Skip to main content

Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-05

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2013-04-11
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2013-03-11
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2013-03-07
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2013-02-21
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from RFC-EDITOR
2012-12-26
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2012-12-22
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2012-12-20
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2012-12-20
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2012-12-19
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2012-12-19
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2012-12-17
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2012-12-07
05 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2012-12-06
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2012-12-06
05 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2012-12-06
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2012-12-06
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2012-12-06
05 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2012-12-06
05 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2012-11-05
05 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
(5 Nov: DISCUSS for IANA is now cleared)

While you're tweaking the instructions for the Designated Expert:

-- Section 3.1.2 --
  The …
[Ballot comment]
(5 Nov: DISCUSS for IANA is now cleared)

While you're tweaking the instructions for the Designated Expert:

-- Section 3.1.2 --
  The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that
  meets one or more of the following criteria:

I presume that means that the Expert should normally approve any requests that do not meet those criteria, and it'd be nice if this said that, or something related to it that connects to what you have in mind.  In other words, it would be good to say whether you want the Designated Expert to be lenient or strict.  So perhaps something like this (or whatever variant is suitable)?:

  The Designated Expert should normally be lenient, preferring
  to approve most requests.  However, the Expert should normally
  reject any RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of
  the following criteria:
2012-11-05
05 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-10-13
05 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-05.txt
2012-10-12
04 Pearl Liang
IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt and has the following comments:

In the DNS OpCode section of the document it says the registration procedures are "Standards Action …
IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt and has the following comments:

In the DNS OpCode section of the document it says the registration procedures are "Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]".

I don't think "as modified" makes it clear to the readers what that means.
Is it supposed to also allowing early allocation?
Can it just say "Standards Action"?

The wording above also appears in other sections of the document and the same question applies.

In the RCODE registry, value 9 has "See note below after table" in the description. The document should probably include the real description that is in the registry so that they are consistent. The document can include the additional note for the further explanation.

Note: IANA still needs the archives (copies of the templates) for those registrations that are not
documented in RFCs so that we may include them in the new public archive of registrations for RR Types.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been
approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.
2012-10-12
04 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2012-10-12
04 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2012-10-11
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Steve Hanna.
2012-10-11
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot discuss]
Holding a DISCUSS for IANA, as requested by Michelle.
2012-10-11
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to Discuss from No Objection
2012-10-11
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2012-10-11
04 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2012-10-11
04 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2012-10-10
04 Pete Resnick
[Ballot comment]
The only 2119 keyword in this thing is in section 2.3 where it says:

  With the existing exceptions of
  error numbers …
[Ballot comment]
The only 2119 keyword in this thing is in section 2.3 where it says:

  With the existing exceptions of
  error numbers 9 and 16, the same error number MUST NOT be assigned
  for different errors even if they would only occur in different RR
  types.

That doesn't need a 2119 keyword. Lowercase it, delete the 2119 template and reference, and be done with it.
2012-10-10
04 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2012-10-10
04 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2012-10-10
04 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]

  Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Dan Romascanu
  on 9-Oct-2012.  You can find the review here:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07830.html
2012-10-10
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2012-10-09
04 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
While you're tweaking the instructions for the Designated Expert:

-- Section 3.1.2 --
  The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request …
[Ballot comment]
While you're tweaking the instructions for the Designated Expert:

-- Section 3.1.2 --
  The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that
  meets one or more of the following criteria:

I presume that means that the Expert should normally approve any requests that do not meet those criteria, and it'd be nice if this said that, or something related to it that connects to what you have in mind.  In other words, it would be good to say whether you want the Designated Expert to be lenient or strict.  So perhaps something like this (or whatever variant is suitable)?:

  The Designated Expert should normally be lenient, preferring
  to approve most requests.  However, the Expert should normally
  reject any RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of
  the following criteria:
2012-10-09
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2012-10-09
04 Dan Romascanu Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu.
2012-10-08
04 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2012-10-08
04 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2012-10-08
04 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2012-10-07
04 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2012-10-04
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2012-10-04
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu
2012-10-04
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2012-10-04
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2012-10-04
04 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Withdrawn'
2012-10-04
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2012-10-04
04 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2012-10-03
04 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
Nicely done!

In deference to the bygone era of low bandwidth, I believe s2.1 should be retitled:  "Brother, can you spare a bit?" …
[Ballot comment]
Nicely done!

In deference to the bygone era of low bandwidth, I believe s2.1 should be retitled:  "Brother, can you spare a bit?" ;)

s3.1.1: Should the rejection also go back to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list so the other experts in the pool can see whether it was approved/rejected?  Only sending to dnsext@ietf.org kind of assumes all the experts are on the dnsext@ietf.org list.

s3.1.1: Should rejected applications also be tracked for historical purposes and so experts can say no we already no before to this?
2012-10-03
04 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2012-10-03
04 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2012-10-01
04 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy
2012-09-28
04 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations) …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-10-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
  parameter assignment considerations 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.  It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates RFCs 1183, 2845, 2930,
  and 3597.






The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2012-09-28
04 Cindy Morgan State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2012-09-28
04 Ralph Droms Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-10-11
2012-09-28
04 Ralph Droms Last call was requested
2012-09-28
04 Ralph Droms State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2012-09-28
04 Ralph Droms Last call announcement was generated
2012-09-28
04 Ralph Droms Ballot has been issued
2012-09-28
04 Ralph Droms Ballot approval text was generated
2012-09-28
04 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2012-09-28
04 Ralph Droms Created "Approve" ballot
2012-09-28
04 Ralph Droms Ballot writeup was changed
2012-09-28
04 Ralph Droms Ballot writeup was generated
2012-09-24
04 Ralph Droms State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2012-08-01
04 Cindy Morgan
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

BCP

Why is this the proper type of …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

BCP

Why is this the proper type of RFC?

It specifies IANA Considerations for much of the DNS protocol and
is obsoleting previous BCP RFC 6195.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
parameter assignment considerations 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.

Working Group Summary

This document is to a large extent the same as its predecessor, but the
working group has made some simplifications in process and these were
not controversial. There is strong consensus behind this document.

Document Quality

There are many DNS implementations. This document is high quality
due to reviews by a number of strong reviewers/experts including
Alfred Hoenes and Mark Andrews.

Personnel

The document Shepherd is Olafur Gudmundsson ogud@ogud.com
Ralph Droms is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has reviewed all changes in the document
from predecessor and made sure there was consensus for the
changes. The document is ready to be published.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

None

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

It is a DNS document but, since it has been processed through the
DNSEXT WG, DNS review has been sufficient. As this document is a
successor to previous BCP with few changes prior reviews should be
sufficient.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

Strong consensus.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

None

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There are normative references to

(1) "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0, which is currently in IESG
Consideration with one DISCUSS to clear, and

(2) "Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNSSECbis",
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates, which is currently in IESG
Consideration with one DISCUSS to clear.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?

It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates four other DNS related RFCs.

If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain
why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of
this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is
not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

All are listed in the abstract. Appendix B lists all changes from
RFC 6195.

Update to 1183 on AFSDB is the specification of AFSDB IANA
considerations. Update to 2845 and 2930 is clarification that their
"error" fields have values from the single unified DNS RCODE/error
code point space.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC
5226
).

The whole document is IANA considerations, replacing existing
guidance for IANA on a set of registries created for use by the DNS
protocol.
There are no new registries, the document closes one registry.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

There are very simple regular expressions in Section 3.1 and 3.2
that were reviewed by the WG. Changes to these regular expressions
were suggested that were discussed, some rejected and some adopted.
In particular, a suggestion to prohibit hyphens was rejected and a
suggestion to simplify the prohibitory part, which had been
(CLASS|RRTYPE)(0|[1-9][0-9]*), was accepted.
2012-08-01
04 Cindy Morgan Note added 'Olafur Gudmundsson (ogud@ogud.com) is the document shepherd.'
2012-08-01
04 Cindy Morgan Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice
2012-08-01
04 Cindy Morgan IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2012-08-01
04 (System) Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-eastlake-dnsext-6195bis
2012-07-15
04 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt
2012-07-02
03 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03.txt
2012-06-10
02 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02.txt
2012-05-02
01 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-01.txt
2012-03-27
00 Donald Eastlake New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-00.txt