Subject: RE: where did all them bits go ?

From: "Scott Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:57:08 -0400

Yeah, I think Sam W mentioned this to me at some point as well.  I remember
earlier versions of the text had them included, but disappeared in the
rewrites.  I think because it was in the records draft, and we forgot to
move it, but I'm not sure.

The IANA registry for DNS header bits does include the CD and AD positions,
but an implementor would only know that if they consulted the IANA registry
as well as the spec.

Also, the IANA reference for the bits is still given as the dnssec-protocol
draft and not the RFC... oops.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roy Arends
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:34 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: where did all them bits go ?
>
>
> I guess 4034 and 4035 are missing information on where exactly the CD and
> AD bits reside in the DNS header. Its specified in rfc2535, but omitted in
> the current drafts, which obsolete 2535.
>
> I'll send text.
>
> Roy
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:17:39 -0400 (EDT)

> the current drafts, which obsolete 2535.

I concur that it's a good idea to mention this registry in
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates just as 4034 section 7 mentioned,
but did not change, (some of?) the other relevant ones.  That said,
since this is an IANA-managed registry[1] and the assignment is still
documented in RFC2929 (BCP42), I don't think this is a big deal.  A
citation to 2929 is probably in order, too.

Curiously, the IANA registry for those bits[1] still references the
-protocol draft -- it was never updated to reflect the publication of
RFC4035.  It also doesn't mention 2929, which sets a threshhold for
assigning a meaning to the Z bit (bit 9).  The typecode registry [2]
also still has refereces to -records and the ipseckey drafts.  Sigh.
I'm CC'ing this to IANA so they can fix both of these.

Also, 4034 has an error in the IANA section (Section 7): the last
paragraph claims that 3755 opened a registry [3] for KEY and DNSKEY
flag values.  That registry's applicablity was limited to only DNSKEY,
not KEY, as noted in the registry.  Since 4034 asserts that it's not
making changes to IANA registries, I'll document this in bis-updates
as an error in 4034, not a change to the registry.

-- Sam, obsessive protocol geek

[1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-header-flags
[2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters
[3] http://www.iana.org/assignments/dnskey-flags