Network Working Group IAB
Internet-Draft P. Faltstrom, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track R. Austein, Ed.
Expires: August 21, 2008 P. Koch, Ed.
February 18, 2008
Design Choices When Expanding DNS
draft-iab-dns-choices-05
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This note discusses how to extend the DNS with new data for a new
application. DNS extension discussions too often focus on reuse of
the TXT Resource Record Type. This document lists different
mechanisms to extend the DNS, and concludes that the use of a new DNS
Resource Record Type is the best solution.
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Extension mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Place selectors inside the RDATA of existing Resource
Record Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Add a prefix to the owner name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Add a suffix to the owner name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Add a new Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Add a new Resource Record Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Zone boundaries are invisible to applications . . . . . . . . 8
5. Why adding a new Resource Record Type is the preferred
solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Conclusion and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Creating A New Resource Record Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
1. Introduction
The DNS stores multiple categories of data. The two most commonly
used categories are infrastructure data for the DNS system itself (NS
and SOA Resource Records) and data which have to do with mappings
between domain names and IP addresses (A, AAAA and PTR Resource
Records). There are other categories as well, some of which are tied
to specific applications like email (MX Resource Records), while
others are generic Resource Record Types used to convey information
for multiple protocols (SRV and NAPTR Resource Records).
When storing data in the DNS for a new application, the data are
usually tied to a "normal" domain name, so that the application can
query for the data it wants, while minimizing the impact on existing
applications.
Historically, extending DNS to store application data tied to a
domain name has been done in different ways at different times. MX
Resource Records were created as a new Resource Record Type
specifically designed to support electronic mail. SRV records are a
generic type which use a prefixing scheme in combination with a base
domain name. Records associated with ENUM use a suffixing scheme.
NAPTR records add selection data inside the RDATA. It is clear that
the methods used to add new data types to the DNS have been
inconsistent, and the purpose of this document is to attempt to
clarify the implications of each of these methods, both for the
applications that use them and for the rest of the DNS.
This document talks extensively about use of DNS wildcards. Many
people might think use of wildcards is not something that happens
today. In reality though, wildcards are in use, especially for
certain application-specific data such as MX Resource Records.
Because of this, the choice has to be made with existence of
wildcards in mind.
Another overall issue that must be taken into account is what the new
data in the DNS are to describe. In some cases they might be
completely new data. In other cases they might be metadata tied to
data that already exist in the DNS. An example of new data is key
information for SSH and data used for fighting spam (metadata tied to
MX Resource Records). If the new data are tied to data that already
exist in the DNS, an analysis should be made as to whether having
(for example) address records and SSH key information in different
DNS zones is a problem, and if it is, whether the specification must
require all of the related data to be in the same zone.
This document does not talk about what one should store in the DNS.
It also doesn't discuss whether DNS should be used for service
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
discovery, or whether DNS should be used for storage of data specific
for the service. In general, DNS is a protocol that, apart from
holding metadata that makes the DNS itself function (NS, SOA, DNSSEC
Resource Record Types, etc), only holds references to service
locations (SRV, NAPTR, A, AAAA Resource Record Types), but there are
exceptions (such as MX Resource Records).
2. Background
See [RFC2929] for a brief summary of DNS query structure. Readers
interested in the full story should start with the base DNS
specification in [RFC1035], and continue with the various documents
that update, clarify, and extend the base specification.
When composing a DNS query, the parameters used by the protocol are a
triple: a DNS name, a DNS class, and a DNS record Type. Every
Resource Record matching a particular name, type and class is said to
belong to the same "RRSet", and the whole RRSet is always returned to
the client that queries for it. Splitting an RRSet is a protocol
violation, because it results in coherency problems with the DNS
caching mechanism.
Some discussions around extensions to the DNS include arguments
around MTU size. Note that most discussions about DNS and MTU size
are about the size of the whole DNS packet, not about the size of a
single RRSet.
Almost all DNS query traffic is carried over UDP, where a DNS message
must fit within a single UDP packet. DNS response messages are
almost always larger than DNS query messages, so message size issues
are almost always about responses, not queries. The base DNS
specification limits DNS messages over UDP to 512 octets; EDNS0
[RFC2671] specifies a mechanism by which a client can signal its
willingness to receive larger responses, but deployment of EDNS0 is
not universal, in part because of firewalls that block fragmented UDP
packets or EDNS0. If a response message won't fit in a single
packet, the name server returns a truncated response, at which point
the client may retry using TCP. DNS queries over TCP are not subject
to this length limitation, but TCP imposes significantly higher per-
query overhead on name servers than UDP. It is also the case that
the policies in deployed firewalls far too often is such that it
blocks DNS over TCP, so using TCP might not in reality be an option.
There are also risks (although possibly small) that a change of
routing while a TCP flow is open create problems when the DNS servers
are deployed in an anycast environment.
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
3. Extension mechanisms
The DNS protocol is intended to be extensible to support new kinds of
data. This section examines the various ways in which this sort of
extension can be accomplished.
3.1. Place selectors inside the RDATA of existing Resource Record Types
For a given query name, one might choose to have a single RRSet (all
Resource Records sharing the same name, type, and class) shared by
multiple applications, and have the different applications use
selectors within the Resource Record data (RDATA) to determine which
records are intended for which applications. This sort of selector
mechanism is usually referred to "subtyping", because it is in effect
creating an additional type subsystem within a single DNS Resource
Record Type.
Examples of subtyping include NAPTR Resource Records (see [RFC3761])
and the original DNSSEC KEY Resource Record Type ([RFC2535]) (before
it was updated by [RFC3445]).
All DNS subtyping schemes share a common weakness: With subtyping
schemes it is impossible for a client to query for just the data it
wants. Instead, the client must fetch the entire RRSet, then select
the Resource Records in which it is interested. Furthermore, since
DNSSEC signatures operate on complete RRSets, the entire RRSet must
be re-signed if any Resource Record in it changes. As a result, each
application that uses a subtyped Resource Record incurs higher
overhead than any of the applications would have incurred had they
not been using a subtyping scheme. The fact the RRSet is always
passed around as an indivisible unit increases the risk the RRSet
will not fit in a UDP packet, which in turn increases the risk that
the client will have to retry the query with TCP, which substantially
increases the load on the name server. More precisely: having one
query fail over to TCP is not a big deal, but since the typical ratio
of clients to servers in today's deployed DNS is very high, having a
substantial number of DNS messages fail over to TCP may cause the
queried name servers to be overloaded by TCP overhead.
Because of the size limitations, using a subtyping scheme to list a
large number of services for a single domain name risks triggering
truncation and fallback to TCP, which may in turn force the zone
administrator to announce only a subset of available services.
3.2. Add a prefix to the owner name
By adding an application-specific prefix to a domain name, we get a
different name/class/type triple, and therefore a different RRSet.
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
One problem with adding prefixes has to do with wildcards, especially
if one has records like
*.example.com. IN MX 1 mail.example.com.
and one wants records tied to those names. Suppose one creates the
prefix "_mail". One would then have to say something like
_mail.*.example.com. IN X-FOO A B C D
but DNS wildcards only work with the "*" as the leftmost token in the
domain name (see also [RFC4592]).
Even when a specific prefix is chosen, the data will still have to be
stored in some Resource Record Type. This Resource Record Type can
either be a record Type that has an appropriate format to store the
data or a new Resource Record Type. This implies that some other
selection mechanism has to be applied as well, such as ability to
distinguish between the records in an RRSet given they have the same
Resource Record Type. Because of this, one needs to both register a
unique prefix and define what Resource Record Type is to be used for
this specific service.
If the record has some relationship with another record in the zone,
the fact that the two records can be in different zones might have
implications on the trust the application has in the records. For
example:
example.com. IN MX 10 mail.example.com.
_foo.example.com. IN X-BAR "metadata for the mail service"
In this example, the two records might be in two different zones, and
because of this might be signed by two different organizations when
using DNSSEC.
3.3. Add a suffix to the owner name
Adding a suffix to a domain name changes the name/class/type triple,
and therefore the RRSet. In this case, since the query name can be
set to exactly the data one wants the size of the RRSet is minimized.
The problem with adding a suffix is that it creates a parallel tree
within the IN class. Further, there is no technical mechanism to
ensure that the delegation for "example.com" and "example.com._bar"
are made to the same organization. Furthermore, data associated with
a single entity will now be stored in two different zones, such as
"example.com" and "example.com._bar", which, depending on who
controls "_bar", can create new synchronization and update
authorization issues.
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
One way of solving the administrative issues is by using the DNAME
Resource Record Type specified in [RFC2672].
Even when using a different name, the data will still have to be
stored in some Resource Record Type. This Resource Record Type can
either be a "kitchen-sink record" or a new Resource Record Type.
This implies that some other mechanism has to be applied as well,
with implications detailed in other parts of this note.
In [RFC2163] an infix token is inserted directly below the TLD, but
the result is equivalent to adding a suffix to the owner name
(instead of creating a TLD one is creating a second level domain).
3.4. Add a new Class
DNS zones are class-specific in the sense that all the records in
that zone share the same class as the zone's SOA record and the
existence of a zone in one class does not guarantee the existence of
the zone in any other class. In practice, only the IN class has ever
seen widespread deployment, and the administrative overhead of
deploying an additional class would almost certainly be prohibitive.
Nevertheless, one could in theory use the DNS class mechanism to
distinguish between different kinds of data. However, since the DNS
delegation tree (represented by NS Resource Records) is itself tied
to a specific class, attempting to resolve a query by crossing a
class boundary may produce unexpected results because there is no
guarantee that the name servers for the zone in the new class will be
the same as the name servers in the IN class. The MIT Hesiod system
used a scheme like this for storing data in the HS class, but only on
a very small scale (within a single institution), and with an
administrative fiat requiring that the delegation trees for the IN
and HS trees be identical.
Even when using a different class, the data will still have to be
stored in some Resource Record Type or another. This Resource Record
Type can either be a "kitchen-sink record" or a new Resource Record
Type. This implies that some other mechanism has to be applied as
well, with implications detailed in other parts of this note.
3.5. Add a new Resource Record Type
When adding a new Resource Record Type to the system, entities in
four different roles have to be able to handle the new Type:
1. There must be a way to insert the new Resource Records into the
zone of the Primary Master name server. For some server
implementations, the user interface only accepts record Types
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
which it understands (perhaps so that the implementation can
attempt to validate the data). Other implementations allow the
zone administrator to enter an integer for the Resource Record
Type code and the RDATA in Base64 or hexadecimal encoding (or
even as raw data). [RFC3597] specifies a standard generic
encoding for this purpose.
2. A slave authoritative name server must be able to do a zone
transfer, receive the data from some other authoritative name
server, and serve data from the zone even though the zone
includes records of unknown Types. Historically, some
implementations have had problems parsing stored copies of the
zone file after restarting, but those problems have not been seen
for a few years.
3. A caching resolver (most commonly a recursive name server) will
cache the records which are responses to queries. As mentioned
in [RFC3597],there are various pitfalls where a recursive name
server might end up having problems.
4. The application must be able to get the RRSet with a new Resource
Record Type. The application itself may understand the RDATA,
but the resolver library might not. Support for a generic
interface for retrieving arbitrary DNS Resource Record Types has
been a requirement since 1989 (see [RFC1123] Section 6.1.4.2).
Some stub resolver library implementations neglect to provide
this functionality and cannot handle unknown Resource Record
Types, but implementation of a new stub resolver library is not
particularly difficult, and open source libraries that already
provide this functionality are available.
4. Zone boundaries are invisible to applications
Regardless of the possible choices above we have seen a number of
cases where the application made assumptions about the structure of
the namespace and the location where specific information resides.
We take a small sidestep to argue against such approaches.
The DNS namespace is a hierarchy, technically speaking. However,
this only refers to the way names are built from multiple labels.
DNS hierarchy neither follows nor implies administrative hierarchy.
That said, it cannot be assumed that data attached to a node in the
DNS tree is valid for the whole subtree. Technically, there are zone
boundaries partitioning the namespace and administrative boundaries
(or policy boundaries) may even exist elsewhere.
The false assumption has lead to an approach called "tree climbing",
where a query that does not receive a positive response (either the
requested RRSet was missing or the name did not exist) is retried by
repeatedly stripping off the leftmost label (climbing towards the
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
root) until the root domain is reached. Sometimes these proposals
try to avoid the query for the root or the TLD level, but still this
approach has severe drawbacks:
o Technically, the DNS was built as a query - response tool without
any search capability [RFC3467]. Adding the search mechanism
imposes additional burden on the technical infrastructure, in the
worst case on TLD and root name servers.
o For reasons similar to those outlined in RFC 1535, querying for
information in a domain outside the control of the intended entity
may lead to incorrect results and may also put security at risk.
Finding the exact policy boundary is impossible without an
explicit marker which does not exist at present. At best,
software can detect zone boundaries (e.g., by looking for SOA
Resource Records), but some TLD registries register names starting
at the second level (e.g., CO.UK), and there are various other
"registry" types at second, third or other level domains that
cannot be identified as such without policy knowledge external to
the DNS.
To restate, the zone boundary is purely a boundary that exists in the
DNS for administrative purposes, and applications should be careful
not to draw unwarranted conclusions from zone boundaries. A
different way of stating this is that the DNS does not support
inheritance, e.g. a wildcard MX RRSet for a TLD will not be valid for
any subdomain of that particular TLD.
5. Why adding a new Resource Record Type is the preferred solution
By now, the astute reader might be be wondering what conclusions to
draw from all the issues presented so far. We will now attempt to
clear up the reader's confusion by following the thought processes of
a typical application designer who wishes to store data in the DNS,
showing how such a designer almost inevitably hits upon the idea of
just using TXT Resource Record, why this is a bad thing, and why a
new Resource Record Type should be allocated instead.
The overall problem with most solutions has to do with two main
issues:
o No semantics to prevent collision with other use
o Space considerations in the DNS message
A typical application designer is not interested in the DNS for its
own sake, but rather as a distributed database in which application
data can be stored. As a result, the designer of a new application
is usually looking for the easiest way to add whatever new data the
application needs to the DNS in a way that naturally associates the
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
data with a DNS name.
As explained in Section 3.4, using the DNS class system as an
extension mechanism is not really an option, and in fact most users
of the system don't even realize that the mechanism exists. As a
practical matter, therefore any extension is likely to be within the
IN class.
Adding a new Resource Record Type is the technically correct answer
from the DNS protocol standpoint (more on this below), but doing so
requires some DNS expertise, due to the issues listed in Section 3.5.
As a result, this option is usually not considered. Note that
according to [RFC2929], some Types require IETF Consensus, while
others only require a specification.
The application designer is thus left with the prospect of reusing
some existing DNS Type within the IN class, but when the designer
looks at the existing Types, almost all of them have well-defined
semantics, none of which quite match the needs of the new
application. This has not completely prevented proposals from
reusing existing Resource Record Types in ways incompatible with
their defined semantics, but it does tend to steer application
designers away from this approach.
For example, Resource Record Type 40 was registered for the SINK
record Type. This Resource Record Type was discussed in the DNSIND
working group of the IETF, and it was decided at the 46th IETF to not
move the I-D forward to become an RFC because of the risk of
encouraging application designers to use the SINK Resource Record
Type instead of registering a new Resource Record Type, which would
result in infeasibly large SINK RRsets.
Eliminating all of the above leaves the TXT Resource Record Type in
the IN class. The TXT RDATA format is free form text, and there are
no existing semantics to get in the way. Furthermore, the TXT
Resource Record can obviously just be used as a bucket in which to
carry around data to be used by some higher level parser, perhaps in
some human readable programming or markup language. Thus, for many
applications, TXT Resource Records are the "obvious" choice.
Unfortunately, this conclusion, while understandable, is also wrong,
for several reasons.
The first reason why TXT Resource Records are not well suited to such
use is precisely the lack of defined semantics that make them so
attractive. Arguably, the TXT Resource Record is misnamed, and
should have been called the Local Container record, because the lack
of defined semantics means that a TXT Resource Record means precisely
what the data producer says it means. This is fine, so long as TXT
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
Resource Records are being used by human beings or by private
agreement between data producer and data consumer. However, it
becomes a problem once one starts using them for standardized
protocols in which there is no prior relationship between data
producer and data consumer. The reason for this is that there is
nothing to prevent collisions with some other incompatible use of TXT
Resource Records. This is even worse than the general subtyping
problem described in Section 3.1, because TXT Resource Records don't
even have a standardized selector field in which to store the
subtype. [RFC1464] tried, but it was not a success. At best a
definition of a subtype is reduced to hoping that whatever scheme one
has come up with will not accidently conflict with somebody else's
subtyping scheme, and that it will not be possible to mis-parse one
application's use of TXT Resource Records as data intended for a
different application. Any attempt to impose a standardized format
within the TXT Resource Record format would be at least fifteen years
too late even if it were put into effect immediately; at best, one
can restrict the syntax that a particular application uses within a
TXT Resource Record and accept the risk that unrelated TXT Resource
Record uses will collide with it.
Using one of the naming modifications discussed in Section 3.2 and
Section 3.3 would address the subtyping problem, but each of these
approaches brings in new problems of its own. The prefix approach
(that for example SRV Resource Records use) does not work well with
wildcards, which is a particular problem for mail-related
applications, since MX Resource Records are probably the most common
use of DNS wildcards. The suffix approach doesn't have wildcard
issues, but, as noted previously, it does have synchronization and
update authorization issues, since it works by creating a second
subtree in a different part of the global DNS name space.
The next reason why TXT Resource Records are not well suited to
protocol use has to do with the limited data space available in a DNS
message. As alluded to briefly in Section 3.1, typical DNS query
traffic patterns involve a very large number of DNS clients sending
queries to a relatively small number of DNS servers. Normal path MTU
discovery schemes do little good here because, from the server's
perspective, there isn't enough repeat traffic from any one client
for it to be worth retaining state. UDP-based DNS is an idempotent
query, whereas TCP-based DNS requires the server to keep state (in
the form of TCP connection state, usually in the server's kernel) and
roughly triples the traffic load. Thus, there's a strong incentive
to keep DNS messages short enough to fit in a UDP datagram,
preferably a UDP datagram short enough not to require IP
fragmentation.
Subtyping schemes are therefore again problematic because they
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
produce larger Resource RRSets than necessary, but verbose text
encodings of data are also wasteful, since the data they hold can
usually be represented more compactly in a Resource Record designed
specifically to support the application's particular data needs. If
the data that need to be carried are so large that there is no way to
make them fit comfortably into the DNS regardless of encoding, it is
probably better to move the data somewhere else, and just use the DNS
as a pointer to the data, as with NAPTR.
6. Conclusion and Recommendation
Given the problems detailed in Section 5, it is worth reexamining the
oft-jumped-to conclusion that specifying a new Resource Record Type
is hard. Historically, this was indeed the case, but recent surveys
suggest that support for unknown Resource Record Types [RFC3597] is
now widespread, and that lack of support for unknown Types is mostly
an issue for relatively old software that would probably need to be
upgraded in any case as part of supporting a new application. One
should also remember that deployed DNS software today should support
DNSSEC, and software recent enough to do so will likely support both
unknown Resource Record Types [RFC3597] and EDNS0 [RFC2671].
Of all the issues detailed in Section 3.5, provisioning the data is
in some respects the most difficult. The problem here is less
difficult for the authoritative name servers themselves than the
front-end systems used to enter (and perhaps validate) the data.
Hand editing does not work well for maintenance of large zones, so
some sort of tool is necessary, and the tool may not be tightly
coupled to the name server implementation itself. Note, however,
that this provisioning problem exists to some degree with any new
form of data to be stored in the DNS, regardless of data format,
Resource Record type, or naming scheme. Including the TXT Resource
Record Type. Adapting front-end systems to support a new Resource
Record type may be a bit more difficult than reusing an existing
type, but this appears to be a minor difference in degree rather than
a difference in kind.
Given the various issues described in this note, we believe that:
o there is no magic solution which allows a completely painless
addition of new data to the DNS, but
o on the whole, the best solution is still to use the DNS Resource
Record Type mechanism designed for precisely this purpose, and
o of all the alternate solutions, the "obvious" approach of using
TXT Resource Records is almost certainly the worst.
This especially for the two reasons outlined above (lack of semantics
and its implications, and size leading to the need to use TCP).
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
7. Creating A New Resource Record Type
The process for creating a new Resource Record Type is specified in
[I-D.ietf-dnsext-2929bis].
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
9. Security Considerations
DNS RRSets can be signed using DNSSEC. DNSSEC is almost certainly
necessary for any application mechanism that stores authorization
data in the DNS. DNSSEC signatures significantly increase the size
of the messages transported, and because of this, the DNS message
size issues discussed in Section 3.1 and Section 5 are more serious
than they might at first appear.
Adding new Resource Record Types (as discussed in Section 3.5) might
conceivably trigger bugs and other bad behavior in software that is
not compliant with [RFC3597], but most such software is old enough
and insecure enough that it should be updated for other reasons in
any case. Basic API support for retrieving arbitrary Resource Record
Types has been a requirement since 1989 (see [RFC1123]).
Any new protocol that proposes to use the DNS to store data used to
make authorization decisions would be well advised not only to use
DNSSEC but also to encourage upgrades to DNS server software recent
enough not to be riddled with well-known exploitable bugs. Because
of this, support for new Resource Record Types will not be as hard as
people might think at first.
10. Acknowledgements
This document has been created during a number of years, with input
from many people. The question on how to expand and use the DNS is
sensitive, and a document like this can not please everyone. The
goal is instead to describe the architecture and tradeoffs, and make
some recommendations about best practices.
People that have helped include: Dean Andersson, Loa Andersson, Mark
Andrews, John Angelmo, Roy Badami, Dan Bernstein, Alex Bligh,
Nathaniel Borenstein, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Brian Carpenter, Leslie
Daigle, Elwyn Davies, Mark Delany, Richard Draves, Martin Duerst,
Donald Eastlake, Robert Elz, Jim Fenton, Tony Finch, Jim Gilroy,
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
Olafur Gudmundsson, Eric Hall, Philip Hallam-Baker, Ted Hardie, Bob
Hinden, Paul Hoffman, Geoff Houston, Christian Huitema, Johan Ihren,
John Klensin, Olaf Kolkman, Ben Laurie, William Leibzon, John Levine,
Edward Lewis, David MacQuigg, Allison Manking, Bill Manning, Danny
McPherson, David Meyer, Pekka Nikander, Masataka Ohta, Douglas Otis,
Michael Patton, Jonathan Rosenberg, Anders Rundgren, Miriam Sapiro,
Pekka Savola, Chip Sharp, James Snell, Dave Thaler, Michael Thomas,
Paul Vixie, Sam Weiler, Florian Weimer, Bert Wijnen, and Dan Wing.
Members of the IAB when this document was made available were: Loa
Andersson, Leslie Daigle, Elwyn Davies, Kevin Fall, Russ Housley,
Olaf Kolkman, Barry Leiba, Kurtis Lindqvist, Danny McPherson, David
Oran, Eric Rescorla, Dave Thaler, and Lixia Zhang.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", RFC 1035, STD 13, November 1987.
[RFC1464] Rosenbaum, R., "Using the Domain Name System To Store
Arbitrary String Attributes", RFC 1464, May 1993.
[RFC2535] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System Security
Extensions", RFC 2535, March 1999.
[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)",
RFC 2671, August 1999.
[RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-dnsext-2929bis]
3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations",
draft-ietf-dnsext-2929bis-06 (work in progress),
August 2007.
[RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
and Support", RFC 1123, STD 3, October 1989.
[RFC2163] Allocchio, C., "Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER
Conformant Global Address Mapping (MCGAM)", RFC 2163,
January 1998.
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
[RFC2672] Crawford, M., "Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection",
RFC 2672, August 1999.
[RFC2929] Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning,
"Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", RFC 2929,
BCP 42, September 2000.
[RFC3445] Massey, D. and S. Rose, "Limiting the Scope of the KEY
Resource Record (RR)", RFC 3445, December 2002.
[RFC3467] Klensin, J., "Role of the Domain Name System (DNS)",
RFC 3467, February 2003.
[RFC3761] Faltstrom, P. and M. Mealling, "The E.164 to Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI) Dynamic Delegation Discovery
System (DDDS) Application (ENUM)", RFC 3761, April 2004.
[RFC4592] Lewis, E., "The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name
System", RFC 4592, July 2006.
Authors' Addresses
Internet Architecture Board
Email: iab@iab.org
Patrik Faltstrom (editor)
Email: paf@cisco.com
Rob Austein (editor)
Email: sra@isc.org
Peter Koch (editor)
Email: pk@denic.de
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Design Choices When Expanding DNS February 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
IAB, et al. Expires August 21, 2008 [Page 16]
