Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))
RFC 6891

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    dnsext mailing list <dnsext@ietf.org>,
    dnsext chair <dnsext-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))' to Internet Standard (draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))'
  (draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0-10.txt) as Internet Standard

This document is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Brian Haberman.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0/


Technical Summary

   The Domain Name System's wire protocol includes a number of fixed
   fields whose range has been or soon will be exhausted and does not
   allow requestors to advertise their capabilities to responders.
   This document describes backward compatible mechanisms for allowing
   the protocol to grow.

   This document updates the EDNS0 specification (RFC 2671) based on
   feedback from deployment experience in several implementations.  It
   also closes the IANA registry for extended labels created as part
   of RFC 2671 and obsoletes RFC 2673 ("Binary Labels in the Domain
   Name System") which depends on the existence of extended labels.

   The main contribution of RFC2671 was to allow larger DNS messages
   over UDP, beween cooperating parties, this is crucial for DNSSEC
   and other modern DNS uses.

Working Group Summary

   Working group is solidly behind this document.

Document Quality

   There are many implemenations of this specification, the working
   group wish is that this be published as Internet Standard. This
   document is the cummulation of fair ammount of work and
   experience. During the WG process most of the changes in the
   document were stylistic and presentation ones rather than
   technical.

   These are the responses to the questions from RFC 6410 regarding
   publication as an Internet Standard. 

   (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
       with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

       There are MANY implementations, as a matter of fact almost all
       DNS implementations support ENDS0, there is great
       interoperability. The only issues that we have discovered are
       that some implementations have strange ideas (non-RFC1035
       compliant) as what to return when seeing ENDS0 option in
       message. This is covered in this document.

   (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
       new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

       There are no errata filed against RFC2671 and RFC2671bis takes
       into account most of the issues that RFC2671 underspecified.


   (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
       increase implementation complexity.

       Correct.

   (4) If the technology required to implement the specification
       requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
       set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
       separate and successful uses of the licensing process.

       The technology required to implement the specification requires
       no patented or otherwise controlled technology.


Personnel

   Olafur Gudmundsson (ogud at ogud.com) is the document
   shepherd.  Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> is the
   Responsible AD.