can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action. 514 3.3. Label Considerations 516 DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035]. 518 3.3.1. Label Types 520 At the present time, there are two categories of label types: data 521 labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to 522 data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to 523 shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs. 525 The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text 526 and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value 527 including zero-value octets, but many current uses involve only [US- 528 ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII upper 529 and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343]. Binary labels are 530 bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary label type is Experimental 531 [RFC3363]. 533 IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC2671]. 535 3.3.2. Label Contents and Use 537 The last label in each NAME is "ROOT", which is the zero-length 538 label. By definition, the null or ROOT label cannot be used for any 539 other NAME purpose. 541 NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos 542 [Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use. The IN, or 543 Internet, CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the 544 Internet at this time. 546 A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class 547 is given in [RFC1591]. Some information on reserved top-level domain 548 names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606]. 550 4. Security Considerations 552 This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of 553 general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and 554 [RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations. 556 5. IANA Considerations 558 This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations. 560 IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates, 561 selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form 562 applications, and archive and make available all approved RRTYPE 563 allocation templates. It is the duty of the applicant to post the 564 formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org 565 mailing list. See Section 3.1 and Annex A for 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 in 607 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 its initial contents. Also include what the 611 modification 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 Fix Section 5 to say that it is the duty of the applicant, not the 629 expert, to post the application to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org. 631 Normative References 633 [RFC1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and 634 facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. 636 [RFC1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 637 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. 639 [RFC1996] - Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone 640 Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996. 642 [RFC2136] - Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, 643 "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, 644 April 1997. 646 [RFC2181] - Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS 647 Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. 649 [RFC2671] - Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 650 2671, August 1999. 652 [RFC2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B. 653 Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", 654 RFC 2845, May 2000. 656 [RFC2930] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY 657 RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000. 659 [RFC3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November 660 2002. 662 [RFC3597] - Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record 663 (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. 665 [RFC4020] - Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of 666 Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005. 668 [RFC4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 669 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March 670 2005. 672 [RFC4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 673 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, 674 March 2005. 676 [RFC4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 677 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 678 4035, March 2005. 680 [RFC4635] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message 681 Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm 682 Identifiers", RFC 4635, August 2006. 684 [RFC5226] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 685 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. 687 [US-ASCII] - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange", 688 X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968. 690 Informative References 692 [Dyer1987] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical 693 Plan - Name Service, April 1987. 695 [Moon1981] - Moon, D., "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts 696 Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June 697 1981. 699 [RFC1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P. 700 Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990. 702 [RFC1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and 703 Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994. 705 [RFC2606] - Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS 706 Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999. 708 [RFC2673] - Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", 709 RFC 2673, August 1999. 711 [RFC2931] - Eastlake 3rd, E., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures 712 ( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000. 714 [RFC3363] - Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. 715 Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in 716 the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002. 718 [RFC4343] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case 719 Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, December 2005. 721 [RFC5395] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA 722 Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 5395, November 2008. 724 Author's Address 726 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd 727 Stellar Switches 728 155 Beaver Street 729 Milford, MA 01757 USA 731 Telephone: +1-508-333-2270 732 email: d3e3e3@gmail.com 734 Copyright and IPR Provisions 736 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 737 document authors. All rights reserved. 739 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 740 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 741 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 742 publication of this document. Please review these documents 743 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 744 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 745 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 746 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 747 described in the BSD License. The definitive version of an IETF 748 Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. 749 Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties, 750 including those that are translated into other languages, should not 751 be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The 752 definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or 753 under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions 754 that are published by third parties, including those that are 755 translated into other languages, should not be considered to be 756 definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. For the avoidance of 757 doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each 758 Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards 759 Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No 760 language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ 761 from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under 762 RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether 763 published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such 764 Contribution.