Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
RFC 6895
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Notify list changed from dnsext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2013-04-17
|
05 | (System) | IANA registries were updated to include RFC6895 |
|
2013-04-16
|
05 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2013-04-11
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc6895">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48 |
|
2013-03-11
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc6895">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2013-03-07
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
|
2013-02-21
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from RFC-EDITOR |
|
2012-12-26
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2012-12-22
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
|
2012-12-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2012-12-20
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2012-12-19
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2012-12-19
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2012-12-17
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2012-12-07
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
|
2012-12-06
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2012-12-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
|
2012-12-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2012-12-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2012-12-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2012-12-06
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2012-11-05
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] (5 Nov: DISCUSS for IANA is now cleared) While you're tweaking the instructions for the Designated Expert: -- Section 3.1.2 -- The … [Ballot comment] (5 Nov: DISCUSS for IANA is now cleared) While you're tweaking the instructions for the Designated Expert: -- Section 3.1.2 -- The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of the following criteria: I presume that means that the Expert should normally approve any requests that do not meet those criteria, and it'd be nice if this said that, or something related to it that connects to what you have in mind. In other words, it would be good to say whether you want the Designated Expert to be lenient or strict. So perhaps something like this (or whatever variant is suitable)?: The Designated Expert should normally be lenient, preferring to approve most requests. However, the Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of the following criteria: |
|
2012-11-05
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
|
2012-10-13
|
05 | Donald Eastlake | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-05.txt |
|
2012-10-12
|
04 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt and has the following comments: In the DNS OpCode section of the document it says the registration procedures are "Standards Action … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt and has the following comments: In the DNS OpCode section of the document it says the registration procedures are "Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020]". I don't think "as modified" makes it clear to the readers what that means. Is it supposed to also allowing early allocation? Can it just say "Standards Action"? The wording above also appears in other sections of the document and the same question applies. In the RCODE registry, value 9 has "See note below after table" in the description. The document should probably include the real description that is in the registry so that they are consistent. The document can include the additional note for the further explanation. Note: IANA still needs the archives (copies of the templates) for those registrations that are not documented in RFCs so that we may include them in the new public archive of registrations for RR Types. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
|
2012-10-12
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
|
2012-10-12
|
04 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
|
2012-10-11
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Steve Hanna. |
|
2012-10-11
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot discuss] Holding a DISCUSS for IANA, as requested by Michelle. |
|
2012-10-11
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to Discuss from No Objection |
|
2012-10-11
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
|
2012-10-11
|
04 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
|
2012-10-11
|
04 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
|
2012-10-10
|
04 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] The only 2119 keyword in this thing is in section 2.3 where it says: With the existing exceptions of error numbers … [Ballot comment] The only 2119 keyword in this thing is in section 2.3 where it says: With the existing exceptions of error numbers 9 and 16, the same error number MUST NOT be assigned for different errors even if they would only occur in different RR types. That doesn't need a 2119 keyword. Lowercase it, delete the 2119 template and reference, and be done with it. |
|
2012-10-10
|
04 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
|
2012-10-10
|
04 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2012-10-10
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Dan Romascanu on 9-Oct-2012. You can find the review here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07830.html |
|
2012-10-10
|
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
|
2012-10-09
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] While you're tweaking the instructions for the Designated Expert: -- Section 3.1.2 -- The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request … [Ballot comment] While you're tweaking the instructions for the Designated Expert: -- Section 3.1.2 -- The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of the following criteria: I presume that means that the Expert should normally approve any requests that do not meet those criteria, and it'd be nice if this said that, or something related to it that connects to what you have in mind. In other words, it would be good to say whether you want the Designated Expert to be lenient or strict. So perhaps something like this (or whatever variant is suitable)?: The Designated Expert should normally be lenient, preferring to approve most requests. However, the Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of the following criteria: |
|
2012-10-09
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
|
2012-10-09
|
04 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
|
2012-10-08
|
04 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
|
2012-10-08
|
04 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
|
2012-10-08
|
04 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
|
2012-10-07
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
|
2012-10-04
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
|
2012-10-04
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
|
2012-10-04
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna |
|
2012-10-04
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna |
|
2012-10-04
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'Withdrawn' |
|
2012-10-04
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
|
2012-10-04
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
|
2012-10-03
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Nicely done! In deference to the bygone era of low bandwidth, I believe s2.1 should be retitled: "Brother, can you spare a bit?" … [Ballot comment] Nicely done! In deference to the bygone era of low bandwidth, I believe s2.1 should be retitled: "Brother, can you spare a bit?" ;) s3.1.1: Should the rejection also go back to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list so the other experts in the pool can see whether it was approved/rejected? Only sending to dnsext@ietf.org kind of assumes all the experts are on the dnsext@ietf.org list. s3.1.1: Should rejected applications also be tracked for historical purposes and so experts can say no we already no before to this? |
|
2012-10-03
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
|
2012-10-03
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
|
2012-10-01
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <dnsext@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: … The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>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-rfc6195bis-04.txt> (Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations) to Best Current Practice 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-rfc6195bis-04.txt> as Best Current Practice 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 2012-10-12. 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. Abstract This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations 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. It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates RFCs 1183, 2845, 2930, and 3597. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Ralph Droms | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-10-11 |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Ralph Droms | Last call was requested |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Ralph Droms | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Ralph Droms | Last call announcement was generated |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Ralph Droms | Ballot has been issued |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Ralph Droms | Ballot approval text was generated |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Ralph Droms | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup was changed |
|
2012-09-28
|
04 | Ralph Droms | Ballot writeup was generated |
|
2012-09-24
|
04 | Ralph Droms | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
|
2012-08-01
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? BCP Why is this the proper type of … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? BCP Why is this the proper type of RFC? It specifies IANA Considerations for much of the DNS protocol and is obsoleting previous BCP RFC 6195. Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Yes (2) 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 This document specifies Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations 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. Working Group Summary This document is to a large extent the same as its predecessor, but the working group has made some simplifications in process and these were not controversial. There is strong consensus behind this document. Document Quality There are many DNS implementations. This document is high quality due to reviews by a number of strong reviewers/experts including Alfred Hoenes and Mark Andrews. Personnel The document Shepherd is Olafur Gudmundsson ogud@ogud.com Ralph Droms is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd has reviewed all changes in the document from predecessor and made sure there was consensus for the changes. The document is ready to be published. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? None (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. It is a DNS document but, since it has been processed through the DNSEXT WG, DNS review has been sufficient. As this document is a successor to previous BCP with few changes prior reviews should be sufficient. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has 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. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? No. (9) 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 consensus. (10) 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 publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. None (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) 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 plan for their completion? There are normative references to (1) "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2671bis-edns0, which is currently in IESG Consideration with one DISCUSS to clear, and (2) "Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNSSECbis", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates, which is currently in IESG Consideration with one DISCUSS to clear. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates four other DNS related RFCs. If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. All are listed in the abstract. Appendix B lists all changes from RFC 6195. Update to 1183 on AFSDB is the specification of AFSDB IANA considerations. Update to 2845 and 2930 is clarification that their "error" fields have values from the single unified DNS RCODE/error code point space. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The whole document is IANA considerations, replacing existing guidance for IANA on a set of registries created for use by the DNS protocol. There are no new registries, the document closes one registry. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No new registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. There are very simple regular expressions in Section 3.1 and 3.2 that were reviewed by the WG. Changes to these regular expressions were suggested that were discussed, some rejected and some adopted. In particular, a suggestion to prohibit hyphens was rejected and a suggestion to simplify the prohibitory part, which had been (CLASS|RRTYPE)(0|[1-9][0-9]*), was accepted. |
|
2012-08-01
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'Olafur Gudmundsson (ogud@ogud.com) is the document shepherd.' |
|
2012-08-01
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice |
|
2012-08-01
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
|
2012-08-01
|
04 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for <a href="/doc/draft-eastlake-dnsext-6195bis/">draft-eastlake-dnsext-6195bis</a> |
|
2012-07-15
|
04 | Donald Eastlake | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-04.txt |
|
2012-07-02
|
03 | Donald Eastlake | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-03.txt |
|
2012-06-10
|
02 | Donald Eastlake | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-02.txt |
|
2012-05-02
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-01.txt |
|
2012-03-27
|
00 | Donald Eastlake | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc6195bis-00.txt |