INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Obsoletes RFC 2929 Motorola Laboratories Updates RFCs 1183 and 3597 Expires: May 2007 November 2006 Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations ------ ---- ------ ----- ------------------- Status of This Document By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Distribution of this draft is unlimited. It is intended to become the new BCP 42 obsoleting RFC 2929. Comments should be sent to the DNS Working Group mailing list . Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Abstract Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations are specified 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. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 Table of Contents Status of This Document....................................1 Abstract...................................................1 Table of Contents..........................................2 1. Introduction............................................3 2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................3 2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4 2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................4 2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5 3. DNS Resource Records....................................6 3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations.............................7 3.1.1 DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy.........................8 3.1.2 Expert Review DNS RRTYPE Expert Review Template......8 3.1.3 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines.........................9 3.1.4 Special Note on the OPT RR..........................10 3.1.5 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field..........................10 3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations..........................11 3.3 Label Considerations..................................12 3.3.1 Label Types.........................................12 3.3.2 Label Contents and Use..............................13 4. Security Considerations................................13 5. IANA Considerations....................................13 Additional IPR Provisions.................................15 Copyright.................................................16 Normative References......................................16 Informative References....................................17 Author's Address..........................................19 Expiration and File Name..................................19 Disclaimer................................................19 D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 1. Introduction The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure hierarchical databases which store "resource records" (RRs) under domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones which can be independently maintained. See [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] familiarity with which is assumed. This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general IANA parameter assignment considerations applying 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 [RFC1183] which are included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC2929]. IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters. See . "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Consensus", "Specification Required", and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC2434]. 2. DNS Query/Response Headers The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC2929]: 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. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 3] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 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 an IETF 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 [RFC2136]. 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. 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 an IETF Standards Action. 2.2 Opcode Assignment Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows: OpCode Name Reference 0 Query [RFC1035] 1 IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC3425] 2 Status [RFC1035] 3 available for assignment 4 Notify [RFC1996] 5 Update [RFC2136] 6-15 available for assignment New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 4] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 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 [RFC2671], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930]. The OPT RR provides an eight 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 from its meaning in other contexts. See table below. RCODE Name Description Reference Decimal Hexadecimal 0 NoError No Error [RFC1035] 1 FormErr Format Error [RFC1035] 2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC1035] 3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC1035] 4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC1035] 5 Refused Query Refused [RFC1035] 6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC2136] 7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC2136] 8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC2136] 9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC2136] 10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC2136] 11 - 15 Available for assignment 16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC2671] 16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC2845] 17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC2845] 18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC2845] 19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC2930] 20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC2930] 21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC2930] 22 BADTRUC Bad Truncation [RFC4635] 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 an IETF Standards Action. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 5] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability, assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment" requires an IETF Consensus. 3. DNS Resource Records All RRs have the same top level format shown in the figure below taken from [RFC1035]. 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 [RFC1035], [RFC2671]. TYPE is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE codes. See section 3.1. CLASS is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS codes. See section 3.2. TTL is a four 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 D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 6] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 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. 3.1 RRTYPE IANA Considerations There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs, and Meta-TYPEs. Data TYPEs are the primary 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 upwards plus the block from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downwards except for the OPT Meta-RR which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS implementations which made caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the RRTYPE. There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671], TSIG [RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR. RRTYPEs have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the mnemonics used for CLASSes and which must match the following regular expression: [A-Z][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 RR [RFC2931], [RFC4034] 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 section 3.1.1. 128 - 255 0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining RRTYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q and Meta TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 7] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 specified in section 3.1.1. 256 - 61,439 0x0100 - 0xEFFF - assigned for data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified in section 3.1.1. 61,440 - 65,279 0xF000 - 0xFEFF - reserved for future use. IETF Consensus required to define use. 65,280 - 65,534 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 65,535 0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF 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. Some guidelines for the Expert are given in Section 3.1.3. RRTYPEs that do not meet these requirements, are allocated by IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]. 1. A complete template as specified in Section 3.1.2 has been posted for three weeks to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list before the Expert Review decision. Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted for comment. IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates. 2. The RR for which a RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a) a data TYPE which can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in [RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type who processing is optional, i.e., which it is safe to simply discard. Note that such RRs may include additional section processing provided such processing is optional. 3.1.2 Expert Review DNS RRTYPE Expert Review Template DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE Date: Name, email, and telephone number of originator: D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 8] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 Provide a pointer to internet-draft or other public document giving a detailed description of the protocol use of the new RRTYPE, or, alternatively, append detailed documentation to this template: What need is the new RRTYPE intended to satisfy? What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need and why are they unsatisfactory? What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)? Does the requested RRTYPE make us of any existing IANA Registry or require the creation of a new IANA Registry and if so what is that registry or registries? Does the proposed RRTYPE require special handling within the DNS different from an Unknown RRTYPE or ignorable Meta-TYPE? Comments: 3.1.3 DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines The designed DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of the proposed RRTYPE which may occur on the namedroppers mailing list and to consult with other experts as necessary. The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request which meets one or more of the following criterion: 1. Did not have a complete template as specified above posted to the namedroppers mailing list for at least three weeks. 2. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to evaluate or ensure interoperability. 3. The intended use of the proposed RRTYPE would cause problems with existing DNS deployments or the DNS infrastructure. 4. The requested RRTYPE would conflict with one under development within the IETF and the existence of more than one such type would harm interoperability. 5. An existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs appear to adequately meet the purpose of the RR for which a RRTYPE value or values are requested. 6. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the purpose could be met with a smaller number. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 9] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 7. The request appears to be for a RRTYPE value that would not genuinely be used in the DNS or whose use would be insignificant or whose near term use would be better met by a value from the range reserved for Private Use. 3.1.4 Special Note on the OPT RR The OPT (OPTion) RR, RRTYPE 41, and its IANA Considerations are specified in [RFC2671]. 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. 3.1.5 The AFSDB RR Subtype Field The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] is a CLASS insensitive RR that has the same RDATA field structure as the MX RR 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 IETF Standards Action. 1 0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183]. 2 0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183]. 3 - 65,279 0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Consensus. 65,280 - 65,534 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 65,535 0xFFFF - Reserved, allocation requires IETF Standards Action. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 10] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 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 be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular DNS message and which might be usable in queries. However, it is possible that their might be a future requirement for one or more "meta-CLASSes". CLASSes have mnemonics which must be completely disjoint from the mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and which must match the following regular expression: [A-Z][A-Z0-9-]* The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future assignments are as follows: Decimal Hexadecimal 0 0x0000 - Reserved, assignment requires an IETF Standards Action. 1 0x0001 - Internet (IN). 2 0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Consensus as a data CLASS. 3 0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981]. 4 0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987]. 5 - 127 0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for data CLASSes only. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 11] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 128 - 253 0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by IETF Consensus for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only. 254 0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136]. 255 0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035]. 256 - 32,767 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Consensus. 32,768 - 57,343 0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only based on Specification Required as defined in [RFC2434]. 57,344 - 65,279 0xE000 - 0XFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only based on Specification Required as defined in [RFC2434]. 65,280 - 65,534 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 65,535 0xFFFF - Reserved, can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action. 3.3 Label Considerations DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035]. 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 [RFC4343]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary label type is Experimental [RFC3363]. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 12] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC2671]. 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 can not 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 [RFC1591]. Some information on reserved top level domain names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606]. 4. Security Considerations This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations. 5. IANA Considerations This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations and includes the following changes from its predecessor [RFC2929]. It affect the registry currently at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns- parameters and its subregistries. 1. In the Domain Name System "Resource record (RR) TYPES and QTYPEs" resgistry, it changes most "IETF Consensus" and all "Specification Required" allocation policies for RRTYPEs to be "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy" and changes the policy for RRTYPE 0xFFFF to be "IETF Standards Action". It also speciies the "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy" which is based on Expert Review with additional provisions and restrictions, including the posting of a template, in most cases and requires "IETF Standards Action as modfiied by [RFC4020]" in other cases. See Section 3.1 for details. IANA shall archive and make available all approved RRTYPE allocation templates. 2. For Opcodes (see Section 2.2), it changes "IETF Standards Action" allocation requirements to say "as modified by [RFC4020]". D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 13] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 3. It changes the allocation status of RCODE 0xFFFF to be IETF Standards Action required. See Section 2.3. 4. It adds an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field which requires the creation of a new registry. See Section 3.1.5. 5. It splits Specification Required CLASSes into data CLASSes and query or meta CLASSes. See Section 3.2. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 14] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 Additional IPR Provisions The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 15] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 Copyright Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Normative References [RFC1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC1183] - Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P. Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990. [RFC1996] - Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996. [RFC2136] - Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, April 1997. [RFC2181] - Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. [RFC2434] - Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC2671] - Vixie, P., "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 2671, August 1999. [RFC2673] - Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", RFC 2673, August 1999. [RFC2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B. Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000. [RFC2930] - Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)", September 2000. [RFC3363] - 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. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 16] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 [RFC3425] - Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November 2002. [RFC3597] - Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. [RFC4020] - Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005. [RFC4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March 2005. [RFC4034] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, March 2005. [RFC4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. [RFC4635] - D. Eastlake 3rd, "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers". [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] - D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June 1981. [RFC1591] - Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994. [RFC2606] - Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", RFC 2606, June 1999. [RFC2929] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning, "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929, September 2000. [RFC2931] - Eastlake, E., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 17] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 [RFC4343] - Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, December 2005. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 18] INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations November 2006 Author's Address Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Motorola Laboratories 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA Telephone: +1-508-786-7554 (w) email: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com Expiration and File Name This draft expires May 2007. Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-04.txt. Disclaimer This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 19]