xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification
RFC 6604
Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (April 2012; No errata) | |
---|---|---|---|
Author | Donald Eastlake | ||
Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
Replaces | draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode | ||
Stream | Internent Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 6604 (Proposed Standard) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Ralph Droms | ||
IESG note | Andrew Sullivan (ajs@anvilwalrusden.com) is the document shepherd. | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd Request for Comments: 6604 Huawei Updates: 1035, 2308, 2672 April 2012 Category: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721 xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification Abstract The Domain Name System (DNS) has long provided means, such as the CNAME (Canonical Name), whereby a DNS query can be redirected to a different name. A DNS response header has an RCODE (Response Code) field, used for indicating errors, and response status bits. This document clarifies, in the case of such redirected queries, how the RCODE and status bits correspond to the initial query cycle (where the CNAME or the like was detected) and subsequent or final query cycles. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6604. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Eastlake Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 6604 xNAME RCODE Clarification April 2012 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................2 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3 2. Restatement of Status Bits and What They Mean ...................3 2.1. The Authoritative Answer Bit ...............................3 2.2. The Authentic Data Bit .....................................3 3. RCODE Clarification .............................................3 4. Security Considerations .........................................4 5. References ......................................................4 5.1. Normative References .......................................4 5.2. Informative References .....................................5 1. Introduction The Domain Name System (DNS) has long provided means, such as the CNAME (Canonical Name [RFC1035]) and DNAME [RFC2672] RRs (Resource Records), whereby a DNS query can be redirected to a different name. In particular, CNAME normally causes a query to its owner name to be redirected, while DNAME normally causes a query to any lower-level name to be redirected. There has been a proposal for another redirection RR. In addition, as specified in [RFC2672], redirection through a DNAME also results in the synthesis of a CNAME RR in the response. In this document, we will refer to all RRs causing such redirection as xNAME RRs. xNAME RRs can be explicitly retrieved by querying for the xNAME type. When a different type is queried and an xNAME RR is encountered, the xNAME RR (and possibly a synthesized CNAME) is added to the answer in the response, DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4035] RRs applicable to the xNAME RR may be added to the response, and the query is restarted with the name to which it was redirected. An xNAME may redirect a query to a name at which there is another xNAME and so on. In this document, we use "xNAME chain" to refer to a series of one or more xNAMEs each of which refers to another xNAME except the last, which refers to a non-xNAME or results in an error. A DNS response header has an RCODE (Response Code) field, used for indicating errors, and status bits that indicate whether an answer is authoritative and/or authentic. This document clarifies, in the case of such redirected queries, how the RCODE and status bits correspond to the initial query cycle (where the (first) xNAME was detected) and subsequent or final query cycles. Eastlake Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 6604 xNAME RCODE Clarification April 2012 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",Show full document text