OpenRFC.org Requests For Comments ... for the community
Welcome to OpenRFC
Home Full RFC index RFC humour Our technology
 
<< Previous <<      RFC 2929      >> Next >>    
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations.
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner-Williams, B. Manning. September 2000.

 
[Direct link][Download PDF version][Download text version]
 

Network Working Group D. Eastlake, 3rd Request for Comments: 2929 Motorola BCP: 42 E. Brunner-Williams Category: Best Current Practice Engage B. Manning ISI September 2000 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) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. Abstract Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations are given for the allocation of Domain Name System (DNS) classes, Resource Record (RR) types, operation codes, error codes, etc. Table of Contents 1. Introduction................................................. 2 2. DNS Query/Response Headers................................... 2 2.1 One Spare Bit?.............................................. 3 2.2 Opcode Assignment........................................... 3 2.3 RCODE Assignment............................................ 4 3. DNS Resource Records......................................... 5 3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations................................. 6 3.1.1 Special Note on the OPT RR................................ 7 3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations................................ 7 3.3 RR NAME Considerations...................................... 8 4. Security Considerations...................................... 9 References...................................................... 9 Authors' Addresses.............................................. 11 Full Copyright Statement........................................ 12 Eastlake, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 1. Introduction The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure hierarchical databases which hierarchically store "resource records" (RRs) under domain names. This data is structured into CLASSes and zones which can be independently maintained. See [RFC 1034, 1035, 2136, 2181, 2535] familiarity with which is assumed. This document covers, either directly or by reference, 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 RR type or query/response opcode. See the specific RFC defining that RR type or query/response opcode for such considerations if they have been defined. IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters. See <http://www.iana.org/numbers.htm>. "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Consensus", "Specification Required", and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC 2434]. 2. DNS Query/Response Headers The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the following diagram taken from [RFC 2136, 2535]: 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. Eastlake, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 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, many 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 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. 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 New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action. Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows: OpCode Name Reference 0 Query [RFC 1035] 1 IQuery (Inverse Query) [RFC 1035] 2 Status [RFC 1035] 3 available for assignment 4 Notify [RFC 1996] 5 Update [RFC 2136] 6-15 available for assignment Eastlake, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 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 [RFC 2671], TSIG RRs [RFC 2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC 2930]. 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 [RFC 1035] 1 FormErr Format Error [RFC 1035] 2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC 1035] 3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC 1035] 4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC 1035] 5 Refused Query Refused [RFC 1035] 6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC 2136] 7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC 2136] 8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC 2136] 9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC 2136] 10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC 2136] 11-15 available for assignment 16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC 2671] 16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC 2845] 17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC 2845] 18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC 2845] 19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC 2930] 20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC 2930] 21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC 2930] 22-3840 available for assignment 0x0016-0x0F00 3841-4095 Private Use 0x0F01-0x0FFF 4096-65535 available for assignment 0x1000-0xFFFF Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability, assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment" requires an IETF Consensus. Eastlake, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 3. DNS Resource Records All RRs have the same top level format shown in the figure below taken from [RFC 1035]: 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 [RFC 1035, 2671]. TYPE is a two octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR TYPE 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) bit unsigned integer that specifies 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, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 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 RR TYPE IANA Considerations There are three subcategories of RR TYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs, and MetaTYPEs. Data TYPEs are the primary means of storing data. QTYPES can only be used in queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with an 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 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 RR TYPE. There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC 2671], TSIG [RFC 2845], and TKEY [RFC 2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs assigned: * (all), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR. Considerations for the allocation of new RR TYPEs are as follows: Decimal Hexadecimal 0 0x0000 - TYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG RR [RFC 2535] and in other circumstances and must never be allocated for ordinary use. 1 - 127 0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining TYPEs in this range are assigned for data TYPEs by IETF Consensus. 128 - 255 0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining TYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q and Meta TYPEs by IETF Consensus. 256 - 32767 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned for data, Q, or Meta TYPE use by IETF Consensus. Eastlake, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 32768 - 65279 0x8000 - 0xFEFF - Specification Required as defined in [RFC 2434]. 65280 - 65535 0xFF00 - 0xFFFF - Private Use. 3.1.1 Special Note on the OPT RR The OPT (OPTion) RR, number 41, is specified in [RFC 2671]. Its primary purpose is to extend the effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label type, flag bits, and RDATA size. In particular, for resolvers and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field from 4 to 12 bits. 3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations 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 CLASS and those for another CLASS. The same name can have completely different meanings in different CLASSes although the label types are the same and the null label is usable only as root in every CLASS. However, as global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use. There are two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal data containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries or updates. The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future assignments are as follows: Decimal Hexadecimal 0 0x0000 - 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) [Moon 1981]. 4 0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer 1987]. Eastlake, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 7]
RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 5 - 127 0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF Consensus as data CLASSes only. 128 - 253 0x0080 - 0x00FD - available for assignment by IETF Consensus as QCLASSes only. 254 0x00FE - QCLASS None [RFC 2136]. 255 0x00FF - QCLASS Any [RFC 1035]. 256 - 32767 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned by IETF Consensus. 32768 - 65280 0x8000 - 0xFEFF - assigned based on Specification Required as defined in [RFC 2434]. 65280 - 65534 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use. 65535 0xFFFF - can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action. 3.3 RR NAME Considerations DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC 1035]. 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. 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 octets but most current uses involve only [US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC 2673]. IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC 2671]. Eastlake, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 8]
RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer 1987] and Chaos [Moon 1981] CLASSes are essentially for local use. The IN or Internet CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at this time. A somewhat dated description of name allocation in the IN Class is given in [RFC 1591]. Some information on reserved top level domain names is in Best Current Practice 32 [RFC 2606]. 4. Security Considerations This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC 2535] for secure DNS considerations. References [Dyer 1987] Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical Plan - Name Service, April 1987, [Moon 1981] D. Moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June 1981. [RFC 1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC 1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and Specifications", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC 1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994. [RFC 1996] Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996. [RFC 2136] Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y. and J. Bound, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, April 1997. [RFC 2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. [RFC 2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. Eastlake, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 9]
RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 [RFC 2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC 2535, March 1999. [RFC 2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", RFC 2606, June 1999. [RFC 2671] Vixie, P., "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 2671, August 1999. [RFC 2672] Crawford, M., "Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection", RFC 2672, August 1999. [RFC 2673] Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", RFC 2673, August 1999. [RFC 2845] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D. and B. Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000. [RFC 2930] Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000. [US-ASCII] ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange", X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968. Eastlake, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 10]
RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 Authors' Addresses Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Motorola 140 Forest Avenue Hudson, MA 01749 USA Phone: +1-978-562-2827 (h) +1-508-261-5434 (w) Fax: +1-508-261-4447 (w) EMail: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com Eric Brunner-Williams Engage 100 Brickstone Square, 2nd Floor Andover, MA 01810 Phone: +1-207-797-0525 (h) +1-978-684-7796 (w) Fax: +1-978-684-3118 EMail: brunner@engage.com Bill Manning USC/ISI 4676 Admiralty Way, #1001 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA Phone: +1-310-822-1511 EMail: bmanning@isi.edu Eastlake, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 11]
RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Eastlake, et al. Best Current Practice [Page 12]

   

[Home] [Full RFC index] [RFC humour] [Our technology]

Copyright © Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.  All rights reserved.
All trademarks and RFC contents are the property of their respective owners.