idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 14 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 6 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([7]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. == There are 4 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. == There are 4 instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 6890 (or successor): 192.0.2.x, 198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 (July 14, 2000) is 8686 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RFC2131' on line 68 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'TBD' on line 84 == Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 169, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '6' is defined on line 172, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 1706 (ref. '4') -- No information found for draft-ietf-dhc-dns-resolution- - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. '7' Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group A. Gustafsson 2 Internet-Draft T. Lemon 3 Expires: January 12, 2001 Nominum, Inc. 4 M. Stapp 5 Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 July 14, 2000 8 A DNS RR for encoding DHCP information 9 11 Status of this Memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 14 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as 19 Internet-Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 22 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 23 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2001. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 38 Abstract 40 A situation can arise where multiple DHCP clients request the same 41 DNS name from their (possibly distinct) DHCP servers. To resolve 42 such conflicts, 'Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts'[7] proposes 43 storing client identifiers in the DNS to unambiguously associate 44 domain names with the DHCP clients "owning" them. This memo defines 45 a distinct RR type for use by DHCP servers, the "DHCID" RR. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 3. The DHCID RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 4. DHCID RDATA format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 4.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 1. Terminology 62 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 63 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 64 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119[1]. 66 2. Introduction 68 A set of procedures to allow DHCP [RFC2131] clients and servers to 69 automatically update the DNS (RFC1034[2], RFC1035[3]) is proposed in 70 Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts[7]. 72 A situation can arise where multiple DHCP clients wish to use the 73 same DNS name. To resolve such conflicts, Resolution of DNS Name 74 Conflicts[7] proposes storing client identifiers in the DNS to 75 unambiguously associate domain names with the DHCP clients using 76 them. In the interest of clarity, it would be preferable for this 77 DHCP information to use a distinct RR type. 79 This memo defines a distinct RR type for this purpose for use by 80 DHCP clients or servers, the "DHCID" RR. 82 3. The DHCID RR 84 The DHCP RR is defined with mnemonic DHCID and type code [TBD]. 86 4. DHCID RDATA format 88 The RDATA section of a DHCID RR in transmission contains RDLENGTH 89 bytes of binary data. The format of this data and its 90 interpretation by DHCP servers and clients are described below. 92 DNS software should consider the RDATA section to be opaque. In DNS 93 master files, the RDATA is represented as a hexadecimal string with 94 an optional "0x" or "0X" prefix. Periods (".") may be inserted 95 anywhere after the "0x" for readability. This format is identical 96 to that of the NSAP RR (RFC1706[4]). The number of hexadecimal 97 digits MUST be even. 99 DHCP clients or servers use the DHCID RR to associate a DHCP 100 client's identity with a DNS name, so that multiple DHCP clients and 101 servers may safely perform dynamic DNS updates to the same zone. 102 From the updater's perspective, the DHCID resource record consists 103 of a 16-bit identifier type, followed by one or more bytes 104 representing the actual identifier. There are two possible forms 105 for a DHCID RR - one that is used when the DHCP server is using the 106 client's link-layer address to identify it, and one that is used 107 when the DHCP server is using some DHCP option that the DHCP client 108 sent to identify it. When the link-layer address is used as the 109 identifier, the first two bytes of the RRDATA are set to 0. When a 110 DHCP option is used as the identifier, the first two bytes of the 111 RRDATA contain the option number, in network byte order. The two 112 bytes 0xffff are reserved. In both cases, the remainder of the 113 RRDATA is the result of performing a one-way hash across the 114 identifier. 116 The details of the method used to generate the data in the RR and 117 the use to which a DHCP client or server may put this association 118 are beyond the scope of this draft, and are discussed in the draft 119 that specifies the DNS update behavior, 'Resolution of DNS Name 120 Conflicts'[7]. This RR MUST NOT be used for any purpose other than 121 that detailed in the DHC document. Althought this RR contains data 122 that is opaque to DNS servers, the data is meaningful to DHCP 123 updaters. Therefore, new data formats may only be defined through 124 actions of the DHC Working Group. 126 4.1 Example 128 A DHCP server allocating the IPv4 address 10.0.0.1 to a client 129 "client.org.nil" might use the client's link-layer address to 130 identify the client: 132 client.org.nil. A 10.0.0.1 133 client.org.nil. DHCID 134 00.00.18.29.11.17.22.0a.ad.c1.88.10.a3.dd.ff.c8.d9.49 136 A DHCP server allocating the IPv4 address 10.0.12.99 to a client 137 "chi.org.nil" might use the DHCP client identifier option to 138 identify the client: 140 chi.org.nil. A 10.0.12.99 141 chi.org.nil. DHCID 00.61.92.71.22.da.01.88.dd.3a.11.8c.1c.a0.ff.94.9d.81 143 5. Security Considerations 145 The DHCID record as such does not introduce any new security 146 problems into the DNS. In order to avoid exposing private 147 information about DHCP clients to public scrutiny, a one-way-hash is 148 used to obscure all client information. 150 6. IANA Considerations 152 The IANA is requested to allocate an RR type number for the DHCP 153 record type. 155 References 157 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 158 Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 160 [2] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - Concepts and Facilities", RFC 161 1034, Nov 1987. 163 [3] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - Implementation and 164 Specification", RFC 1035, Nov 1987. 166 [4] Manning, B. and R. Colella, "DNS NSAP Resource Records", RFC 167 1706, Oct 1994. 169 [5] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, Mar 170 1997. 172 [6] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor 173 Extensions", RFC 2132, Mar 1997. 175 [7] Stapp, M., "Resolution of DNS Name Conflicts Among DHCP Clients 176 (draft-ietf-dhc-dns-resolution-*)", July 2000. 178 Authors' Addresses 180 Andreas Gustafsson 181 Nominum, Inc. 182 950 Charter St. 183 Redwood City, CA 94063 184 USA 186 EMail: gson@nominum.com 188 Ted Lemon 189 Nominum, Inc. 190 950 Charter St. 191 Redwood City, CA 94063 192 USA 194 EMail: mellon@nominum.com 196 Mark Stapp 197 Cisco Systems, Inc. 198 250 Apollo Dr. 199 Chelmsford, MA 01824 200 USA 202 Phone: 978.244.8498 203 EMail: mjs@cisco.com 205 Full Copyright Statement 207 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 209 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 210 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 211 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 212 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 213 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 214 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 215 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 216 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 217 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 218 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 219 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 220 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 221 English. 223 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 224 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 226 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 227 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 228 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 229 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 230 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 231 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 233 Acknowledgement 235 Funding for the RFC editor function is currently provided by the 236 Internet Society.