1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
|
<pre>Network Working Group A. Gustafsson
Request for Comments: 3597 Nominum Inc.
Category: Standards Track September 2003
<span class="h1">Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types</span>
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Extending the Domain Name System (DNS) with new Resource Record (RR)
types currently requires changes to name server software. This
document specifies the changes necessary to allow future DNS
implementations to handle new RR types transparently.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
The DNS is designed to be extensible to support new services through
the introduction of new resource record (RR) types. In practice,
deploying a new RR type currently requires changes to the name server
software not only at the authoritative DNS server that is providing
the new information and the client making use of it, but also at all
slave servers for the zone containing it, and in some cases also at
caching name servers and forwarders used by the client.
Because the deployment of new server software is slow and expensive,
the potential of the DNS in supporting new services has never been
fully realized. This memo proposes changes to name servers and to
procedures for defining new RR types aimed at simplifying the future
deployment of new RR types.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [<a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>].
<span class="grey">Gustafsson Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3597">RFC 3597</a> Handling of Unknown DNS RR Types September 2003</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Definition</span>
An "RR of unknown type" is an RR whose RDATA format is not known to
the DNS implementation at hand, and whose type is not an assigned
QTYPE or Meta-TYPE as specified in [<a href="./rfc2929">RFC 2929</a>] (<a href="#section-3.1">section 3.1</a>) nor
within the range reserved in that section for assignment only to
QTYPEs and Meta-TYPEs. Such an RR cannot be converted to a type-
specific text format, compressed, or otherwise handled in a type-
specific way.
In the case of a type whose RDATA format is class specific, an RR is
considered to be of unknown type when the RDATA format for that
combination of type and class is not known.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Transparency</span>
To enable new RR types to be deployed without server changes, name
servers and resolvers MUST handle RRs of unknown type transparently.
That is, they must treat the RDATA section of such RRs as
unstructured binary data, storing and transmitting it without change
[<a href="./rfc1123" title=""Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support"">RFC1123</a>].
To ensure the correct operation of equality comparison (<a href="#section-6">section 6</a>)
and of the DNSSEC canonical form (<a href="#section-7">section 7</a>) when an RR type is known
to some but not all of the servers involved, servers MUST also
exactly preserve the RDATA of RRs of known type, except for changes
due to compression or decompression where allowed by <a href="#section-4">section 4</a> of
this memo. In particular, the character case of domain names that
are not subject to compression MUST be preserved.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Domain Name Compression</span>
RRs containing compression pointers in the RDATA part cannot be
treated transparently, as the compression pointers are only
meaningful within the context of a DNS message. Transparently
copying the RDATA into a new DNS message would cause the compression
pointers to point at the corresponding location in the new message,
which now contains unrelated data. This would cause the compressed
name to be corrupted.
To avoid such corruption, servers MUST NOT compress domain names
embedded in the RDATA of types that are class-specific or not well-
known. This requirement was stated in [<a href="./rfc1123" title=""Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support"">RFC1123</a>] without defining the
term "well-known"; it is hereby specified that only the RR types
defined in [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain Names - Implementation and Specifications"">RFC1035</a>] are to be considered "well-known".
<span class="grey">Gustafsson Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3597">RFC 3597</a> Handling of Unknown DNS RR Types September 2003</span>
The specifications of a few existing RR types have explicitly allowed
compression contrary to this specification: [<a href="./rfc2163" title=""Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER Conformant Global Address Mapping (MCGAM)"">RFC2163</a>] specified that
compression applies to the PX RR, and [<a href="./rfc2535" title=""Domain Name System Security Extensions"">RFC2535</a>] allowed compression
in SIG RRs and NXT RRs records. Since this specification disallows
compression in these cases, it is an update to [<a href="./rfc2163" title=""Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER Conformant Global Address Mapping (MCGAM)"">RFC2163</a>] (<a href="#section-4">section 4</a>)
and [<a href="./rfc2535" title=""Domain Name System Security Extensions"">RFC2535</a>] (sections <a href="#section-4.1.7">4.1.7</a> and <a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>).
Receiving servers MUST decompress domain names in RRs of well-known
type, and SHOULD also decompress RRs of type RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX,
NXT, NAPTR, and SRV (although the current specification of the SRV RR
in [<a href="./rfc2782" title=""A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)"">RFC2782</a>] prohibits compression, [<a href="./rfc2052" title=""A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)"">RFC2052</a>] mandated it, and some
servers following that earlier specification are still in use).
Future specifications for new RR types that contain domain names
within their RDATA MUST NOT allow the use of name compression for
those names, and SHOULD explicitly state that the embedded domain
names MUST NOT be compressed.
As noted in [<a href="./rfc1123" title=""Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support"">RFC1123</a>], the owner name of an RR is always eligible for
compression.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Text Representation</span>
In the "type" field of a master file line, an unknown RR type is
represented by the word "TYPE" immediately followed by the decimal RR
type number, with no intervening whitespace. In the "class" field,
an unknown class is similarly represented as the word "CLASS"
immediately followed by the decimal class number.
This convention allows types and classes to be distinguished from
each other and from TTL values, allowing the "[<TTL>] [<class>]
<type> <RDATA>" and "[<class>] [<TTL>] <type> <RDATA>" forms of
[<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain Names - Implementation and Specifications"">RFC1035</a>] to both be unambiguously parsed.
The RDATA section of an RR of unknown type is represented as a
sequence of white space separated words as follows:
The special token \# (a backslash immediately followed by a hash
sign), which identifies the RDATA as having the generic encoding
defined herein rather than a traditional type-specific encoding.
An unsigned decimal integer specifying the RDATA length in octets.
Zero or more words of hexadecimal data encoding the actual RDATA
field, each containing an even number of hexadecimal digits.
If the RDATA is of zero length, the text representation contains only
the \# token and the single zero representing the length.
<span class="grey">Gustafsson Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3597">RFC 3597</a> Handling of Unknown DNS RR Types September 2003</span>
An implementation MAY also choose to represent some RRs of known type
using the above generic representations for the type, class and/or
RDATA, which carries the benefit of making the resulting master file
portable to servers where these types are unknown. Using the generic
representation for the RDATA of an RR of known type can also be
useful in the case of an RR type where the text format varies
depending on a version, protocol, or similar field (or several)
embedded in the RDATA when such a field has a value for which no text
format is known, e.g., a LOC RR [<a href="./rfc1876" title=""A Means for Expressing Location Information in the Domain Name System"">RFC1876</a>] with a VERSION other than
0.
Even though an RR of known type represented in the \# format is
effectively treated as an unknown type for the purpose of parsing the
RDATA text representation, all further processing by the server MUST
treat it as a known type and take into account any applicable type-
specific rules regarding compression, canonicalization, etc.
The following are examples of RRs represented in this manner,
illustrating various combinations of generic and type-specific
encodings for the different fields of the master file format:
a.example. CLASS32 TYPE731 \# 6 abcd (
ef 01 23 45 )
b.example. HS TYPE62347 \# 0
e.example. IN A \# 4 0A000001
e.example. CLASS1 TYPE1 10.0.0.2
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Equality Comparison</span>
Certain DNS protocols, notably Dynamic Update [<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>], require RRs
to be compared for equality. Two RRs of the same unknown type are
considered equal when their RDATA is bitwise equal. To ensure that
the outcome of the comparison is identical whether the RR is known to
the server or not, specifications for new RR types MUST NOT specify
type-specific comparison rules.
This implies that embedded domain names, being included in the
overall bitwise comparison, are compared in a case-sensitive manner.
As a result, when a new RR type contains one or more embedded domain
names, it is possible to have multiple RRs owned by the same name
that differ only in the character case of the embedded domain
name(s). This is similar to the existing possibility of multiple TXT
records differing only in character case, and not expected to cause
any problems in practice.
<span class="grey">Gustafsson Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3597">RFC 3597</a> Handling of Unknown DNS RR Types September 2003</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. DNSSEC Canonical Form and Ordering</span>
DNSSEC defines a canonical form and ordering for RRs [<a href="./rfc2535" title=""Domain Name System Security Extensions"">RFC2535</a>]
(<a href="#section-8.1">section 8.1</a>). In that canonical form, domain names embedded in the
RDATA are converted to lower case.
The downcasing is necessary to ensure the correctness of DNSSEC
signatures when case distinctions in domain names are lost due to
compression, but since it requires knowledge of the presence and
position of embedded domain names, it cannot be applied to unknown
types.
To ensure continued consistency of the canonical form of RR types
where compression is allowed, and for continued interoperability with
existing implementations that already implement the [<a href="./rfc2535" title=""Domain Name System Security Extensions"">RFC2535</a>]
canonical form and apply it to their known RR types, the canonical
form remains unchanged for all RR types whose whose initial
publication as an RFC was prior to the initial publication of this
specification as an RFC (<a href="./rfc3597">RFC 3597</a>).
As a courtesy to implementors, it is hereby noted that the complete
set of such previously published RR types that contain embedded
domain names, and whose DNSSEC canonical form therefore involves
downcasing according to the DNS rules for character comparisons,
consists of the RR types NS, MD, MF, CNAME, SOA, MB, MG, MR, PTR,
HINFO, MINFO, MX, HINFO, RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX, NXT, NAPTR, KX, SRV,
DNAME, and A6.
This document specifies that for all other RR types (whether treated
as unknown types or treated as known types according to an RR type
definition RFC more recent than <a href="./rfc3597">RFC 3597</a>), the canonical form is such
that no downcasing of embedded domain names takes place, and
otherwise identical to the canonical form specified in <a href="./rfc2535#section-8.1">[RFC2535]
section 8.1</a>.
Note that the owner name is always set to lower case according to the
DNS rules for character comparisons, regardless of the RR type.
The DNSSEC canonical RR ordering is as specified in [<a href="./rfc2535" title=""Domain Name System Security Extensions"">RFC2535</a>] <a href="#section-8.3">section</a>
<a href="#section-8.3">8.3</a>, where the octet sequence is the canonical form as revised by
this specification.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Additional Section Processing</span>
Unknown RR types cause no additional section processing. Future RR
type specifications MAY specify type-specific additional section
processing rules, but any such processing MUST be optional as it can
only be performed by servers for which the RR type in case is known.
<span class="grey">Gustafsson Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3597">RFC 3597</a> Handling of Unknown DNS RR Types September 2003</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
This document does not require any IANA actions.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This specification is not believed to cause any new security
problems, nor to solve any existing ones.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-11" href="#section-11">11</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC1034">RFC1034</a>] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and
Facilities", STD 13, <a href="./rfc1034">RFC 1034</a>, November 1987.
[<a id="ref-RFC1035">RFC1035</a>] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
Specifications", STD 13, <a href="./rfc1035">RFC 1035</a>, November 1987.
[<a id="ref-RFC1123">RFC1123</a>] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Application and Support", STD 3, <a href="./rfc1123">RFC 1123</a>, October 1989.
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC2535">RFC2535</a>] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
<a href="./rfc2535">RFC 2535</a>, March 1999.
[<a id="ref-RFC2163">RFC2163</a>] Allocchio, C., "Using the Internet DNS to Distribute
MIXER Conformant Global Address Mapping (MCGAM)", <a href="./rfc2163">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2163">2163</a>, January 1998.
[<a id="ref-RFC2929">RFC2929</a>] Eastlake, D., Brunner-Williams, E. and B. Manning,
"Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp42">BCP 42</a>,
<a href="./rfc2929">RFC 2929</a>, September 2000.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-12" href="#section-12">12</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC1876">RFC1876</a>] Davis, C., Vixie, P., Goodwin, T. and I. Dickinson, "A
Means for Expressing Location Information in the Domain
Name System", <a href="./rfc1876">RFC 1876</a>, January 1996.
[<a id="ref-RFC2052">RFC2052</a>] Gulbrandsen, A. and P. Vixie, "A DNS RR for specifying
the location of services (DNS SRV)", <a href="./rfc2052">RFC 2052</a>, October
1996.
[<a id="ref-RFC2136">RFC2136</a>] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound,
"Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
<a href="./rfc2136">RFC 2136</a>, April 1997.
<span class="grey">Gustafsson Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3597">RFC 3597</a> Handling of Unknown DNS RR Types September 2003</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2782">RFC2782</a>] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", <a href="./rfc2782">RFC 2782</a>,
February 2000.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-13" href="#section-13">13</a>. Intellectual Property Statement</span>
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp11">BCP-11</a>. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-14" href="#section-14">14</a>. Author's Address</span>
Andreas Gustafsson
Nominum, Inc.
2385 Bay Rd
Redwood City, CA 94063
USA
Phone: +1 650 381 6004
EMail: gson@nominum.com
<span class="grey">Gustafsson Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc3597">RFC 3597</a> Handling of Unknown DNS RR Types September 2003</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-15" href="#section-15">15</a>. Full Copyright Statement</span>
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Gustafsson Standards Track [Page 8]
</pre>
|
