RFC 6195
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
RFC 6195: Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations 🎀
Part 1 of 3 💖
Okay so, this one is a Best Current Practice (BCP 42), written by D. Eastlake 3rd from Huawei, and it's dated March 2011. It's published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and has ISSN 2070-1721. It obsoletes RFC 5395 and updates RFC 1183 and RFC 3597. The obsoleting part is lowkey a big deal, but the author says the only real change is that the public review mailing list is now dnsext@ietf.org ✨. 🦋
Abstract
This doc is all about the IANA parameter assignment rules for DNS resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes, DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes. So basically, if you want to hand out one of these numbers, this is where the rules live 💅
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 Section 2 of RFC 5741 🌸
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6195.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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) as they were in effect on the date this document was published. Please read these carefully, because they explain your rights and restrictions when it comes to this document. Any Code Components pulled out of this document must include the Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come without warranty, as described in the Simplified BSD License. Be careful with that one, bestie 🫶
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology ................................................3
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
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 5395 .................................15
Normative References ..............................................15
Informative References ............................................161. Introduction ✨
The Domain Name System (DNS) is a replicated, distributed, secure, hierarchical database system. It stores "resource records" (RRs) under domain names. DNS data is organized into CLASSes and zones, and those can be maintained independently. Familiarity with [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] is assumed, so go read those first 📚
This document gives the general IANA parameter assignment considerations that apply across DNS query and response headers and all RRs, either directly or by reference. There may be extra IANA considerations that only apply to one particular RRTYPE or query/response OpCode. For those, check the specific RFC that defines that RRTYPE or OpCode, if it has any. The exception is AFSDB RR considerations [RFC1183], which are included right here. This RFC obsoletes [RFC5395]. The only significant change is the public review mailing list moving to dnsext@ietf.org 🦋
IANA keeps a web page of DNS parameters, available from http://www.iana.org.
1.1. Terminology
"Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226]. These terms come up a lot, so keep them in your back pocket 💅
2. DNS Query/Response Headers 🌸
The header for DNS queries and responses holds the fields and bits shown in the following diagram, which is taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC5395]:
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 the two can be matched up 🧚
The QR bit tells you whether the header belongs to 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 any bits. So trying to use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response, or defining a query meaning for a "response" bit, is dangerous given what's already out there in implementations. 😬 Meanings like that may only be assigned by a Standards Action.
The unsigned integer fields are: query count (QDCOUNT), answer count (ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information count (ARCOUNT). They 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 count the zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional information (ARCOUNT) sections instead 💖
2.1. One Spare Bit?
There were 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 a 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 a Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]. Not a casual thing, babe 🔥
2.3. RCODE Assignment
It might look from the DNS header above 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 makes a 12-bit RCODE field. The TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit RCODE field 👑
Error codes 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 in other contexts. This duplicate assignment was accidental, which is kinda iconic of DNS history 🙈 Here's the table:
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 a
Standards Action.Since it's really important that RCODEs get understood the same way everywhere for interoperability, assigning a new RCODE in any of the ranges listed above as "Available for assignment" requires an IETF Review. ✨🎀
That's the first chunk, bestie. More is coming! 🌈
3. DNS Resource Records ✨
okay so every RR (resource record) has the same top-level shape, and it's giving very organized energy 🎀. Here's the figure, 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 /
/ /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+Now let's break down each field 💅.
NAME is the owner name, which is just the node this resource record is about 🏠. NAMEs are specific to a CLASS, as described in 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 ⏳. A value of zero means the RR can only be used for the transaction in progress, so it's basically a no-cache-for-you situation 💀.
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 actual resource ✨. Its format depends on the TYPE and, in some cases, on the CLASS of the resource record. It's a whole vibe check 🧚.
3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations
There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers, and I'm obsessed with how they're split 🦋: data TYPEs, QTYPEs, and Meta-TYPEs.
Data TYPEs are how data actually gets stored 📦. QTYPEs can only be used in queries. Meta-TYPEs designate 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 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 👀. Iconic behavior, ngl 🙈.
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 they must match this regular expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]Here's how new RRTYPEs get allocated 🌈:
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0
0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG (0)
RR [RFC2931] [RFC4034] 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 a Standards Action.3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy 📋
Parameter values from Section 3.1 above, assigned under the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy, are allocated by Expert Review if they meet the two requirements listed below 🎯. There will be a small pool of Experts appointed by the IESG. Each application will be ruled on by an Expert selected by IANA. If the selected Expert is unavailable or says they have a conflict of interest, IANA may select 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 a Standards Action, as modified by [RFC4020] 🧐.
- A complete template, as specified in Appendix A, has been posted for three weeks to the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list before the Expert Review decision.
Partially completed or draft templates may be posted directly by the applicant for comment and discussion. 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 🗑️.
Such RRs may include additional section processing, provided that processing is optional ✨.
After the applicant posts their formal application with their template, as specified in Appendix A, IANA appoints an Expert and the template is posted, with an indication that it is a formal application, to the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list. No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after this posting to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided by the applicant 📬. If the Expert doesn't post that message, the application shall be considered rejected, but it may be resubmitted to IANA. IANA should report non-responsive Experts to the IESG 🚨.
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 happen on the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list, and may consult other technical experts as 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 do not 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.) 📝
- 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 purpose is to extend the effective field size of several 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 🚀.
3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field 🧩
The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] is a CLASS-insensitive RR. It has the same RDATA field structure as the MX RR [RFC1035], but the 16-bit unsigned integer field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a subtype, like this 👇:
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0
0x0000 - Reserved; allocation requires a 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 a Standards Action.3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations 🏷️
There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data-containing classes, and QCLASSes, which are only meaningful in queries or updates 🎀.
DNS CLASSes have been little used, but they're another dimension of the DNS distributed database 🌐. In particular, there's 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 only usable as root in every CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use 👑.
So far there hasn't been a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would be a CLASS designating transient data tied to one particular DNS message, which might be usable in queries. However, it's possible there might 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 must match this regular expression:
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]The current CLASS assignments, and the considerations for future assignments, are as follows 📚:
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0
0x0000 - Reserved; assignment requires a 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 a Standards Action.3.3. Label Considerations 🏁
DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035]. Simple, but very important 💖.
3.3.1. Label Types 🎀
Okay so, right now there are two categories of label types: data labels and compression labels 💖. Compression labels are pointers to data labels elsewhere inside an RR or DNS message, and their whole job is to shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs 🦋.
The two existing data label types are sometimes called Text and Binary 🌸. Text labels can literally include any octet value, zero-value octets too, but most real-life uses only involve [US-ASCII] ✨. For retrieval, Text labels treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343], so capitalization doesn't matter, bestie 💅. 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 basically for local use, which means the IN, or Internet, CLASS is 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 💅.
IANA has established a process for accepting Appendix A templates and selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form applications ✨. IANA archives and makes available all approved RRTYPE allocation templates 📚. 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 Section 3.1 and Appendix A for more details 🎀.
Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template 📝
Here's the template, verbatim. It's the form you fill out 💖.
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 (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: 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:Appendix B. Changes From RFC 5395 🔄
- Replaced "namedroppers@ops.ietf.org" with "dnsext@ietf.org" 💌.
- Dropped the description of changes from RFC 2929 to RFC 5395, since those changes have already happened and we don't need to do them again 🙅♀️.
- Updated the boilerplate text 📝.
- Fixed Section 5 to say that it is the duty of the applicant, not the expert, to post the application to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org 🎯.
- Changed the regular expression for RRTYPE and CLASS names so it prohibits a trailing hyphen ("-") and requires a minimum length of 2 characters ✨.
- Made a number of minor editorial and typo fixes 💅.
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.
- [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.
- [RFC5395] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 5395, November 2008.
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📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc6195 2011-03
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms