RFC 5395
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations 💖
okay bestie, this is RFC 5395 🎀 It's a Best Current Practice (BCP 42, category Best Current Practice) by D. Eastlake 3rd from Stellar Switches, dated November 2008. It's part of the Network Working Group series (Request for Comments: 5395), it obsoletes RFC 2929, and it updates RFC 1183 and RFC 3597. The whole thing is about DNS IANA considerations, so let's get into it 🦋
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.
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 ............................................161. Introduction ✨
The Domain Name System (DNS) is giving replicated, distributed, secure, hierarchical databases 💅 that store "resource records" (RRs) under domain names. DNS data gets organized into CLASSes and zones that can be maintained independently. Go read [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] first, because familiarity with them is assumed 📚
This document gives you, 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 extra IANA considerations that only apply to a particular RRTYPE or query/response OpCode. If one has been defined, check the specific RFC that defines that RRTYPE or OpCode. The exception is AFSDB RR considerations [RFC1183], which are included right here 🫶 This RFC obsoletes [RFC2929].
IANA currently keeps a web page of DNS parameters at http://www.iana.org.
1.1. Terminology 🧠
"IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226].
2. DNS Query/Response Headers 🎀
The header for DNS queries and responses holds its fields and bits, shown in the diagram below 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 gets echoed back in the response so they can be matched up 🔗
The QR bit tells you whether the header is for a query or a response.
The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each only theoretically meaningful in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. BUT some DNS implementations copy the query header as the starting value of the response header without clearing bits 👀 So using a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response, or defining a query meaning for a "response" bit, is dangerous given existing implementations 💀 Those 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 for Update they're the counts for the zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional information (ARCOUNT) sections instead 🧚
2.1. One Spare Bit? 🤔
There have been ancient DNS implementations where the Z bit being on in a query meant that only a response from the primary server for a zone was 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 🍓
Right now, DNS OpCodes are assigned like this:
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 assignmentNew OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020] ✨
2.3. RCODE Assignment 💜
Looking at the DNS header above, it seems like only four bits of RCODE (the response/error code) are available. But RCODEs can show up 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 gives an 8-bit extension, which results in a 12-bit RCODE field. The TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit RCODE field 📐
Error codes that appear in the DNS header and in these three RR types all refer to the same error code space. The one exception is error code 16, which means something different in the OPT RR than it does in other contexts. See the 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's really important that RCODEs get understood for interoperability, assigning a new RCODE from the ones listed above as "available for assignment" requires an IETF Review 🫶
3. DNS Resource Records ✨
okay so every RR (resource record) has the exact same top-level shape 🎀, and this diagram is basically the one 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 the owner name, aka the name of the node this RR is about 🏡. NAMEs are specific to a CLASS, so check out section 3.2 💜. A NAME is an ordered sequence of one or more labels, and each label has a label type [RFC1035] [RFC2671] 🧚.
TYPE is a 2-octet unsigned integer that holds one of the RRTYPE codes. See section 3.1 🦋.
CLASS is a 2-octet unsigned integer that holds one of the RR CLASS codes. See section 3.2 🌸.
TTL is a 4-octet (32-bit) unsigned integer. For data TYPEs, it's the number of seconds the resource record may be cached before the source of the information should be consulted again ⏰. Zero means the RR can only be used for the transaction in progress 🙈.
RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16-bit integer that gives the length in octets of the RDATA field 📏.
RDATA is a variable length string of octets that makes up the resource 🍓. Its format depends on the TYPE and, in some cases, on the CLASS of the resource record ✨.
3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations
okay the RRTYPE numbers come in three flavours: data TYPEs, QTYPEs, and Meta-TYPEs 🌈.
Data TYPEs are how data gets stored 💾. QTYPEs can only be used in queries 🔍. Meta-TYPEs describe transient data tied to one particular DNS message, and in some cases they can also be used in queries 🫶. So far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward, plus the block from 100 through 103, and from 32,768 upward. Q and Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward, except for the OPT Meta-RR, which gets 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 are totally disjoint from the mnemonics used for CLASSes, and they have to match this regular expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*Here's how allocation of new RRTYPEs works 💖:
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.
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
okay so parameter values from Section 3.1 above get allocated under the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy by Expert Review, as long as they meet the two requirements below 🧐. There's a small pool of Experts appointed by the IESG, and each application gets ruled on by an Expert picked by IANA. If the selected Expert is unavailable or says they have a conflict of interest, IANA may pick another Expert from the pool 🔄.
Some guidelines for the Experts are in Section 3.1.2 📋. RRTYPEs that don't meet the requirements below may still be allocated by IETF Standards Action, as modified by [RFC4020] 🌟.
- 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 📬.
Partially completed or draft templates can be posted directly by the applicant for comment and discussion, but the formal posting that starts the three week period is made by the Expert 💬.
- 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 🗑️.
These RRs may include additional section processing, as long as that processing is optional ✨.
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 to IANA, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, and the email address the applicant provided. That message explicitly accepts or rejects the application ⏳. If the Expert doesn't post it, the application is considered rejected, but it can be re-submitted to IANA 🙃.
IANA shall keep a public archive of approved templates 📚.
3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines
The selected DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to keep an eye on discussion of the proposed RRTYPE, which may happen on the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list, and they may consult other technical experts when needed 👀. The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of the following criteria 🚫:
- It was documented in a way that wasn't clear enough to evaluate or implement 😵.
- The proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and don't meet the criteria in point 2 of Section 3.1.1 above 🙅.
- The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete. (Additional documentation can be provided during the public comment period or by the Expert.) 📝
- The application use, as documented, makes incorrect assumptions about DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME, etc. 🙈
- 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 main job is to extend the effective field size of various DNS fields, including RCODE, label type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size 📈. For resolvers and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field from 4 to 12 bits 🔥.
3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field
The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] is CLASS-insensitive and has the same RDATA field structure as the MX RR. The difference is that the 16-bit unsigned integer at the start of the RDATA gets read as a subtype, like this 🧩:
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
okay so there are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data-containing classes, and QCLASSes that only mean something in queries or updates 🗂️.
DNS CLASSes don't get used much, but they're another dimension of the DNS distributed database 🌐. There's no necessary relationship between the name space or root servers of one data CLASS and those of another, so the same DNS NAME can mean completely different things in different CLASSes 🤯. The label types are the same, and the null label is only usable as root in every CLASS 🌳. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN (Internet) CLASS has dominated DNS use 👑.
There hasn't been a requirement for "meta-CLASSes" yet. That would be a CLASS for transient data tied to one DNS message, possibly usable in queries 🫧. It's still possible there could be a future requirement for one or more "meta-CLASSes" 🔮.
CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the mnemonics used for RRTYPEs, and they have to match this regular expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*Here are the current CLASS assignments and the considerations for future ones 💜:
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].
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 ✨
Okay so right now there are two label type categories 💖: data labels and compression labels. Compression labels are basically pointers to data labels somewhere else inside an RR or DNS message, and they exist to shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs 🦋
The two existing data label types are sometimes called Text and Binary 🎀. Text labels can honestly hold any octet value, zero-value octets included, but most real-world uses only involve [US-ASCII] 💅. For retrieval, Text labels treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343], so "Case" and "case" are the same thing 🙈. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary label type is still 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. It only does its one job and that's it 💅
NAMEs are local to a CLASS 🧚. The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos [Moon1981] CLASSes are mostly for local use, so they're kind of homebodies 🏡. The IN, or Internet, CLASS is therefore the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at this time. Literally the main character 🌍✨
A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class is given in [RFC1591] 📜. Some info on reserved top-level domain names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606] 🔒.
4. Security Considerations 🔐
Okay, bestie, pay attention to this one 😭. This document is all about IANA considerations for allocating general DNS parameters. It is not about security. For secure DNS considerations, go read [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035] 🫶
5. IANA Considerations 📋
This document is made entirely of DNS IANA Considerations 💅. It includes the following changes from its predecessor [RFC2929], and it affects the DNS Parameters registry and its subregistries, which you can get from http://www.iana.org 🌈.
- In the Domain Name System "Resource record (RR) TYPES and QTYPEs" registry, most "IETF Consensus" allocation policies and all "Specification Required" policies for RRTYPEs change to "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy" 🎀. The policy for RRTYPE 0xFFFF changes to "IETF Standards Action" 👑. Any remaining "IETF Consensus" instances become "IETF Review", per [RFC5226] 🫶.
The "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy" is based on Expert Review, but it comes with extra provisions and restrictions 🔥. In most cases, you have to submit a completed copy of the template in Appendix A to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org 📨. In other cases, it requires "IETF Standards Action" as modified by [RFC4020] 🧾.
IANA shall set up a process for accepting such templates, picking an Expert from those appointed to review template form applications, archiving them, and making all approved RRTYPE allocation templates available 🗂️. It is the selected Expert's duty to post the formal application template to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list 💌. See Section 3.1 and Appendix A for more details 🦋.
- For OpCodes (see Section 2.2), the "IETF Standards Action" allocation requirements change to add "as modified by [RFC4020]" 🌸.
- The allocation status of RCODE 0xFFFF changes to "IETF Standards Action required" ⭐. See Section 2.3 💅.
- An IANA allocation policy is added for the AFSDB RR Subtype field, which means a new registry has to be created 🧚. See Section 3.1.4 📚.
- Specification Required CLASSes get split into data CLASSes and query or meta CLASSes 🍓. See Section 3.2 ✨.
Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template 📝
When it's ready for formal consideration, you email the template to IANA for processing at dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org 📨. Here's the template itself:
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.
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.
- [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.
- [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📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc5395 2008-11
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms