|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6195
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
Last modified on Tuesday, March 29th, 2011
 Permanent link to RFC 6195
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6195
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6195
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd
Request for Comments: 6195 Huawei
BCP: 42 March 2011
Obsoletes: 5395
Updates: 1183, 3597
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
 Abstract
This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
parameter assignment considerations for the allocation of Domain Name
System (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error
codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record
subtypes.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6195.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 1 
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology ................................................3
2. DNS Query/Response Headers ......................................3
2.1. One Spare Bit? .............................................4
2.2. OpCode Assignment ..........................................4
2.3. RCODE Assignment ...........................................4
3. DNS Resource Records ............................................6
3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations .................................7
3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy ........................8
3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines ........................9
3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR ..........................9
3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field .........................10
3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations ..............................10
3.3. Label Considerations ......................................12
3.3.1. Label Types ........................................12
3.3.2. Label Contents and Use .............................12
4. Security Considerations ........................................13
5. IANA Considerations ............................................13
Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template ............................14
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 5395 .................................15
Normative References ..............................................15
Informative References ............................................16
1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure
hierarchical databases that store "resource records" (RRs) under
domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones that can
be independently maintained. Familiarity with [RFC 1034], [RFC 1035],
[RFC 2136], [RFC 2181], and [RFC 4033] is assumed.
This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general
IANA parameter assignment considerations that apply across DNS query
and response headers and all RRs. There may be additional IANA
considerations that apply to only a particular RRTYPE or
query/response OpCode. See the specific RFC defining that RRTYPE or
query/response OpCode for such considerations if they have been
defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC 1183], which are
included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC 5395]; however, the only
significant change is the change to the public review mailing list to
dnsext@ietf.org.
IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from
http://www.iana.org.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 2
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
1.1. Terminology
"Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and
"Private Use" are as defined in [RFC 5226].
2. DNS Query/Response Headers
The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the
following diagram taken from [RFC 2136] and [RFC 5395]:
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ID |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|QR| OpCode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ARCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so
they can be matched.
The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response.
The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful
only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. However,
some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value
of the response header without clearing bits. Thus, any attempt to
use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define
a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing
implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by a Standards
Action.
The unsigned integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count
(ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information
count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all
OpCodes except Update [RFC 2136]. These fields have the same
structure and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the
zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and
additional information (ARCOUNT) sections.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 3
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
2.1. One Spare Bit?
There have been ancient DNS implementations for which the Z bit being
on in a query meant that only a response from the primary server for
a zone is acceptable. It is believed that current DNS
implementations ignore this bit.
Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires a Standards Action.
2.2. OpCode Assignment
Currently, DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows:
OpCode Name Reference
0 Query [RFC 1035]
1 IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC 3425]
2 Status [RFC 1035]
3 available for assignment
4 Notify [RFC 1996]
5 Update [RFC 2136]
6-15 available for assignment
New OpCode assignments require a Standards Action as modified by
[RFC 4020].
2.3. RCODE Assignment
It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of
RCODE, or response/error code, are available. However, RCODEs can
appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside
OPT RRs [RFC 2671], TSIG RRs [RFC 2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC 2930].
The OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE
field, and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit RCODE field.
Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR
types all refer to the same error code space with the single
exception of error code 16, which has a different meaning in the
OPT RR than in other contexts. This duplicate assignment was
accidental. See table below.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 4
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
RCODE Name Description Reference
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0 NoError No Error [RFC 1035]
1 FormErr Format Error [RFC 1035]
2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC 1035]
3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC 1035]
4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC 1035]
5 Refused Query Refused [RFC 1035]
6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC 2136]
7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC 2136]
8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC 2136]
9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC 2136]
10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC 2136]
11 - 15 Available for assignment
16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC 2671]
16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC 2845]
17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC 2845]
18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC 2845]
19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC 2930]
20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC 2930]
21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC 2930]
22 BADTRUC Bad Truncation [RFC 4635]
23 - 3,840
0x0017 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment
3,841 - 4,095
0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Private Use
4,096 - 65,534
0x1000 - 0xFFFE Available for assignment
65,535
0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by a
Standards Action.
Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for
interoperability, assignment of a new RCODE in the ranges listed
above as "Available for assignment" requires an IETF Review.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 5
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
3. DNS Resource Records
All RRs have the same top-level format, shown in the figure below
taken from [RFC 1035].
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |
/ /
/ NAME /
/ /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TYPE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| CLASS |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TTL |
| |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| RDLENGTH |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
/ RDATA /
/ /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
NAME is an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this
resource record pertains. NAMEs are specific to a CLASS as described
in Section 3.2. NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence of one or more
labels, each of which has a label type [RFC 1035] [RFC 2671].
TYPE is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE
codes. See Section 3.1.
CLASS is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS
codes. See Section 3.2.
TTL is a 4-octet (32-bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for data
TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be cached
before the source of the information should again be consulted. Zero
is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the
transaction in progress.
RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16-bit integer that specifies the length in
octets of the RDATA field.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 6
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
RDATA is a variable-length string of octets that constitutes the
resource. The format of this information varies according to the
TYPE and, in some cases, the CLASS of the resource record.
3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations
There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs,
and Meta-TYPEs.
Data TYPEs are the means of storing data. QTYPES can only be used in
queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a
particular DNS message and, in some cases, can also be used in
queries. Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward,
plus the block from 100 through 103, and from 32,768 upward, while Q
and Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward except for the
OPT Meta-RR, which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS
implementations that made caching decisions based on the top bit of
the bottom byte of the RRTYPE.
There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC 2671], TSIG
[RFC 2845], and TKEY [RFC 2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs
assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR.
RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the
mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the following regular
expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]
Considerations for the allocation of new RRTYPEs are as follows:
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0
0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG (0)
RR [RFC 2931] [RFC 4034] and in other circumstances, and it
must never be allocated for ordinary use.
1 - 127
0x0001 - 0x007F - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified
in Section 3.1.1.
128 - 255
0x0080 - 0x00FF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for Q
and Meta-TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
specified in Section 3.1.1.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 7
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
256 - 61,439
0x0100 - 0xEFFF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
specified in Section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and
0x8001) have been assigned.)
61,440 - 65,279
0xF000 - 0xFEFF - Reserved for future use. IETF Review required to
define use.
65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65,535
0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by a Standards Action.
3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy
Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above, as assigned based on
DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy, are allocated by Expert Review if they
meet the two requirements listed below. There will be a pool of a
small number of Experts appointed by the IESG. Each application will
be ruled on by an Expert selected by IANA. In any case where the
selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of
interest, IANA may select another Expert from the pool.
Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2. RRTYPEs
that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be allocated
by a Standards Action as modified by [RFC 4020].
1. A complete template as specified in Appendix A has been posted
for three weeks to the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list before the
Expert Review decision.
Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted
directly by the applicant for comment and discussion, but the
formal posting to start the three-week period is made by the
Expert.
2. The RR for which an RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a)
a data TYPE that can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in
[RFC 3597] or (b) a Meta-TYPE whose processing is optional, i.e.,
it is safe to simply discard RRs with that Meta-TYPE in queries
or responses.
Note that such RRs may include additional section processing,
provided such processing is optional.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 8
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
After the applicant posts their formal application with their
template as specified in Appendix A, IANA appoints an Expert and the
template is posted, with an indication that it is a formal
application, to the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list. No less than three
weeks and no more than six weeks after this posting to
dnsext@ietf.org, the selected Expert shall post a message, explicitly
accepting or rejecting the application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and
the email address provided by the applicant. If the Expert does not
post such a message, the application shall be considered rejected but
may be resubmitted to IANA. IANA should report non-responsive
Experts to the IESG.
IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates.
3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines
The selected DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of
the proposed RRTYPE, which may occur on the dnsext@ietf.org mailing
list, and may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The
Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that
meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to
evaluate or implement.
2. The proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not
meet the criteria in point 2 of Section 3.1.1 above.
3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is
incomplete. (Additional documentation can be provided during the
public comment period or by the Expert.)
4. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about
DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME, etc.
5. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the
purpose could be met with a smaller number or with Private Use
values.
3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR
The OPT (OPTion) RR (RRTYPE 41) and its IANA considerations are
specified in [RFC 2671]. Its primary purpose is to extend the
effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label
type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size. In particular, for
resolvers and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field
from 4 to 12 bits.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 9
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field
The AFSDB RR [RFC 1183] is a CLASS-insensitive RR that has the same
RDATA field structure as the MX RR [RFC 1035], but the 16-bit
unsigned integer field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted
as a subtype as follows:
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0
0x0000 - Reserved; allocation requires a Standards Action.
1
0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC 1183].
2
0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC 1183].
3 - 65,279
0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Review.
65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65,535
0xFFFF - Reserved; allocation requires a Standards Action.
3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations
There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data-
containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries
or updates.
DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of
the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary
relationship between the name space or root servers for one data
CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have
completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types
are the same, and the null label is usable only as root in every
CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or
Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use.
As yet, there has not been a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That
would be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a
particular DNS message, which might be usable in queries. However,
it is possible that there might be a future requirement for one or
more "meta-CLASSes".
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 10
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the
mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the following regular
expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]
The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future
assignments are as follows:
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0
0x0000 - Reserved; assignment requires a Standards Action.
1
0x0001 - Internet (IN).
2
0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Review as a data CLASS.
3
0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981].
4
0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987].
5 - 127
0x0005 - 0x007F - Available for assignment by IETF Review for data
CLASSes only.
128 - 253
0x0080 - 0x00FD - Available for assignment by IETF Review for
QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only.
254
0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC 2136].
255
0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC 1035].
256 - 32,767
0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Review.
32,768 - 57,343
0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only, based on
Specification Required as defined in [RFC 5226].
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 11
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
57,344 - 65,279
0xE000 - 0xFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only, based
on Specification Required as defined in [RFC 5226].
65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65,535
0xFFFF - Reserved; can only be assigned by a Standards Action.
3.3. Label Considerations
DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC 1035].
3.3.1. Label Types
At the present time, there are two categories of label types: data
labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to
data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to
shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs.
The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text
and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value
including zero-value octets, but many current uses involve only
[US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII
upper and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC 4343]. Binary
labels are bit sequences [RFC 2673]. The Binary label type is
Experimental [RFC 3363].
IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC 2671].
3.3.2. Label Contents and Use
The last label in each NAME is "ROOT", which is the zero-length
label. By definition, the null or ROOT label cannot be used for any
other NAME purpose.
NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos
[Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use. The IN, or
Internet, CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the
Internet at this time.
A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class
is given in [RFC 1591]. Some information on reserved top-level domain
names is in BCP 32 [RFC 2606].
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 12
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
4. Security Considerations
This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of
general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC 4033], [RFC 4034], and
[RFC 4035] for secure DNS considerations.
5. IANA Considerations
This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations.
IANA has established a process for accepting Appendix A templates and
selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form
applications. IANA archives and makes available all approved RRTYPE
allocation templates. It is the duty of the applicant to post the
formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org
mailing list, which IANA will monitor. The dnsext@ietf.org mailing
list is for community discussion and comment. See Section 3.1 and
Appendix A for more details.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 13
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template
DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE
When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted
to IANA for processing by emailing the template to
dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org.
A. Submission Date:
B. Submission Type:
[ ] New RRTYPE
[ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
C. Contact Information for submitter (will be publicly posted):
Name:
Email Address:
International telephone number:
Other contact handles:
D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application.
Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and
reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Most reviewers will be DNS
experts that may have limited knowledge of your application space.
E. Description of the proposed RR type.
This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an
attachment, or with a publicly available URL.
F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need
and why are they unsatisfactory?
G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
Note: this can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the
template is accepted.
H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA registry
or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in DNS
Parameters? If so, please indicate which registry is to be used
or created. If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the
allocation policy for it and its initial contents. Also include
what the modification procedures will be.
I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed
as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC 3597])?
J. Comments:
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 14
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
Appendix B. Changes From RFC 5395
Replaced "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" with "dnsext@ietf.org".
Dropped description of changes from RFC 2929 to RFC 5395 since those
changes have already happened, and we don't need to do them again.
Updated the boilerplate text.
Fixed Section 5 to say that it is the duty of the applicant, not the
expert, to post the application to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org.
Changed the regular expression for RRTYPE and CLASS names so as to
prohibit trailing hyphen ("-") and require a minimum length of 2
characters.
Made a number of minor editorial and typos fixes.
Normative References
[RFC 1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC 1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC 1996] Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996.
[RFC 2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
RFC 2136, April 1997.
[RFC 2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.
[RFC 2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
2671, August 1999.
[RFC 2845] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B.
Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS
(TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000.
[RFC 2930] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000.
[RFC 3425] Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November
2002.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 15
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
[RFC 3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
[RFC 4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February
2005.
[RFC 4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
4033, March 2005.
[RFC 4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC 4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC 4635] Eastlake 3rd, D., "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication
Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers",
RFC 4635, August 2006.
[RFC 5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[US-ASCII] ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange",
X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York,
1968.
Informative References
[Dyer1987] Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical
Plan - Name Service, April 1987.
[Moon1981] Moon, D., "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory, June 1981.
[RFC 1183] Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P.
Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October
1990.
[RFC 1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation",
RFC 1591, March 1994.
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 16
RFC 6195 DNS IANA Considerations March 2011
[RFC 2606] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC 2673] Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
RFC 2673, August 1999.
[RFC 2931] Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000.
[RFC 3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T.
Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363,
August 2002.
[RFC 4343] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.
[RFC 5395] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 5395, November 2008.
Author's Address
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Eastlake 3rd Best Current Practice PAGE 17
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 33790 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Tuesday, March 29th, 2011
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
