path: root/doc/rfc/rfc5395.txt

Network Working Group                                    D. Eastlake 3rd
Request for Comments: 5395                              Stellar Switches
BCP: 42                                                    November 2008
Obsoletes: 2929
Updates: 1183, 3597
Category: Best Current Practice


              Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2008 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

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.

















Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Terminology ................................................2
   2. DNS Query/Response Headers ......................................3
      2.1. One Spare Bit? .............................................4
      2.2. OpCode Assignment ..........................................4
      2.3. RCODE Assignment ...........................................4
   3. DNS Resource Records ............................................6
      3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations .................................7
           3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy ........................8
           3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines ........................9
           3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR ..........................9
           3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field .........................10
      3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations ..............................10
      3.3. Label Considerations ......................................12
           3.3.1. Label Types ........................................12
           3.3.2. Label Contents and Use .............................12
   4. Security Considerations ........................................13
   5. IANA Considerations ............................................13
   Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template ............................14
   Normative References ..............................................15
   Informative References ............................................16

1.  Introduction

   The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure
   hierarchical databases that store "resource records" (RRs) under
   domain names.  DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones that can
   be independently maintained.  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 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 [RFC1183], which are
   included herein.  This RFC obsoletes [RFC2929].

   IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from
   http://www.iana.org.

1.1.  Terminology

   "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and
   "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226].



Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


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.

   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.









Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


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].

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 8-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field,
   and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit RCODE field.

















Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


   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.

   Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability,
   assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment"
   requires an IETF Review.







Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


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 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE
   codes.  See section 3.1.

   CLASS is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS
   codes.  See section 3.2.

   TTL is a 4-octet (32-bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for data
   TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be cached
   before the source of the information should again be consulted.  Zero
   is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the
   transaction in progress.

   RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16-bit integer that specifies the length in
   octets of the RDATA field.






Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 6]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


   RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the
   resource.  The format of this information varies according to the
   TYPE and, in some cases, the CLASS of the resource record.

3.1.  RRTYPE IANA Considerations

   There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs,
   and Meta-TYPEs.

   Data TYPEs are the means of storing data.  QTYPES can only be used in
   queries.  Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a
   particular DNS message and, in some cases, can also be used in
   queries.  Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward plus
   the block from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and
   Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward except for the OPT
   Meta-RR, which is assigned TYPE 41.  There have been DNS
   implementations that made caching decisions based on the top bit of
   the bottom byte of the RRTYPE.

   There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671], TSIG
   [RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930].  There are currently five QTYPEs
   assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR.

   RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the
   mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the following regular
   expression:

         [A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*

   Considerations for the allocation of new RRTYPEs are as follows:

     Decimal
   Hexadecimal

        0
   0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG (0)
          RR [RFC2931] and in other circumstances, and it must never be
          allocated for ordinary use.

        1 - 127
   0x0001 - 0x007F - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
            data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified
            in Section 3.1.1.

      128 - 255
   0x0080 - 0x00FF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for Q
            and Meta TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
            specified in Section 3.1.1.



Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


      256 - 61,439
   0x0100 - 0xEFFF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for
            data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as
            specified in Section 3.1.1.  (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and
            0x8001) have been assigned.)

   61,440 - 65,279
   0xF000 - 0xFEFF - Reserved for future use.  IETF Review required to
            define use.

   65,280 - 65,534
   0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.

   65,535
   0xFFFF - Reserved; can only be assigned by 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.  There will be a pool of a
   small number of Experts appointed by the IESG.  Each application will
   be ruled on by an Expert selected by IANA.  In any case where the
   selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of
   interest, IANA may select another Expert from the pool.

   Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2.  RRTYPEs
   that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be allocated
   by IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020].

   1. A complete template as specified in Appendix A 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
      directly by the applicant for comment and discussion, but the
      formal posting to start the three week period is made by the
      Expert.

   2. The RR for which an RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a) a
      data TYPE that can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in
      [RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type whose processing is optional, i.e.,
      it is safe to simply discard RRs with that Meta-Type in queries or
      responses.

      Note that such RRs may include additional section processing,
      provided such processing is optional.




Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 8]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


   No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
   template has been formally posted to namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, the
   selected Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or
   rejecting the application, to IANA, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, and
   the email address provided by the applicant.  If the Expert does not
   post such a message, the application shall be considered rejected but
   may be re-submitted to IANA.

   IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates.

3.1.2.  DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines

   The selected DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of
   the proposed RRTYPE, which may occur on the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
   mailing list, and may consult with other technical experts as
   necessary.  The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation
   request that meets one or more of the following criterion:

   1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to
      evaluate or implement.

   2. The proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not
      meet the criteria in point 2 of Section 3.1.1 above.

   3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete.
      (Additional documentation can be provided during the public
      comment period or by the Expert.)

   4. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about
      DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME, etc.

   5. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the
      purpose could be met with a smaller number or with Private Use
      values.

3.1.3.  Special Note on the OPT RR

   The OPT (OPTion) RR (RRTYPE 41) and its IANA Considerations are
   specified in [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.








Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                  [Page 9]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


3.1.4.  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 Review.

   65,280 - 65,534
   0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.

   65,535
   0xFFFF - Reserved; allocation requires IETF Standards Action.

3.2.  RR CLASS IANA Considerations

   There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal,
   data-containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in
   queries or updates.

   DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of
   the DNS distributed database.  In particular, there is no necessary
   relationship between the name space or root servers for one data
   CLASS and those for another data CLASS.  The same DNS NAME can have
   completely different meanings in different CLASSes.  The label types
   are the same, and the null label is usable only as root in every
   CLASS.  As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or
   Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use.

   As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes".  That would
   be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular
   DNS message, which might be usable in queries.  However, it is
   possible that there might be a future requirement for one or more
   "meta-CLASSes".



Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 10]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


   CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the
   mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the following regular
   expression:

         [A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*

   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 Review as a data CLASS.

        3
   0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981].

        4
   0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987].

        5 - 127
   0x0005 - 0x007F - Available for assignment by IETF Review for data
                     CLASSes only.

      128 - 253
   0x0080 - 0x00FD - Available for assignment by IETF Review for
                     QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only.

      254
   0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136].

      255
   0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035].

      256 - 32,767
   0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Review.

   32,768 - 57,343
   0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only, based on
                     Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226].




Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 11]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


   57,344 - 65,279
   0xE000 - 0xFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only, based
                     on Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226].

   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].

   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 cannot be used for any
   other NAME purpose.

   NAMEs are local to a CLASS.  The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos
   [Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use.  The IN, or
   Internet, CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the
   Internet at this time.

   A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class
   is given in [RFC1591].  Some information on reserved top-level domain
   names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606].






Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 12]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


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
   affects the DNS Parameters registry and its subregistries, which are
   available from http://www.iana.org.

   1. In the Domain Name System "Resource record (RR) TYPES and QTYPEs"
      registry, 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".  Remaining instances of "IETF Consensus"
      are changed to "IETF Review", per [RFC5226].  It also specifies
      the "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy", which is based on Expert Review
      with additional provisions and restrictions, including the
      submittal of a completed copy of the template in Appendix A to
      dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org, in most cases, and requires
      "IETF Standards Action" as modified by [RFC4020] in other cases.

      IANA shall establish a process for accepting such templates,
      selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template
      form applications, archiving, and making available all approved
      RRTYPE allocation templates.  It is the duty of the selected
      Expert to post the formal application template to the
      namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list.  See Section 3.1 and
      Appendix A for more details.

   2. For OpCodes (see Section 2.2), it changes "IETF Standards Action"
      allocation requirements to add "as modified by [RFC4020]".

   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 3.1.4.

   5. It splits Specification Required CLASSes into data CLASSes and
      query or meta CLASSes.  See Section 3.2.







Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 13]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


Appendix A.  RRTYPE Allocation Template

                 DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE

   When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted
   to IANA for processing by emailing the template to
   dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org.

   A.    Submission Date:

   B.    Submission Type:
         [ ] New RRTYPE
         [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE

   C.    Contact Information for submitter:
            Name:
            Email Address:
            International telephone number:
            Other contact handles:

            (Note: This information will be publicly posted.)

   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.  Remember most reviewers
         will be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your
         application space.

   E.    Description of the proposed RR type.
         This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an
         attachment, or with a publicly available URL:

   F.    What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
         need and why are they unsatisfactory?

   G.    What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
         Note: This can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the
         template is accepted.

   H.    Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
         Registry or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in
         DNS Parameters?
         If so, please indicate which registry is to be used or created.
         If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy
         for it and its initial contents.  Also include what the
         modification procedures will be.





Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 14]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


   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 [RFC3597])?

   J.    Comments:

Normative References

   [RFC1034]   Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and
               facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]   Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
               specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC1996]   Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
               Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996.

   [RFC2136]   Vixie, P., Ed., 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.

   [RFC2671]   Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
               2671, August 1999.

   [RFC2845]   Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B.
               Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for
               DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000.

   [RFC2930]   Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
               RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000.

   [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.




Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 15]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


   [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]   Eastlake 3rd, D., "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message
               Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG
               Algorithm Identifiers", RFC 4635, August 2006.

   [RFC5226]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
               IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
               May 2008.

   [US-ASCII]  ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange",
               X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York,
               1968.

Informative References

   [Dyer1987]  Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical
               Plan - Name Service, April 1987.

   [Moon1981]  Moon, D., "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
               Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence
               Laboratory, June 1981.

   [RFC1183]   Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P.
               Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October
               1990.

   [RFC1591]   Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and
               Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994.

   [RFC2606]   Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
               Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.

   [RFC2673]   Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
               RFC 2673, August 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 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
               ( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000.



Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 16]
^L
RFC 5395                DNS IANA Considerations            November 2008


   [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.

   [RFC4343]   Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
               Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.

Author's Address

   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
   Stellar Switches
   155 Beaver Street
   Milford, MA 01757 USA

   Phone: +1-508-634-2066 (h)
   EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com


































Eastlake                 Best Current Practice                 [Page 17]
^L