Skip to main content

Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
RFC 6195

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
03 (System) Notify list changed from dnsext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Alexey Melnikov
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for David Harrington
2011-03-31
03 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-03-31
03 Cindy Morgan [Note]: changed to 'BCP 42RFC 6195'
2011-03-31
03 Cindy Morgan Status Date has been changed to None from 2010-12-14
2011-03-28
03 (System) RFC published
2011-02-02
03 Samuel Weiler Assignment of request for Telechat review by SECDIR to Glen Zorn was rejected
2011-02-02
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn
2011-02-02
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn
2011-01-27
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2011-01-27
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2011-01-27
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2011-01-24
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2011-01-24
03 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-01-21
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-01-21
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-01-21
03 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2011-01-21
03 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-01-21
03 Cindy Morgan Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-01-21
03 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup text changed
2011-01-18
03 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-01-16
03 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
I am agreeing with David's DISCUSS regarding use of stable URLs to documents. I think "Specification Required" would be a better IANA registration …
[Ballot comment]
I am agreeing with David's DISCUSS regarding use of stable URLs to documents. I think "Specification Required" would be a better IANA registration policy here.


Taking into consideration that this is a bis document, I am not making the following a DISCUSS:

1)
3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy

  No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
  template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected
  Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the
  application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided
  by the applicant. If the Expert does not post such a message, the
  application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted to
  IANA.

The last sentence: is "rejection by silence" a good idea? Has this worked well in the past?
2011-01-16
03 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-01-16
03 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2011-01-16
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-03.txt
2011-01-14
03 David Harrington [Ballot discuss]
2011-01-14
03 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] Position for David Harrington has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-01-14
03 David Harrington
[Ballot discuss]
in Annex 1, field E, should the document specify that it MUST be a long-lived, stable URL if a URL is used?
What …
[Ballot discuss]
in Annex 1, field E, should the document specify that it MUST be a long-lived, stable URL if a URL is used?
What happens if the URL disappears?
Should a document be required for escrow purposes?
2011-01-07
03 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2011-01-06
2011-01-06
03 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-01-06
03 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
I am agreeing with David's DISCUSS regarding use of stable URLs to documents. I think "Specification Required" would be a better IANA registration …
[Ballot comment]
I am agreeing with David's DISCUSS regarding use of stable URLs to documents. I think "Specification Required" would be a better IANA registration policy here.


I have a couple of comments. Taking into consideration that this is a bis document, I am making them Comment-level:

1)
3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy

  No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
  template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected
  Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the
  application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided
  by the applicant. If the Expert does not post such a message, the
  application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted to
  IANA.

The last sentence: is "rejection by silence" a good idea? Has this worked well in the past?

2) Excuse my ignorance, but what is the relationship between 2 mailing lists:

3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy

  No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
  template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected
  Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the
  application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided
  by the applicant.
2011-01-06
03 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot discuss]
5. IANA Considerations

  This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations.

  IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates, …
[Ballot discuss]
5. IANA Considerations

  This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations.

  IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates,
  selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form
  applications, and archive and make available all approved RRTYPE
  allocation templates. It is the duty of the applicant to post the
  formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org
  mailing list. See Section 3.1 and Annex A for more details.

I don't think the document is very clear on why 2 mailing lists are needed. Please add some text to clarify purpose of each mailing list.
2011-01-06
03 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to Discuss from No Objection
2011-01-06
03 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
I am agreeing with David's DISCUSS regarding use of stable URLs to documents. I think "Specification Required" would be a better IANA registration …
[Ballot comment]
I am agreeing with David's DISCUSS regarding use of stable URLs to documents. I think "Specification Required" would be a better IANA registration policy here.


I have a couple of comments. Taking into consideration that this is a bis document, I am making them Comment-level:

1)
3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy

  No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
  template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected
  Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the
  application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided
  by the applicant. If the Expert does not post such a message, the
  application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted to
  IANA.

The last sentence: is "rejection by silence" a good idea? Has this worked well in the past?

2) Excuse my ignorance, but what is the relationship between 2 mailing lists:

3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy

  No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
  template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected
  Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the
  application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided
  by the applicant.

5. IANA Considerations

  This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations.

  IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates,
  selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form
  applications, and archive and make available all approved RRTYPE
  allocation templates. It is the duty of the applicant to post the
  formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org
  mailing list. See Section 3.1 and Annex A for more details.

Is a request always posted to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org and then to dnsext@ietf.org?
If the answer is yes, why have 2 mailing lists?
2011-01-05
03 Jari Arkko
[Ballot comment]
This is a good document and should go forward.

A few comments regarding the comments and discusses from other ADs:

- I do …
[Ballot comment]
This is a good document and should go forward.

A few comments regarding the comments and discusses from other ADs:

- I do not believe this document is the place to obsolete z-bit. This is
  an IANA considerations doc.

- Regarding URLs and the template, I note that Specification Required
  is not explictly called for. Maybe it should be, and that would solve
  the URL problem (as the semantics of Specification Required have
  been defined elsewhere and reference stability is one criteria).
2011-01-05
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2011-01-05
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sam Weiler.
2011-01-05
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-05
03 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-05
03 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-05
03 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
A nit:

The Abstract reads...

  Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment
  considerations are specified for the allocation of Domain Name …
[Ballot comment]
A nit:

The Abstract reads...

  Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment
  considerations are specified for the allocation of Domain Name System
  (DNS) resource record types, CLASSes, operation codes, error codes,
  DNS protocol message header bits, and AFSDB resource record subtypes.

Pedantically, this Abstract says nothing about *this* document.
Could you make it read...

  This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA)
  parameter assignment considerations for the allocation of...
2011-01-05
03 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
A small piece of IANA pedantry...

Section 1.1.

  "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and
  "Private Use" are as defined …
[Ballot discuss]
A small piece of IANA pedantry...

Section 1.1.

  "IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and
  "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226].

5226 uses the term "Standards Action" not "IETF Standards Action". Could
you fix this up throughout the document?
2011-01-05
03 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-01-05
03 Stewart Bryant [Ballot comment]
I agree with David Harrington's discuss.
2011-01-05
03 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-05
03 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-01-04
03 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR Completed. Reviewer: David Black.
2011-01-04
03 Amanda Baber
IANA QUESTIONS: In section 3.1.1 the document says, "the formal posting to start the three week period is made by the Expert." The mailing list …
IANA QUESTIONS: In section 3.1.1 the document says, "the formal posting to start the three week period is made by the Expert." The mailing list referred to here is dnsext@ietf.org. Later, in section 5, the document says, "It is the duty of the applicant to post the formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list."

Can the author add some text to make the sequence of events in the
application process a little clearer?

The document also says, "IANA may select another Expert from the pool,"
but IANA does not actually choose the expert. Currently the lead expert
assigns the template to someone in the pool. While IANA is subscribed to
the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org, the experts begin reviewing the
templates without any prompting from IANA. This section needs some
re-wording to reflect the current situation.

If IANA's concerns need to be clarified, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval, this document updates all the IANA
registration procedures for the Domain Name System.

In particular, upon approval, IANA will update the IANA Protocol Matrix at:

http://www.iana.org/protocols/

to reflect the [RFC-to-be] and any changes to the specific registration
procedures for DNS related registries.

Also, upon approval of this document, IANA will examine -- and where
necessary update -- the registration procedures in the Domain Name
System Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters

For each of the registries contained in the DNS Parameters registry,
IANA will ensure that all specifications for registration requirements
are updated to reflect the guidance provided in [RFC-to-be].

IANA understands that these are all the actions required upon approval
of this document.
2011-01-04
03 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-04
03 David Harrington
[Ballot comment]
in section 1, s/is the change is the public review mailing list /is the change to the public review mailing list/

in section …
[Ballot comment]
in section 1, s/is the change is the public review mailing list /is the change to the public review mailing list/

in section 2.3, might it be good to recommend NOT overloading the values, ala the 16 bit, since we have 60000+ bits available?

section 3.1.4 uses MX RR without prior definition, or reference to the definition.

in Annex 1, field E, why does this end in a colon?

why is field J on a totally separate page?
2011-01-04
03 David Harrington
[Ballot discuss]
in section 2.1, should the document state that the ancient usage is hereby obsoleted and the z-bit MUST NOT be used for this …
[Ballot discuss]
in section 2.1, should the document state that the ancient usage is hereby obsoleted and the z-bit MUST NOT be used for this ancient purpose in implmenetations compliant to this spec?

in Annex 1, field E, should the document specify that it MUST be a long-lived, stable URL if a URL is used?
What happens if the URL disappears?
Should a document be required for escrow purposes?
2011-01-04
03 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-01-04
03 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-03
03 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2010-12-31
03 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-19
03 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
I have a couple of comments. Taking into consideration that this is a bis document, I am making them Comment-level:

1)
3.1.1. DNS …
[Ballot comment]
I have a couple of comments. Taking into consideration that this is a bis document, I am making them Comment-level:

1)
3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy

  No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
  template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected
  Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the
  application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided
  by the applicant. If the Expert does not post such a message, the
  application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted to
  IANA.

The last sentence: is "rejection by silence" a good idea? Has this worked well in the past?

2) Excuse my ignorance, but what is the relationship between 2 mailing lists:

3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy

  No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed
  template has been formally posted to dnsext@ietf.org, the selected
  Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the
  application, to IANA, dnsext@ietf.org, and the email address provided
  by the applicant.

5. IANA Considerations

  This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations.

  IANA shall establish a process for accepting Annex A templates,
  selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form
  applications, and archive and make available all approved RRTYPE
  allocation templates. It is the duty of the applicant to post the
  formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org
  mailing list. See Section 3.1 and Annex A for more details.

Is a request always posted to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org and then to dnsext@ietf.org?
If the answer is yes, why have 2 mailing lists?
2010-12-19
03 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-17
03 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to David Black
2010-12-17
03 David Harrington Request for Last Call review by TSVDIR is assigned to David Black
2010-12-16
03 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2010-12-16
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler
2010-12-16
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler
2010-12-15
03 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2010-12-15
03 Cindy Morgan
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: <dnsext@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt> (Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations) to BCP


The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations'
  <draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt> as a BCP

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-01-05. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis/
2010-12-15
03 Cindy Morgan Last Call text changed
2010-12-14
03 Ralph Droms Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-01-06
2010-12-14
03 Ralph Droms Status Date has been changed to 2010-12-14 from None
2010-12-14
03 Ralph Droms Last Call was requested
2010-12-14
03 Ralph Droms State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation.
2010-12-14
03 Ralph Droms Last Call text changed
2010-12-14
03 Ralph Droms Last Call text changed
2010-12-14
03 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2010-12-14
03 Ralph Droms Ballot has been issued
2010-12-14
03 Ralph Droms Created "Approve" ballot
2010-12-14
03 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-12-14
03 (System) Last call text was added
2010-12-14
03 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-12-14
03 Ralph Droms State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2010-11-29
03 Cindy Morgan
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he …
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

DNSEXT co-chair Olafur Gudmundsson


(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes adequate review,
No concerns about the quality of the review.

Note this document is a minor update from RFC5395
the changes are
- working group email list has changed
- minor inconsistency in two sections has been aligned.


(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

NO
(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

NO

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

Strong,

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

NO

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts

Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?


There are 3 warnings on the document,
two are wrong as they confuse regular expression part with reference,
one is warning about the boilerplate template being older that
recommended, the editor and chairs agreed that to keeps differences from
RFC5395 to minimum we would use the same template as the RFC used.


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

No downward references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Checked no changes from RFC5395,
IANA will need to update references from 5395 to this document.


(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

yes I checked the regular expressions.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?


Technical Summary:
The document obsoletes RFC5395 "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA
Considerations" there is one major change: The mailing list for the
working group has changed and the old address was embedded in the
expert review for new RR types.
There is also a small change that fixes inconsistency in who does what
during the expert review.

Working Group Summary
The working group held a short limited scope LC, with restrictions on
what could be changed. We accepted one change that fixed a known
inconsistency in RFC5395, but rejected other suggested changes as being
out of scope.
We request accelerated processing by the IESG on this document.


Document Quality:
High quality
2010-11-29
03 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
2010-11-29
03 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Olafur Gudmundsson (ogud@ogud.com) is the document shepherd.' added
2010-11-27
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-02.txt
2010-11-11
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-01.txt
2010-11-11
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-5395bis-00.txt