INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (IBM)
Eric Brunner (Nokia)
Bill Manning (ISI)
Expires: March 2000 September 1999
draft-ietf-dnsind-iana-dns-01.txt
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
------ ---- ------ ----- ---- --------------
Status of This Document
Distribution of this draft <draft-ietf-dnsind-iana-dns-01.txt> is
unlimited. Comments should be sent to the DNS Working Group mailing
list <namedroppers@internic.net> or to the authors.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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. Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a
``working draft'' or ``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.
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
Abstract
Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) considerations are given
for the allocation of Domain Name System (DNS) classes, RR types,
operation codes, error codes, etc.
Table of Contents
Status of This Document....................................1
Abstract...................................................2
Table of Contents..........................................2
1. Introduction............................................3
2. DNS Query/Response Headers..............................4
2.1 One Spare Bit?.........................................4
2.2 Opcode Assignment......................................5
2.3 RCODE Assignment.......................................5
3. DNS Resource Records....................................7
3.1 RR TYPE IANA Considerations............................8
3.1.1 Special Note on the OPT RR...........................8
3.1.2 Special Note on the SINK RR..........................9
3.2 RR CLASS IANA Considerations...........................9
3.3 RR NAME IANA Considerations...........................10
3.3.1 Reserved TLDs in the Internet CLASS.................10
3.3.2 'Country Code' TLDs in the Internet CLASS...........11
3.3.3 Other TLDs in the Internet CLASS....................12
4. Security Considerations................................13
References................................................13
Appendix A: Single Letter or Digit Labels.................15
Appendix B: On Becoming Root and TLD Interoperability.....15
Authors Addresses.........................................17
Expiration and File Name..................................17
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure
hierarchical databases which hierarchially store "resource records"
(RRs) by CLASS 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
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.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
The terms of art used herein with respect to IANA Considerations are
as defined in [RFC 2434].
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
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.
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 QDCOUNT, ANCOUNT, NSCOUNT, and ARCOUNT fields give the number of
queries in the Query section, answer RRs in the Answer section, RRs
in the Authority section, and informational RRs in the Additional
Information section, respectively, 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?
It would appear that the "Z" bit is spare and [RFC 1035] says that it
must be zero in all queries and responses. However, there have been
DNS implementations for which that bit being on in a query meant that
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
only a response from the primary server for a zone is acceptable.
It is believed that modern DNS implementations ignore this bit.
Assigning a meaning to this bit requires an IETF standards action.
2.2 Opcode Assignment
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
New OpCode assignments require an IETF consensus.
IANA currently maintains an on list listing of assigned DNS OpCodes
at <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/dns-parameters>.
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
TSIG RRs [RFC XXX3] and OPT RRs [RFC 2671]. The OPT RR provides an
eight bit extension resulting in a 12 bit RCODE field and the TSIG RR
has a 16 bit RCODE field.
RCODE Name Reference
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]
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC 2136]
11-15 available for assignment
16 BADSIG Signature Failure [RFC XXX3]
17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC XXX3]
18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC XXX3]
19-0xFFFF available for assignment
Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability,
new RCODE assignment requires an IETF consensus.
Current IANA DNS RCODE assignments are shown at
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/dns-parameters>...
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
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]. See also
IANA NAME considerations in section 3.3.
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.
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.
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
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 RR which is
assigned TYPE 41 ???).
There are currently three Meta-TYPEs: TSIG [RFC XXX3], TKEY [RFC
XXX5], and OPT [RFC 2671].
There are currently five QTYPEs: * (all), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and
IXFR.
Considerations for the allocation of new RR TYPEs are as follows:
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.
0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining TYPEs in this range are assigned for data
TYPEs only by IETF consensus.
0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining TYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q and
Meta TYPEs only by IETF consensus.
0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned for data, Q, or Meta TYPE use by IETF
consensus.
0x8000 - 0xFEFF - assigned based on RFC publication.
0xFF00 - 0xFFFF - this block is assigned for private experimental
use. Because their use is not coordinated, values/uses may
conflict between different experiments.
IANA currently maintains a table of RR TYPE assignments at
<ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/dns-parameters>.
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, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
size. In particular, for resolvers and servers that recognize it, it
extends the RCODE field from 4 to 12 bits.
3.1.2 Special Note on the SINK RR
The (Kitchen) SINK RR, number 40, is specified in RFC [XXX2]. It is
designed to accommodate requirements for proprietary RRs and provides
flexible encoding and semantic labeling of the RDATA potion. This
should virtually eliminate the need to allocate RR types codes for
private or proprietary purposes.
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 namespace or roots servers for one CLASS and
those for another CLASS. The same name can have completely different
meanings in different CLASSes. 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 data class assignments and considerations for future
assignments are as follows:
0x0000 - assignment requires an IETF standards action.
0x0001 - Internet (IN).
0x0002 - available for assignment by IETF consensus as a data CLASS.
0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon 81].
0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer 87].
0x0005 - 0x007F - available for assignment by IETF consensus as data
CLASSes only.
0x0080 - 0xFFFD - available for assignment by IETF consensus as
QCLASSes only.
0x00FE - QCLASS None [RFC 2136].
0x00FF - QCLASS Any [RFC 1035].
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
0x0100 - 0x7FFF - assigned by IETF consensus.
0x8000 - 0xFEFF - assigned by RFC publication.
0xFF00 through 0xFFFE are assigned for private experimental use.
Because their use is not coordinated, it values/uses may
conflict between different experiments.
0xFFFF - can only be assigned by an IETF standards action.
Currently IANA documents CLASS assignments at <ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-
notes/iana/assignments/dns-parameters>.
3.3 RR NAME IANA 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 request or reply and are
intended to shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs. The two existing
data label types will be referred to as ASCII and Binary. ASCII
labels can, in fact, include any octet value including zero octets
but most current uses involve only [US-ASCII] For retrieval ASCII
labels are defined to treat upper and lower case letters the same.
Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC 2673].
IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC 2671].
NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer 87] and Chaos [Moon 81]
CLASSes are essentially for local use. The IN or Internet LASS is
thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at this time.
The following subsections give IANA considerations for the allocation
of names in the IETF recommended root zone. An old snap shoot of
such considerations is given in [RFC 1591]. As described in Appendix
B, there is nothing to prevent other root zones from existing or
being used by those who wish to use the IETF recommended root zone.
3.3.1 Reserved TLDs in the Internet CLASS
All Binary label TLDs [RFC 2673] and other new non-ASCII TLD label
data types are reserved.
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
The remainder of this subsection and 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 refer only to
ASCII labels.
All TLDs including any octets that are not letters, digits, or hyphen
are reserved. Expression of internationalized names in the DNS is an
active area of investigation within the IETF at this time and may
make use of these reserved TLD octet values.
All numeric TLDs from "0" through "4294967295" ( 2**32 -1 ) are
reserved to avoid conflict with IPv4 integer and dotted quad address
notations. While many standards distinguish readable addresses by
surrounding them with square brackets ("[]"), other widely used
standards such as URIs [RFC 2396] do not provide any syntactic way to
distinguish these.
All single octet length top level domain (TLD) names are reserved.
Should the root zone ever get very large, there are technical
solutions involving referral to servers providing splits of the zone
based on the first name octet, which would be eased by having the
single byte TLDs available. In addition, these provide a potential
additional axis for DNS expansion. For like reasons, it is
recommended that within TLD zones or indeed within any zone that is
or might become very large, in the absence of a strong reason to the
contrary, all single octet names be reserved. See Appendix A.
Finally, the four ASCII TLDs "example", "invalid", "localhost", and
"test" are reserved as described in [RFC 2606].
Assignment of any of the above reserved names requires an IETF
consensus.
3.3.2 'Country Code' TLDs in the Internet CLASS
Two octet length ASCII label TLDs in the Internet CLASS consisting of
letters are for assignment to geo-political territories. Those (1)
allocated by [ISO 3166-1] and (2) allocated by the Universal Postal
Union [UPU] and reserved in [ISO 3166-1] even though not formally
assigned by [ISO 3166-1], are assigned as so allocated. Two letter
codes reserved by [ISO 3166-1] for local use or the like are also
reserved as TLDs as are two letter TLDs not yet allocated or reserved
by [ISO 3166-1]. A generally recognized acting government of the
territory associated with a "country code" has priority to act as or
designate the registrar for such TLDs. If no such government has
exercised its authority, non-governmental entities may act as the
registrar under rules established by IANA (see www.iana.org).
Normal diplomatic usage recognizes that special consideration can be
given to founders. For example, at every Olympics, three flags are
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
equally honored: the Olympic flag, the host nation flag, and the
Greek flag because Greece was the founder of the modern Olympics.
The Universal Postal Union [UPU] requires all stamps used
internationally to indicate the country issuing them except for the
stamps of Great Britain. As the first nation to issue stamps, it is
exempt from this restriction. Similarly, as the founder of the
Internet and due to historical factors, the United States of America
is assigned the three letter TLDs ".gov" and ".mil" in addition to
".us".
Two byte codes consisting of other than letters and not reserved in
3.3.1 above are not currently used by [ISO 3166-1] or the [UPU].
However, to permit possible expansion of the two octet country codes,
they are reserved for future allocation with priority to be given for
usage by [ISO 3166-1]
3.3.3 Other TLDs in the Internet CLASS
IANA manages the ".arpa" and ".int" TLDs. The "arpa" TLD is assigned
for use in the IPv4 inverse mapping and IANA delegates /8 subzones to
holders of a /8 chunk of address space, including the regional
address registries. "int" includes the IPv6 inverse address mapping
which is at "ip6.int", international treaty organizations, and
international registrations at "reg.int". IANA considerations for IP
address assignment are given elsewhere.
Control and assignment of various other existing or prospective
Internet CLASS TLDs and the authority for the creation of new TLDs is
being transferred to the ICANN (www.icann.org) and the DNSO (Domain
Name Support Organization, www.dnso.org). Traditionally ".edu" was
used for educational institutions, ".net" for network infrastructure
organizations, "com" for commercial organizations, and ".org" for
other non-profit organizations.
New registrations in ".edu" are currently restricted to four year or
longer institutions of higher learning.
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
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 87] - Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical
Plan - Name Service, April 1987,
[ISO 3166-1] - "Codes for the representation of names of countries",
<http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/>.
[Moon 81] - D. moon, "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June
1981.
[RFC 1034] - P. Mockapetris, "Domain Names - Concepts and
Facilities", STD 13, November 1987.
[RFC 1035] - P. Mockapetris, "Domain Names - Implementation and
Specifications", STD 13, November 1987.
[RFC 1591] - J. Postel, "Domain Name System Structure and
Delegation", March 1994.
[RFC 1996] - P. Vixie, "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", August 1996.
[RFC 2119] - S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", March 1997.
[RFC 2136] - P. Vixie, S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound, "Dynamic
Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", 04/21/1997.
[RFC 2181] - Robert Elz, Randy Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", July 1997.
[RFC 2396] - T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", August 1998.
[RFC 2434] - "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section
in RFCs", T. Narten, H. Alvestrand, October 1998.
[RFC 2535] - D. Eastlake, "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
March 1999.
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
[RFC 2606] - D. Eastlake, A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names",
June 1999.
[RFC 2671] - P. Vixie, "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", August
1999.
[RFC 2672] - M. Crawford, " Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection",
August 1999.
[RFC 2673] - M. Crawford, "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
August 1999.
[RFC XXX2] - D. Eastlake, "The Kitchen Sink DNS Resource Record", xxx
1999 (draft-ietf-dnsind-kitchen-sink-*.txt).
[RFC XXX3] - P. Vixie, O. Gundmundsson, D. Eastlake, B. Wellington,
"Secret Key Transaction Signatures for DNS (TSIG)", xxx 1999 (draft-
ietf-dnsind-tsig-*.txt).
[RFC XXX5] - D. Eastlake, "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY
RR)", xxx 1999 (draft-ietf-dnsind-tkey-00.txt).
[UPU] - Universal Postal Union, <http://www.upu.int>
[US-ASCII - ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange",
X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968.
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
Appendix A: Single Letter or Digit Labels
As described in Section 3.3.1, single octet ASCII labels should
generally be reserved.
In furtherance of this, on December 1st, 1993, IANA explicitly
reserved all available single letter and single digit second level
domain names in ".com", ".net", and ".org". Existing assignments,
listed below, were not disturbed.
q.com JG (Q225-DOM)
x.com Weinstein & DePaolis (X-DOM)
z.com HomePage.com, Inc (Z87-DOM)
i.net inet solutions pty.ltd. (I274-DOM)
q.net Q Net (Q-DOM)
x.org The Open Group (X57-DOM)
There was no need to explicitly reserve other single octet second
level domain names in these TLDs because such non-letter non-digit
names were not being assigned. There was no need to explicitly
reserve single octet top level domain names because those required
IANA approval in any case.
Appendix B: On Becoming Root and TLD Interoperability
This appendix is commentary by Donald Eastlake.
In practice, it is quite easy to put up a set of root servers. DNS
resolvers which use those root servers will see the namespace they
support. DNS has only downward pointers from zone to subzone and no
upward pointers going from zone to superzone. Thus, in creating a
root zone, it works technically to pick whatever top level domains
(TLDs) you want including, if you wish, TLDs that are not generally
recognized or variant versions of TLDs that are generally recognized.
Setting up your own root zone like this is commonly done within local
enclaves to hide some local names, for security and efficiency. In
some cases, local TLDs are added. This is reasonable because such
names are only supposed to be used locally. But for the global
Internet, the use of variant root zones would lead to non-
interoperability at the societal and application level. Users would
find that email addresses didn't work or addressed different accounts
for those using different root zone contents. Links in web pages
wouldn't work or would address different web resources for those
using different root zone contents. It would no longer be possible
to globally advertise URLs, email addresses, or anything else
incorporating a domain name, either by word of mouth or by mass media
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
such as television networks.
As a result, despite strenuous attempts to promote alternatives, no
significant portion of the global Internet has ever used other than
the IETF recommended root zone contents (except, in some cases, for
strictly local names).
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT DNS IANA Considerations September 1999
Authors Addresses
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
IBM
65 Shindegan Hill Road
Carmel, NY 10512 USA
Telephone: +1-914-784-7913 (w)
+1-914-276-2668 (h)
fax: +1-914-784-3833 (w)
email: dee3@us.ibm.com
Eric Brunner
Nokia Research Center
3 Burlington Woods Drive, Suite 250
Burlington, MA 01803 USA
Telephone: +1 781-359-5159
fax: +1 781-359-5196
email: brunner@maine.rr.com
Bill Manning
USC/ISI
4676 Admiralty Way, #1001
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA
Telephone: +1 310 822 1511
email: bmanning@isi.edu
Expiration and File Name
This draft expires March 2000.
Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsind-iana-dns-01.txt.
D. Eastlake 3rd, E. Brunner, B. Manning [Page 17]
