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
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd
Request for Comments: 6895 Huawei
BCP: 42 April 2013
Obsoletes: <a href="./rfc6195">6195</a>
Updates: <a href="./rfc1183">1183</a>, <a href="./rfc2845">2845</a>, <a href="./rfc2930">2930</a>, <a href="./rfc3597">3597</a>
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
<span class="h1">Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations</span>
Abstract
This document specifies Internet Assigned Numbers 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. It obsoletes <a href="./rfc6195">RFC 6195</a> and updates RFCs 1183, 2845, 2930,
and 3597.
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 <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895</a>.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Terminology ................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. DNS Query/Response Headers ......................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. One Spare Bit? .............................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. OpCode Assignment ..........................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>. RCODE Assignment ...........................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. DNS Resource Records ............................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. RRTYPE IANA Considerations .................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-3.1.1">3.1.1</a>. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy ........................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-3.1.2">3.1.2</a>. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines .......................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-3.1.3">3.1.3</a>. Special Note on the OPT RR .........................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-3.1.4">3.1.4</a>. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field .........................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. RR CLASS IANA Considerations ..............................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Label Considerations ......................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-3.3.1">3.3.1</a>. Label Types ........................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-3.3.2">3.3.2</a>. Label Contents and Use .............................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations ........................................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations ............................................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. RRTYPE Allocation Template ............................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>. Changes from <a href="./rfc6195">RFC 6195</a> .................................<a href="#page-16">16</a>
Normative References ..............................................<a href="#page-17">17</a>
Informative References ............................................<a href="#page-18">18</a>
Acknowledgements ..................................................<a href="#page-19">19</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc1034" title=""Domain names - concepts and facilities"">RFC1034</a>], [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>],
[<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>], [<a href="./rfc2181" title=""Clarifications to the DNS Specification"">RFC2181</a>], and [<a href="./rfc4033" title=""DNS Security Introduction and Requirements"">RFC4033</a>] 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 [<a href="./rfc1183" title=""New DNS RR Definitions"">RFC1183</a>], which are
included herein. This RFC obsoletes [<a href="./rfc6195" title=""Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations"">RFC6195</a>]; however, the only
significant changes are those to the RRTYPE IANA allocation process,
aimed at streamlining it and clarifying the expected behavior of the
parties involved, and the closing of the AFSDB subtype registry.
IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from
<<a href="http://www.iana.org">http://www.iana.org</a>>.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Terminology</span>
"Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and
"Private Use" are as defined in [<a href="./rfc5226" title="">RFC5226</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. DNS Query/Response Headers</span>
The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the
following diagram taken from [<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>]:
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, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful
only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. The AD
bit was only meaningful in responses but is expected to have a
separate but related meaning in queries (see <a href="./rfc6840#section-5.7">Section 5.7 of
[RFC6840]</a>). Only the RD and CD bits are expected to be copied from
the query to the response; however, some DNS implementations copy all
the query header as the initial value of the response header. 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 may be
dangerous, given the existing implementation. Meanings for these
bits 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 [<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>]. These fields have the same
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
structure and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the
zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and
additional information (ARCOUNT) sections.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. One Spare Bit?</span>
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.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. OpCode Assignment</span>
Currently, DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows:
OpCode Name Reference
0 Query [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]
1 IQuery (Inverse Query, OBSOLETE) [<a href="./rfc3425" title=""Obsoleting IQUERY"">RFC3425</a>]
2 Status [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]
3 Unassigned
4 Notify [<a href="./rfc1996" title=""A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)"">RFC1996</a>]
5 Update [<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>]
6-15 Unassigned
Although the Status OpCode is reserved in [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>], its behavior has
not been specified. New OpCode assignments require a Standards
Action with early allocation permitted as specified in [<a href="./rfc4020" title=""Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points"">RFC4020</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.3" href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>. RCODE Assignment</span>
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
TSIG RRs [<a href="./rfc2845" title=""Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)"">RFC2845</a>], TKEY RRs [<a href="./rfc2930" title=""Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)"">RFC2930</a>], and extended by OPT RRs
[<a href="./rfc6891" title=""Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))"">RFC6891</a>]. The OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension to the 4 header
bits, resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field, and the TSIG and TKEY RRs
have a 16-bit field designated in their RFCs as the "Error" field.
Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these other RR types
all refer to the same error code space with the exception of error
code 16, which has a different meaning in the OPT RR than in the TSIG
RR, and error code 9, whose variations are described after the table
below. The duplicate assignment of 16 was accidental. To the extent
that any prior RFCs imply any sort of different error number space
for the OPT, TSIG, or TKEY RRs, they are superseded by this unified
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
DNS error number space. (This paragraph is the reason this document
updates [<a href="./rfc2845" title=""Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)"">RFC2845</a>] and [<a href="./rfc2930" title=""Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)"">RFC2930</a>].) With the existing exceptions of
error numbers 9 and 16, the same error number must not be assigned
for different errors even if they would only occur in different RR
types. See table below.
RCODE Name Description Reference
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0 NoError No Error [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]
1 FormErr Format Error [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]
2 ServFail Server Failure [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]
3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]
4 NotImp Not Implemented [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]
5 Refused Query Refused [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]
6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>]
7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>]
8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>]
9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>]
9 NotAuth Not Authorized [<a href="./rfc2845" title=""Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)"">RFC2845</a>]
10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>]
11 - 15
0xB - 0xF Unassigned
16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [<a href="./rfc6891" title=""Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))"">RFC6891</a>]
16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [<a href="./rfc2845" title=""Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)"">RFC2845</a>]
17 BADKEY Key not recognized [<a href="./rfc2845" title=""Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)"">RFC2845</a>]
18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [<a href="./rfc2845" title=""Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)"">RFC2845</a>]
19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [<a href="./rfc2930" title=""Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)"">RFC2930</a>]
20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [<a href="./rfc2930" title=""Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)"">RFC2930</a>]
21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [<a href="./rfc2930" title=""Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)"">RFC2930</a>]
22 BADTRUNC Bad Truncation [<a href="./rfc4635" title=""HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers"">RFC4635</a>]
23 - 3,840
0x0017 - 0x0F00 Unassigned
3,841 - 4,095
0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Reserved for Private Use
4,096 - 65,534
0x1000 - 0xFFFE Unassigned
65,535
0xFFFF Reserved; can only be allocated by Standards
Action.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
Note on error number 9 (NotAuth): This error number means either
"Not Authoritative" [<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>] or "Not Authorized" [<a href="./rfc2845" title=""Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)"">RFC2845</a>]. If 9
appears as the RCODE in the header of a DNS response without a
TSIG RR or with a TSIG RR having a zero error field, then it means
"Not Authoritative". If 9 appears as the RCODE in the header of a
DNS response that includes a TSIG RR with a non-zero error field,
then it means "Not Authorized".
Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability,
assignment of a new RCODE in the ranges listed above as "Unassigned"
requires an IETF Review.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. DNS Resource Records</span>
All RRs have the same top-level format, shown in the figure below
taken from [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>].
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 <a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a>. NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence of one or more
labels, each of which has a label type [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>] [<a href="./rfc6891" title=""Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))"">RFC6891</a>].
TYPE is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE
codes. See <a href="#section-3.1">Section 3.1</a>.
CLASS is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS
codes. See <a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a>.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
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.
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.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. RRTYPE IANA Considerations</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc6891" title=""Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))"">RFC6891</a>], TSIG
[<a href="./rfc2845" title=""Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)"">RFC2845</a>], and TKEY [<a href="./rfc2930" title=""Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)"">RFC2930</a>]. There are currently five QTYPEs
assigned: * (ALL/ANY), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR.
Allocated RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint
from the mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the regular
expression below. In addition, the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names
specified in <a href="./rfc3597#section-5">Section 5 of [RFC3597]</a> cannot be assigned as new RRTYPE
mnemonics.
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]
but not
(TYPE|CLASS)[0-9]*
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
Considerations for the allocation of new RRTYPEs are as follows:
Decimal
Hexadecimal Assignment Policy
0
0x0000 RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the
SIG(0) RR [<a href="./rfc2931" title=""DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( SIG(0)s )"">RFC2931</a>] [<a href="./rfc4034" title=""Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions"">RFC4034</a>] and in other
circumstances and 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 <a href="#section-3.1.1">Section 3.1.1</a>.
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 <a href="#section-3.1.1">Section 3.1.1</a>.
256 - 61,439
0x0100 - 0xEFFF Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy
as specified in <a href="#section-3.1.1">Section 3.1.1</a>. (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 Reserved for Private Use.
65,535
0xFFFF Reserved (Standards Action)
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.1" href="#section-3.1.1">3.1.1</a>. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy</span>
Parameter values specified in <a href="#section-3.1">Section 3.1</a> 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 judged 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 <a href="#section-3.1.2">Section 3.1.2</a>.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
RRTYPEs that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be
allocated by a Standards Action with early allocation permitted as
specified in [<a href="./rfc4020" title=""Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points"">RFC4020</a>].
1. A complete template as specified in <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> has been posted to
the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list and received by
the Expert.
Note that the posting of partially completed, draft, or formally
submitted templates to dnsext@ietf.org by the applicant or Expert
for comment and discussion is highly encouraged. Before formal
submission of an RRTYPE template, we recommend submitting it for
community review and considering the responses in order to reduce
the probability of initial rejection and the need for modification
and resubmission.
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
[<a href="./rfc3597" title=""Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types"">RFC3597</a>] 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.
After the applicant submits their formal application to IANA by
sending the completed template specified in <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> to the
dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list, IANA appoints an
Expert and sends the completed template to the Expert, copying the
applicant. No more than two weeks after receiving the application,
the Expert shall explicitly approve or reject the application,
informing IANA, the applicant, and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list.
A rejection should include the reason for rejection and may include
suggestions for improvement. The Expert should consult with other
technical experts and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list as necessary.
If the Expert does not approve the application within this period, it
is considered rejected. IANA should report non-responsive Experts to
the IESG.
IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates. In
addition, if the required description of the RRTYPE applied for is
referenced by URL, a copy of the document so referenced should be
included in the archive.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.2" href="#section-3.1.2">3.1.2</a>. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines</span>
The Designated Expert should normally be lenient, preferring to
approve most requests. However, the Expert should usually reject any
RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of the following
criteria:
1. The request was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently
clear or complete to evaluate or implement. (Additional
documentation can be provided during the Expert Review period.)
2. The proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not
meet the criteria in point 2 of <a href="#section-3.1.1">Section 3.1.1</a> above.
3. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about
DNS protocol behavior, such as wildcards, CNAME, DNAME, etc.
4. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the
purpose could be met with a smaller number of values or with
Private Use values.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.3" href="#section-3.1.3">3.1.3</a>. Special Note on the OPT RR</span>
The OPT (OPTion) RR (RRTYPE 41) and its IANA considerations are
specified in [<a href="./rfc6891" title=""Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))"">RFC6891</a>]. 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.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.4" href="#section-3.1.4">3.1.4</a>. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field</span>
The AFSDB RR [<a href="./rfc1183" title=""New DNS RR Definitions"">RFC1183</a>] is a CLASS-insensitive RR that has the same
RDATA field structure as the MX RR [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>], but the 16-bit unsigned
integer field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a
subtype as shown below. Use of the AFSDB RR to locate AFS cell
database servers was deprecated by [<a href="./rfc5864" title=""DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS"">RFC5864</a>]. This subtype registry
is hereby closed, and allocation of new subtypes is no longer
permitted.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
Decimal
Hexadecimal Assignment Policy
0
0x0000 Reserved; registry closed
1
0x0001 AFS v3.0 Location Service [<a href="./rfc1183" title=""New DNS RR Definitions"">RFC1183</a>]
2
0x0002 DCE/NCA root cell directory node [<a href="./rfc1183" title=""New DNS RR Definitions"">RFC1183</a>]
3 - 65,279
0x0003 - 0xFEFF Not allocated; registry closed
65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use
65,535
0xFFFF Reserved; registry closed
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. RR CLASS IANA Considerations</span>
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 namespace 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".
Assigned CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from
the mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the regular
expression below. In addition, the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names
specified in <a href="./rfc3597#section-5">Section 5 of [RFC3597]</a> cannot be assigned as new CLASS
mnemonics.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]
but not
(CLASS|TYPE)[0-9]*
The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future
assignments are as follows:
Decimal
Hexadecimal Assignment / Policy, Reference
0
0x0000 Reserved; assignment requires a Standards Action.
1
0x0001 Internet (IN) [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]
2
0x0002 Available for assignment by IETF Review as a data
CLASS.
3
0x0003 Chaos (CH) [<a href="#ref-Moon1981" title=""Chaosnet"">Moon1981</a>]
4
0x0004 Hesiod (HS) [<a href="#ref-Dyer1987" title=""Hesiod"">Dyer1987</a>]
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 [<a href="./rfc2136" title=""Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)"">RFC2136</a>]
255
0x00FF QCLASS * (ANY) [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>]
256 - 32,767
0x0100 - 0x7FFF Available for assignment by IETF Review.
32,768 - 57,343
0x8000 - 0xDFFF Available for assignment to data CLASSes only;
Specification Required.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
57,344 - 65,279
0xE000 - 0xFEFF Available for assignment to QCLASSes and
Meta-CLASSes only; Specification Required.
65,280 - 65,534
0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use
65,535
0xFFFF Reserved; can only be assigned by a Standards
Action.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Label Considerations</span>
DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [<a href="./rfc1035" title=""Domain names - implementation and specification"">RFC1035</a>].
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3.1" href="#section-3.3.1">3.3.1</a>. Label Types</span>
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
printing ASCII characters [<a href="#ref-US-ASCII" title=""USA Code for Information Interchange"">US-ASCII</a>]. For retrieval, Text labels are
defined to treat ASCII uppercase and lowercase letter codes as
matching [<a href="./rfc4343" title=""Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity Clarification"">RFC4343</a>]. Binary labels are bit sequences [<a href="./rfc2673" title=""Binary Labels in the Domain Name System"">RFC2673</a>]. The
Binary Label type is Historic [<a href="./rfc6891" title=""Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))"">RFC6891</a>].
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3.2" href="#section-3.3.2">3.3.2</a>. Label Contents and Use</span>
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 [<a href="#ref-Dyer1987" title=""Hesiod"">Dyer1987</a>] and Chaos
[<a href="#ref-Moon1981" title=""Chaosnet"">Moon1981</a>] 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 [<a href="./rfc1591" title=""Domain Name System Structure and Delegation"">RFC1591</a>]. Some information on reserved top-level domain
names is in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp32">BCP 32</a> [<a href="./rfc2606" title=""Reserved Top Level DNS Names"">RFC2606</a>].
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of
general DNS parameters, not security. See [<a href="./rfc4033" title=""DNS Security Introduction and Requirements"">RFC4033</a>], [<a href="./rfc4034" title=""Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions"">RFC4034</a>], and
[<a href="./rfc4035" title=""Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions"">RFC4035</a>] for secure DNS considerations.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
This document consists entirely of DNS IANA considerations.
IANA has established a process for accepting <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> templates and
selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form
applications. IANA forwards the template to the Expert, copying the
applicant. IANA archives and makes available all approved RRTYPE
allocation templates and referred documentation (unless it is readily
available at a stable URI). 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 <a href="#section-3.1">Section 3.1</a> and <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> for more
details.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. RRTYPE Allocation Template</span>
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.1 Submission Type: [ ] New RRTYPE [ ] Modification to RRTYPE
B.2 Kind of RR: [ ] Data RR [ ] Meta-RR
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: If a mnemonic is not supplied, not allowed, or duplicates an
existing RRTYPE or CLASS mnemonic, the Expert will assign a
mnemonic.
H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA registry
or require the creation of a new IANA subregistry in DNS
Parameters? If so, please indicate which registry is to be used
or created. If a new subregistry 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 [<a href="./rfc3597" title=""Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types"">RFC3597</a>])?
J. Comments:
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B" href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>. Changes from <a href="./rfc6195">RFC 6195</a></span>
Dropped description of changes from <a href="./rfc5395">RFC 5395</a> to [<a href="./rfc6195" title=""Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations"">RFC6195</a>], since
those changes have already happened and we don't need to do them
again. Added description of changes from [<a href="./rfc6195" title=""Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations"">RFC6195</a>] to this document.
Cut back RRTYPE Expert Review period to two weeks and eliminated the
mandatory dnsext@ietf.org comment period. Changed workflow
description for RRTYPE review and allocation to correspond more
closely to actual practice.
Closed the AFSDB subtype registry and added an informative reference
to [<a href="./rfc5864" title=""DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS"">RFC5864</a>] where the use of the AFSDB RR to locate AFS cell
database servers is deprecated.
Clarified IANA archiving of referenced documentation as well as
approved RRTYPE application template.
In the RRTYPE application template, changed the label of question "B"
to "B.1" and added "B.2" to ask about the kind of RR.
Added text and an exclusory regular expression to Sections <a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a> and
3.2 to prohibit the use of a slight generalization of the generic
CLASS and RRTYPE names specified in [<a href="./rfc3597" title=""Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types"">RFC3597</a>] as the mnemonics for
new CLASSes and RRTYPEs.
Parenthetically listed "ANY" as well as "ALL" as a meaning for the
"*" RRTYPE.
Clarified that there is one DNS error number space for headers, OPT
extended headers, TSIG RRs, and TKEY RRs. Noted that this is
considered to update [<a href="./rfc2845" title=""Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)"">RFC2845</a>] and [<a href="./rfc2930" title=""Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)"">RFC2930</a>]. Noted the overloading
of error number 9 as well as 16.
Updated references for revised versions.
Incorporated a number of editorial changes and typo fixes.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
Normative References
[<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
specification", STD 13, <a href="./rfc1035">RFC 1035</a>, November 1987.
[<a id="ref-RFC1996">RFC1996</a>] Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", <a href="./rfc1996">RFC 1996</a>, August 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.
[<a id="ref-RFC2181">RFC2181</a>] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", <a href="./rfc2181">RFC 2181</a>, July 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC2845">RFC2845</a>] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B.
Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for
DNS (TSIG)", <a href="./rfc2845">RFC 2845</a>, May 2000.
[<a id="ref-RFC2930">RFC2930</a>] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
RR)", <a href="./rfc2930">RFC 2930</a>, September 2000.
[<a id="ref-RFC3425">RFC3425</a>] Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", <a href="./rfc3425">RFC 3425</a>,
November 2002.
[<a id="ref-RFC3597">RFC3597</a>] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", <a href="./rfc3597">RFC 3597</a>, September 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC4020">RFC4020</a>] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of
Standards Track Code Points", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp100">BCP 100</a>, <a href="./rfc4020">RFC 4020</a>,
February 2005.
[<a id="ref-RFC4033">RFC4033</a>] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
<a href="./rfc4033">RFC 4033</a>, March 2005.
[<a id="ref-RFC4034">RFC4034</a>] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
<a href="./rfc4034">RFC 4034</a>, March 2005.
[<a id="ref-RFC4035">RFC4035</a>] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", <a href="./rfc4035">RFC 4035</a>, March 2005.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4635">RFC4635</a>] Eastlake 3rd, D., "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message
Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG
Algorithm Identifiers", <a href="./rfc4635">RFC 4635</a>, August 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC5226">RFC5226</a>] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>, <a href="./rfc5226">RFC 5226</a>,
May 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC6840">RFC6840</a>] Weiler, S., Ed., and D. Blacka, Ed., "Clarifications and
Implementation Notes for DNS Security (DNSSEC)",
<a href="./rfc6840">RFC 6840</a>, February 2013.
[<a id="ref-RFC6891">RFC6891</a>] Damas, J., Graff, M., and Vixie, P., "Extension
Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, <a href="./rfc6891">RFC 6891</a>, April
2013.
[<a id="ref-US-ASCII">US-ASCII</a>] American National Standards Institute (formerly United
States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for
Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968.
ANSI X3.4-1968 has been replaced by newer versions with
slight modifications, but the 1968 version remains
definitive for the Internet.
Informative References
[<a id="ref-Dyer1987">Dyer1987</a>] Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical
Plan - Name Service, April 1987.
[<a id="ref-Moon1981">Moon1981</a>] Moon, D., "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory, June 1981.
[<a id="ref-RFC1183">RFC1183</a>] Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P.
Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", <a href="./rfc1183">RFC 1183</a>,
October 1990.
[<a id="ref-RFC1591">RFC1591</a>] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and
Delegation", <a href="./rfc1591">RFC 1591</a>, March 1994.
[<a id="ref-RFC2606">RFC2606</a>] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp32">BCP 32</a>, <a href="./rfc2606">RFC 2606</a>, June 1999.
[<a id="ref-RFC2673">RFC2673</a>] Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
<a href="./rfc2673">RFC 2673</a>, August 1999.
[<a id="ref-RFC2931">RFC2931</a>] Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
( SIG(0)s )", <a href="./rfc2931">RFC 2931</a>, September 2000.
<span class="grey">Eastlake Best Current Practice [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6895">RFC 6895</a> DNS IANA Considerations April 2013</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4343">RFC4343</a>] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
Insensitivity Clarification", <a href="./rfc4343">RFC 4343</a>, January 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC5864">RFC5864</a>] Allbery, R., "DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS",
<a href="./rfc5864">RFC 5864</a>, April 2010.
[<a id="ref-RFC6195">RFC6195</a>] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations", <a href="./rfc6195">RFC 6195</a>, March 2011.
Acknowledgements
Alfred Hoenes' contributions are gratefully acknowledged as are those
by Mark Andrews, Dick Franks, and Michael Sheldon.
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 Best Current Practice [Page 19]
</pre>
|
