Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types
RFC 3597
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-01-21
|
06 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag) |
|
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from olaf@ripe.net, ogud@ogud.com, jakob@rfc.se to jakob@rfc.se, olaf@ripe.net |
|
2012-08-22
|
06 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jon Peterson |
|
2010-02-02
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Dead from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-02-02
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | See draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc3597-bis for update. |
|
2010-02-02
|
06 | (System) | Document replaced by draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc3597-bis |
|
2010-02-01
|
06 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to Dead from RFC Published by Ralph Droms |
|
2010-02-01
|
06 | Ralph Droms | [Note]: '2003-09-10 RFC 3597 appears' added by Ralph Droms |
|
2009-04-07
|
06 | Ralph Droms | Responsible AD has been changed to Ralph Droms from Mark Townsley |
|
2009-03-02
|
06 | Mark Townsley | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::External Party by Mark Townsley |
|
2009-03-02
|
06 | Mark Townsley | |
|
2006-05-31
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2006-05-31
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu by Dan Romascanu |
|
2006-05-25
|
06 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings by Cullen Jennings |
|
2006-03-25
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | Shepherding AD has been changed to Mark Townsley from Margaret Wasserman |
|
2006-03-11
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Note]: 'Olaf Kolkman will be the PROTO shepherd for this document. The interoperability report can be found at:Â http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt. Need to clear up the … [Note]: 'Olaf Kolkman will be the PROTO shepherd for this document. The interoperability report can be found at:Â http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt. Need to clear up the downrefs to RFCs 2535 and 2163 before this can go to DS.' added by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2006-03-11
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::External Party from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-08-19
|
06 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-08-18 |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'Olaf Kolkman will be the PROTO shepherd for this document. The interoperability report can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt. Need to clear up the … [Note]: 'Olaf Kolkman will be the PROTO shepherd for this document. The interoperability report can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt. Need to clear up the downrefs to RFCs 2535 and 2163 before this can go to DS.' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Note]: 'Olaf Kolkman will be the PROTO shepherd for this document. The interoperability report can be found at:Â http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt. Need to clear up the … [Note]: 'Olaf Kolkman will be the PROTO shepherd for this document. The interoperability report can be found at:Â http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt. Need to clear up the downrefs to RFCs 2535 and 2163 before this can go to DS.' added by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot discuss] Need to clear up the downrefs to RFCs 2535 and 2163 before this can go to DS. |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot discuss] Need to clear up the downrefs to RFCs 2535 and 2163 before this can go to DS. |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to yes from discuss by IESG Secretary |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Scott Hollenbeck has been changed to discuss from no by IESG Secretary |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot comment] (Formerly my discuss) Can this document go to draft if one of the normative references has been obsoleted (2535) and another (2163) is … [Ballot comment] (Formerly my discuss) Can this document go to draft if one of the normative references has been obsoleted (2535) and another (2163) is still a proposed standard? I imagine that the reference to 2535 can be updated with a note to the RFC Editor, but what about 2163? |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Scott Hollenbeck has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Scott Hollenbeck |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Scott Hollenbeck has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Scott Hollenbeck |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by IESG Secretary |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Bert Wijnen |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot comment] Nits: The example in section 5 does not adhere to the use of IP(v4) addresses in an example as per RFC3330. Probably … [Ballot comment] Nits: The example in section 5 does not adhere to the use of IP(v4) addresses in an example as per RFC3330. Probably not worth spinning another RFC. But maybe list it as erratum, so that it does get picked up if there is ever going to be a new rev? |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] I suggest that RFCs 2535 and 2163 be Last Called for Historic, and in those LCs undergo the RFC 3969 downref procedure for … [Ballot comment] I suggest that RFCs 2535 and 2163 be Last Called for Historic, and in those LCs undergo the RFC 3969 downref procedure for this DS. |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
|
2005-08-18
|
06 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
|
2005-08-17
|
06 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
|
2005-08-17
|
06 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
|
2005-08-17
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
|
2005-08-17
|
06 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
|
2005-08-17
|
06 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
|
2005-08-16
|
06 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot comment] Just as a follow-up to Scott's comment; the document says: The specifications of a few existing RR types have explicitly allowed … [Ballot comment] Just as a follow-up to Scott's comment; the document says: The specifications of a few existing RR types have explicitly allowed compression contrary to this specification: [RFC2163] specified that compression applies to the PX RR, and [RFC2535] allowed compression in SIG RRs and NXT RRs records. Since this specification disallows compression in these cases, it is an update to [RFC2163] (section 4) and [RFC2535] (sections 4.1.7 and 5.2). I think 2163 is in the normative section because this document updates it. I think it would be logical to consider it "informative except for the update pointer" and to treat that as advanced with this document. It's a bit of corkscrew logic, but I think it works. |
|
2005-08-16
|
06 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
|
2005-08-16
|
06 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot discuss] Can this document go to draft if one of the normative references has been obsoleted (2535) and another (2163) is still a proposed … [Ballot discuss] Can this document go to draft if one of the normative references has been obsoleted (2535) and another (2163) is still a proposed standard? I imagine that the reference to 2535 can be updated with a note to the RFC Editor, but what about 2163? |
|
2005-08-16
|
06 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
|
2005-08-15
|
06 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] After some thought I decided to ballot no-objection on this, but I do agree with the attached gen-art comment from Scott Brim. The … [Ballot comment] After some thought I decided to ballot no-objection on this, but I do agree with the attached gen-art comment from Scott Brim. The reason I decided to let the document move forward is that I think we haven't published clear guidance on what should be in an implementation report, so it would be unreasonable to penalize this one. ---- Scott Brim said: Summary: RFC 3597 is obviously a good thing and is ready to go, but the interoperability report @ http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt still has the problems that Thomas Narten pointed out last Fall. Last September Thomas Narten said https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_comment&id=25265 -- an interoperability report should be specific about which capabilities were tested (by RFC section number), which implementation was tested for each capability, etc. The report sets up the test scenarios but that's it. The difference between -01 and -02 consists of a single paragraph, which just mentions all of the sections tested together. It doesn't map tests to sections, or which implementations were tested for what. Ordinarily I wouldn't mind because I know it works and it's a simple standard -- rigor in interoperability tests is much more critical for complex state machines -- but because it's simple it should be easy to fill out a report, and being casual about the procedures even for simple standards feels like a slippery slope. |
|
2005-08-15
|
06 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
|
2005-08-13
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-08-13
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Note]: 'Olaf Kolkman will be the PROTO shepherd for this document. The interoperability report can be found at:Â http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt' added by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-08-13
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-08-13
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | Ballot has been issued by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-08-13
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2005-08-13
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Note]: 'Olaf Kolkman will be the PROTO shepherd for this document.<br><br>The interoperability report can be found at:Â http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt' added by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-08-11
|
06 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
|
2005-08-10
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-08-18 by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-08-10
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Note]: 'The interoperability report can be found at:Â http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt' added by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-07-18
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2005-07-18
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | Last Call was requested by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-07-18
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-06-03
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Note]: 'The interoperability report can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt' added by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-05-19
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-05-19
|
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Note]: 'Waiting for an updated implementation report to address AD review comments (see below).' added by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2005-03-11
|
06 | Mark Townsley | Shepherding AD has been changed to Margaret Wasserman from Thomas Narten |
|
2005-02-25
|
06 | Thomas Narten | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Thomas Narten |
|
2005-02-25
|
06 | Thomas Narten | [Note]: '2005-02-25: AD review of 2004-09-08 raises questions (see log); Author<br>says a new version should be out in a month (i.e., end of march).<br>' added … [Note]: '2005-02-25: AD review of 2004-09-08 raises questions (see log); Author<br>says a new version should be out in a month (i.e., end of march).<br>' added by Thomas Narten |
|
2005-01-21
|
06 | Thomas Narten | [Note]: '2005-01-21: AD review of 2004-09-08 aises question, consult with<br>chairs/author. (See comments in log.) No followup yet.<br>' added by Thomas Narten |
|
2004-09-08
|
06 | Thomas Narten | [Note]: '2004-09-08: AD review raises question, consult with<br>chairs/author. (See comments in log.)<br>' added by Thomas Narten |
|
2004-09-08
|
06 | Thomas Narten | From: Thomas Narten <narten@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@ripe.net> cc: Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>, … From: Thomas Narten <narten@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@ripe.net> cc: Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>, Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>, jakob@rfc.se Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:16:31 -0700 Subject: AD review of RFC3597 to draft This one is a bit of strange one. In reading interop3597 and skimming 3597, I have the following questions. > The following is a list, in alphabetic order, of implementations for > compliance of RFC 3597: > > DNSJava 1.6.4 > ISC BIND 8.4.5rc4 > ISC BIND 9.3.0rc2 > NSD 2.1.1 > Net::DNS 0.47 patchlevel 1 > Nominum ANS 2.2.1.0.d > These implementations covers the following functions (number of > implementations tested for each function in paranthesis): > > Authoritative Name Servers (4) > Full Recursive Resolver (2) > Stub Resolver (4) > DNSSEC Zone Signers (2) To be clear, what an interoperabilty report is supposed to show is that there are multiple, genetically independent implementations of each feature in the spec, and that the spec is clear enough that folks were successfully able to intereoperate based on their readings of the spec. In reading the interop document, I'm not exactly clear what features of the spec were tested and how that maps to (say) a section of rfc3597. Second, I'm not sure that in cases where only 2 implementations where tested, that they are genetically different. For example, for section 3 of 3597, how was this tested? Maybe it was, but I don't see that clearly from the intereoperability report. Finally, 3597 lists some normative references that are still at proposed. A draft standard can't normatively refer to another standard at lesser grade. So, for each of the references, it would be good to understand whether they are truly normative from our perspective (I'm willing to be flexible here...) The references at issue here are: [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC 2535, March 1999. [RFC2163] Allocchio, C., "Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER Conformant Global Address Mapping (MCGAM)", RFC 2163, January 1998. Mumble. Thomas |
|
2004-09-08
|
06 | Thomas Narten | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Thomas Narten |
|
2004-09-08
|
06 | Thomas Narten | State Change Notice email list have been change to olaf@ripe.net, ogud@ogud.com, jakob@rfc.se from |
|
2004-09-07
|
06 | Thomas Narten | Area acronymn has been changed to int from gen |
|
2004-08-24
|
06 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
|
2003-09-23
|
06 | Thomas Narten | 2003-09-10 RFC 3597 appears |
|
2003-09-11
|
06 | Natalia Syracuse | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Natalia Syracuse |
|
2003-09-11
|
06 | Natalia Syracuse | published as RFC3597 |
|
2003-09-10
|
06 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2003-07-09
|
06 | Natalia Syracuse | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Syracuse, Natalia |
|
2003-07-08
|
06 | Michael Lee | State Changes to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation by Lee, Michael |
|
2003-07-08
|
06 | (System) | IESG has approved the document |
|
2003-07-07
|
06 | (System) | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2003-06-30
|
06 | Erik Nordmark | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed by Nordmark, Erik |
|
2003-06-30
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-06.txt |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jon Peterson has been changed to No Objection from No Record |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Hardie |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ned Freed |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Steven Bellovin |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Thomas Narten |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Randy Bush |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Nordmark |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | (System) | Ballot has been issued |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot discuss] Does this document place too great a burden on the IANA? The IANA Considerations require IANA to enforce the policy described in the … [Ballot discuss] Does this document place too great a burden on the IANA? The IANA Considerations require IANA to enforce the policy described in the second-to-last paragraph of Section 4, I gather, which entails pretty deep knowledge of the mechanics of a new RR - significantly more than just verifying whether or not the RR name has been taken, or what have you. The policy for name compression in RDATA definitely makes sense, but I suspect IANA isn't the right body to analyze new RR proposals and enforce that policy. Perhaps it would be better if the IESG, or an Expert Reviewer, or something along those lines were identified as the enforcer of the name compression policy. |
|
2003-06-17
|
06 | Jon Peterson | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2003-05-20
|
06 | Erik Nordmark | State Changes to IESG Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Nordmark, Erik |
|
2003-05-06
|
06 | Jacqueline Hargest | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Hargest, Jacqueline |
|
2003-05-06
|
06 | Jacqueline Hargest | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup by Hargest, Jacqueline |
|
2003-05-06
|
06 | Erik Nordmark | The last call went out on April 3 |
|
2003-05-06
|
06 | Erik Nordmark | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup from Last Call Requested by Nordmark, Erik |
|
2003-04-02
|
06 | Jacqueline Hargest | Status date has been changed to 2003-4-16 from 2002-11-14 |
|
2003-04-02
|
06 | (System) | Last call sent |
|
2003-04-01
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2003-04-01
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2003-04-01
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2003-03-28
|
06 | Erik Nordmark | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Nordmark, Erik |
|
2003-03-26
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05.txt |
|
2003-02-12
|
06 | Erik Nordmark | State Changes to AD Evaluation :: Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation :: External Party by Nordmark, Erik |
|
2003-02-06
|
06 | Erik Nordmark | I've done the AD review of this document and I have some questions. To avoid such corruption, servers MUST NOT compress domain names … I've done the AD review of this document and I have some questions. To avoid such corruption, servers MUST NOT compress domain names embedded in the RDATA of types that are class-specific or not well- known. This requirement was stated in RFC1123 without defining the term "well-known"; it is hereby specified that only the RR types defined in RFC1035 are to be considered "well-known". The above seems to change the current standard behavior for SIG, NXT, and perhaps others. Is this the intent? If so the document should explicitly state this and also add an "updates RFC 2535" up front. (It also needs an "updates RFC 1035" up front but that is just an editorial nit). For all other RR types, the canonical form is hereby changed such that no downcasing of embedded domain names takes place. The owner name is always set to lower case according to the DNS rules for character comparisons, regardless of the RR type. It would be useful to explicitly list the RR types to which this change applies. Nits (by themselves not necessitating an updated I-D at this point in time): The references should be split into normative and non-normative. A boilerplate IPR section should be added. (I haven't explicitly checked against the ID-nits page to see if there are others.) Erik |
|
2003-02-06
|
06 | Erik Nordmark | State Changes to AD Evaluation :: External Party from AD Evaluation by Nordmark, Erik |
|
2002-12-03
|
06 | Erik Nordmark | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Nordmark, Erik |
|
2002-11-14
|
06 | Stephen Coya | Draft Added by Coya, Steve |
|
2002-09-19
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt |
|
2002-07-02
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-03.txt |
|
2001-11-29
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-02.txt |
|
2001-07-20
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-01.txt |
|
2000-11-13
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-00.txt |