Subject: RE: where did all them bits go ? (dns-parameters/dns-header-flags/dnskey-flags)

From: "IANA" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 08:29:22 -0700

[ Moderators note: This post needed manual approval.

   Either it was posted by a non-subscribed address, or the posting
   was too large ( > 20000bytes ) for this list.

   With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore
   delete posts that need manual approval.

   Please use your subscribed address to post, or shorten your
   postings by using links instead of attachments. ]

Following-up...

The registries have been updated so that the approved dnssec I-Ds now shows
as the published RFCs.

Quick question.... 
You mention a citation to RFC2929, does this need to be added to any of
these registries at this time?  If so which ones and where?  Or, will the
-bis document make this update?

Thanks,

Michelle Cotton
IANA

-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Weiler [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:18 AM
To: Roy Arends
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: where did all them bits go ?

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Roy Arends wrote:

> 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.

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

--
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: "Scott Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:53:54 -0400

I do not believe RFC 2929 should appear in any of the registries.  I thought
it was simply an RFC of the current IANA registry states. I doesn't actually
seek to allocate anything that isn't already defined in some other DNS
specification.

It is a handy guide for people that don't check all the IANA registries to
go to one RFC and get all the reserved values.

If I'm wrong, someone correct me
Scott

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of IANA
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 11:29 AM
> To: 'Samuel Weiler'; 'Roy Arends'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: where did all them bits go ?
> (dns-parameters/dns-header-flags/dnskey-flags)
>
>

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 17:24:21 -0400 (EDT)

> If I'm wrong, someone correct me

You MAY be right that 2929 doesn't allocate anything, but, as I said
previously, it does set at least one threshhold for assignment, which
none of 1034, 1035, 2136, 2181, nor 2535 seem to do.  I'd call that a
modification to the registry.  Whether IANA wants to note that in the
registry file is up to them.

   > > It also doesn't mention 2929, which sets a threshhold for
   > > assigning a meaning to the Z bit (bit 9).

I'm not sure what other changes are needed based on 2929, but if this
one is missing, I suspect others might be as well.  Perhaps IANA would
be willing to go through 2929 with a fine-toothed comb -- it is, after
all, an entire RFC/BCP of IANA Considerations, and not a very long one
at that.

To answer one of Michelle's direct question: no, the bis-updates doc
will likely NOT make any changes to IANA registries, neither
assignments nor threshholds for assignment.

Also, this still needs to be fixed (see RFC4025):

> > The typecode registry [2] also
> > still has refereces to ... the ipseckey drafts.

-- Sam