mir/bind
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9 synced 2025-08-29 21:47:59 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

new draft

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Mark Andrews 2003-03-27 21:48:24 +00:00
parent b85aad49cb
commit 3c0da87b1e
1 changed files with 138 additions and 82 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

220
doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt → doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05.txt
View File

@ -1,11 +1,13 @@
INTERNET-DRAFT Andreas Gustafsson INTERNET-DRAFT Andreas Gustafsson
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt Nominum Inc. draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05.txt Nominum Inc.
September 2002 March 2003
Updates: RFC 1034, RFC 2163, RFC 2535
Handling of Unknown DNS RR Types
Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record Types
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
@ -31,7 +33,7 @@ Status of this Memo
Abstract Abstract
Extending the Domain Name System with new Resource Record types Extending the Domain Name System with new Resource Record (RR) types
currently requires changes to name server software. This document currently requires changes to name server software. This document
specifies the changes necessary to allow future DNS implementations specifies the changes necessary to allow future DNS implementations
to handle new RR types transparently. to handle new RR types transparently.
@ -46,16 +48,15 @@ Abstract
slave servers for the zone containing it, and in some cases also at slave servers for the zone containing it, and in some cases also at
caching name servers and forwarders used by the client. caching name servers and forwarders used by the client.
Expires September 2003 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05.txt March 2003
Because the deployment of new server software is slow and expensive, Because the deployment of new server software is slow and expensive,
the potential of the DNS in supporting new services has never been the potential of the DNS in supporting new services has never been
Expires March 2003 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
fully realized. This memo proposes changes to name servers and to fully realized. This memo proposes changes to name servers and to
procedures for defining new RR types aimed at simplifying the future procedures for defining new RR types aimed at simplifying the future
deployment of new RR types. deployment of new RR types.
@ -103,20 +104,26 @@ draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
which now contains unrelated data. This would cause the compressed which now contains unrelated data. This would cause the compressed
name to be corrupted. name to be corrupted.
To avoid such corruption, servers MUST NOT compress domain names
Expires September 2003 [Page 2]
Expires March 2003 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002 draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05.txt March 2003
To avoid such corruption, servers MUST NOT compress domain names
embedded in the RDATA of types that are class-specific or not well- embedded in the RDATA of types that are class-specific or not well-
known. This requirement was stated in RFC1123 without defining the known. This requirement was stated in RFC1123 without defining the
term "well-known"; it is hereby specified that only the RR types term "well-known"; it is hereby specified that only the RR types
defined in RFC1035 are to be considered "well-known". defined in RFC1035 are to be considered "well-known".
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).
Receiving servers MUST decompress domain names in RRs of well-known Receiving servers MUST decompress domain names in RRs of well-known
type, and SHOULD also decompress RRs of type RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX, type, and SHOULD also decompress RRs of type RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX,
NXT, NAPTR, and SRV (although the current specification of the SRV RR NXT, NAPTR, and SRV (although the current specification of the SRV RR
@ -153,6 +160,13 @@ draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
herein rather than a traditional type-specific herein rather than a traditional type-specific
encoding. encoding.
Expires September 2003 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05.txt March 2003
An unsigned decimal integer specifying the An unsigned decimal integer specifying the
RDATA length in octets. RDATA length in octets.
@ -160,14 +174,6 @@ draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
the actual RDATA field, each containing an even the actual RDATA field, each containing an even
number of hexadecimal digits. number of hexadecimal digits.
Expires March 2003 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
If the RDATA is of zero length, the text representation contains only If the RDATA is of zero length, the text representation contains only
the \# token and the single zero representing the length. the \# token and the single zero representing the length.
@ -209,6 +215,14 @@ draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
This implies that embedded domain names, being included in the This implies that embedded domain names, being included in the
overall bitwise comparison, are compared in a case-sensitive manner. overall bitwise comparison, are compared in a case-sensitive manner.
Expires September 2003 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05.txt March 2003
As a result, when a new RR type contains one or more embedded domain As a result, when a new RR type contains one or more embedded domain
names, it is possible to have multiple RRs owned by the same name names, it is possible to have multiple RRs owned by the same name
that differ only in the character case of the embedded domain that differ only in the character case of the embedded domain
@ -216,35 +230,54 @@ draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
records differing only in character case, and not expected to cause records differing only in character case, and not expected to cause
any problems in practice. any problems in practice.
Expires March 2003 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
7. DNSSEC Canonical Form and Ordering 7. DNSSEC Canonical Form and Ordering
DNSSEC [RFC2535] defines a canonical form and ordering for RRs. In DNSSEC defines a canonical form and ordering for RRs [RFC2535,
the canonical form, domain names embedded in the RDATA are converted section 8.1]. In that canonical form, domain names embedded in the
to lower case. RDATA are converted to lower case.
To ensure backwards compatibility, this canonical form remains The downcasing is necessary to ensure the correctness of DNSSEC
unchanged for any RR types defined in RFC2931 or earlier. That is, signatures when case distinctions in domain names are lost due to
the domain names embedded in RRs of type NS, MD, MF, CNAME, SOA, MB, compression, but since it requires knowledge of the presence and
MG, MR, PTR, HINFO, MINFO, MX, HINFO, RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX, NXT, position of embedded domain names, it cannot be applied to unknown
NAPTR, KX, SRV, DNAME, and A6 are converted to lower case according types.
to the DNS rules for character comparisons.
For all other RR types, the canonical form is hereby changed such To ensure continued consistency of the canonical form of RR types
that no downcasing of embedded domain names takes place. The owner where compression is allowed, and for continued interoperability with
name is always set to lower case according to the DNS rules for existing implementations that already implement the RFC2535 canonical
character comparisons, regardless of the RR type. form and apply it to their known RR types, the canonical form remains
unchanged for all RR types whose whose initial publication as an RFC
was prior to the initial publication of this specification as an RFC
(RFC TBD).
As a courtesy to implementors, it is hereby noted that the complete
set of such previously published RR types that contain embedded
domain names, and whose DNSSEC canonical form therefore involves
downcasing according to the DNS rules for character comparisons,
consists of the RR types NS, MD, MF, CNAME, SOA, MB, MG, MR, PTR,
HINFO, MINFO, MX, HINFO, RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX, NXT, NAPTR, KX, SRV,
DNAME, and A6.
This document specifies that for all other RR types (whether treated
as unknown types or treated as known types according to an RR type
definition RFC more recent than than RFC TBD), the canonical form is
such that no downcasing of embedded domain names takes place, and
otherwise identical to the canonical form specified in RFC2535
section 8.1.
Note that the owner name is always set to lower case according to the
DNS rules for character comparisons, regardless of the RR type.
The DNSSEC canonical RR ordering is as specified in RFC2535 section
8.3, where the octet sequence is the canonical form as revised by
this specification.
Expires September 2003 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05.txt March 2003
The canonical ordering is as specified in RFC2535 section 8.3, where
the octet sequence is the canonical form as revised by this
specification.
8. Additional Section Processing 8. Additional Section Processing
@ -265,7 +298,7 @@ draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
This specification is not believed to cause any new security This specification is not believed to cause any new security
problems, nor to solve any existing ones. problems, nor to solve any existing ones.
References Normative References
[RFC1034] - Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities, P. Mockapetris, [RFC1034] - Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities, P. Mockapetris,
November 1987. November 1987.
@ -273,37 +306,43 @@ References
[RFC1035] - Domain Names - Implementation and Specifications, P. [RFC1035] - Domain Names - Implementation and Specifications, P.
Mockapetris, November 1987. Mockapetris, November 1987.
Expires March 2003 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
[RFC1123] - Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and [RFC1123] - Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and
Support, R. Braden, Editor, October 1989. Support, R. Braden, Editor, October 1989.
[RFC2119] - Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,
S. Bradner, BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC2535] - Domain Name System Security Extensions. D. Eastlake,
March 1999.
[RFC2613] - Using the Internet DNS to Distribute MIXER Conformant
Global Address Mapping (MCGAM), C. Allocchio, January 1998.
[RFC2929] - Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations, D.
Eastlake, E. Brunner-Williams, B. Manning, September 2000.
Non-normative References
[RFC1876] - A Means for Expressing Location Information in the Domain [RFC1876] - A Means for Expressing Location Information in the Domain
Name System, C. Davis, P. Vixie, T. Goodwin, I. Dickinson, January Name System, C. Davis, P. Vixie, T. Goodwin, I. Dickinson, January
1996. 1996.
Expires September 2003 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05.txt March 2003
[RFC2052] - A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS [RFC2052] - A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS
SRV), A. Gulbrandsen, P. Vixie, October 1996. Obsoleted by RFC2782. SRV), A. Gulbrandsen, P. Vixie, October 1996. Obsoleted by RFC2782.
[RFC2119] - Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2136] - Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE),
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2136] - Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE).
P. Vixie, Ed., S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound, April 1997. P. Vixie, Ed., S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound, April 1997.
[RFC2535] - Domain Name System Security Extensions. D. Eastlake,
March 1999.
[RFC2782] - A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS [RFC2782] - A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS
SRV). A. Gulbrandsen, P. Vixie, L. Esibov, February 2000. SRV), A. Gulbrandsen, P. Vixie, L. Esibov, February 2000.
[RFC2929] - Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations. D.
Eastlake, E. Brunner-Williams, B. Manning, September 2000.
Author's Address Author's Address
@ -328,14 +367,6 @@ Full Copyright Statement
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
Expires March 2003 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
@ -352,8 +383,37 @@ draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
Expires September 2003 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-05.txt March 2003
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain
to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or
might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any
effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary
rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained
from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
@ -382,10 +442,6 @@ draft-ietf-dnsext-unknown-rrs-04.txt September 2002
Expires September 2003 [Page 8]
Expires March 2003 [Page 7]