Skip to main content

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
[Note]: 'Found error in RFC 3597, new document necessary and will no longer have downref problem. RFC 2163 should be moved to historic, though …
[Note]: 'Found error in RFC 3597, new document necessary and will no longer have downref problem. RFC 2163 should be moved to historic, though this can be decoupled from RFC 3597 advancing.' added by 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:  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 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:  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 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:  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:  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:  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