Network Working Group D. Eastlake 3rd
Request for Comments: 5395 Stellar Switches
BCP: 42 November 2008
Obsoletes: 2929
Updates: 1183, 3597
Category: Best Current Practice
Network Working Group D. Eastlake 3rd
Request for Comments: 5395 Stellar Switches
BCP: 42 November 2008
Obsoletes: 2929
Updates: 1183, 3597
Category: Best Current Practice
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
域名系统（DNS）IANA注意事项
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的最佳现行做法，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2008 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2008 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
Abstract
摘要
Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations are specified 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.
为分配域名系统（DNS）资源记录类型、类、操作代码、错误代码、DNS协议消息头位和AFSDB资源记录子类型，指定了Internet分配号码管理局（IANA）参数分配注意事项。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology ................................................2
2. DNS Query/Response Headers ......................................3
2.1. One Spare Bit? .............................................4
2.2. OpCode Assignment ..........................................4
2.3. RCODE Assignment ...........................................4
3. DNS Resource Records ............................................6
3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations .................................7
3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy ........................8
3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines ........................9
3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR ..........................9
3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field .........................10
3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations ..............................10
3.3. Label Considerations ......................................12
3.3.1. Label Types ........................................12
3.3.2. Label Contents and Use .............................12
4. Security Considerations ........................................13
5. IANA Considerations ............................................13
Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template ............................14
Normative References ..............................................15
Informative References ............................................16
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology ................................................2
2. DNS Query/Response Headers ......................................3
2.1. One Spare Bit? .............................................4
2.2. OpCode Assignment ..........................................4
2.3. RCODE Assignment ...........................................4
3. DNS Resource Records ............................................6
3.1. RRTYPE IANA Considerations .................................7
3.1.1. DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy ........................8
3.1.2. DNS RRTYPE Expert Guidelines ........................9
3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR ..........................9
3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field .........................10
3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations ..............................10
3.3. Label Considerations ......................................12
3.3.1. Label Types ........................................12
3.3.2. Label Contents and Use .............................12
4. Security Considerations ........................................13
5. IANA Considerations ............................................13
Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template ............................14
Normative References ..............................................15
Informative References ............................................16
The Domain Name System (DNS) provides replicated distributed secure hierarchical databases that store "resource records" (RRs) under domain names. DNS data is structured into CLASSes and zones that can be independently maintained. See [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033], familiarity with which is assumed.
域名系统（DNS）提供复制的分布式安全分层数据库，在域名下存储“资源记录”（RRs）。DNS数据被构造成可以独立维护的类和区域。请参见[RFC1034]、[RFC1035]、[RFC2136]、[RFC2181]和[RFC4033]，假设您对其熟悉。
This document provides, either directly or by reference, the general IANA parameter assignment considerations that apply across DNS query and response headers and all RRs. There may be additional IANA considerations that apply to only a particular RRTYPE or query/response OpCode. See the specific RFC defining that RRTYPE or query/response OpCode for such considerations if they have been defined, except for AFSDB RR considerations [RFC1183], which are included herein. This RFC obsoletes [RFC2929].
本文档直接或通过引用提供了适用于DNS查询和响应头以及所有RRs的一般IANA参数分配注意事项。可能存在仅适用于特定RRTYPE或查询/响应操作码的其他IANA注意事项。如果已经定义了这些注意事项，请参见定义RRTYPE或查询/响应操作码的特定RFC，此处包括的AFSDB RR注意事项[RFC1183]除外。本RFC淘汰了[RFC2929]。
IANA currently maintains a web page of DNS parameters available from http://www.iana.org.
IANA目前维护的DNS参数网页可从http://www.iana.org.
"IETF Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226].
“IETF标准行动”、“IETF审查”、“所需规范”和“私人使用”的定义见[RFC5226]。
The header for DNS queries and responses contains field/bits in the following diagram taken from [RFC2136] and [RFC2929]:
DNS查询和响应的标题包含取自[RFC2136]和[RFC2929]的下图中的字段/位：
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ID |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|QR| OpCode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ARCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ID |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|QR| OpCode |AA|TC|RD|RA| Z|AD|CD| RCODE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| QDCOUNT/ZOCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ANCOUNT/PRCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| NSCOUNT/UPCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ARCOUNT |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
The ID field identifies the query and is echoed in the response so they can be matched.
ID字段标识查询，并在响应中回送，以便匹配。
The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response.
QR位指示标头是用于查询还是用于响应。
The AA, TC, RD, RA, AD, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. However, some DNS implementations copy the query header as the initial value of the response header without clearing bits. Thus, any attempt to use a "query" bit with a different meaning in a response or to define a query meaning for a "response" bit is dangerous, given existing implementation. Such meanings may only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.
AA、TC、RD、RA、AD和CD位仅在查询中或仅在响应中具有理论意义，具体取决于位。但是，一些DNS实现将查询标头复制为响应标头的初始值，而不清除位。因此，考虑到现有的实现，任何试图在响应中使用具有不同含义的“查询”位或为“响应”位定义查询含义的尝试都是危险的。此类含义只能由IETF标准行动赋予。
The unsigned integer fields query count (QDCOUNT), answer count (ANCOUNT), authority count (NSCOUNT), and additional information count (ARCOUNT) express the number of records in each section for all OpCodes except Update [RFC2136]. These fields have the same structure and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional information (ARCOUNT) sections.
无符号整数字段query count（QDCOUNT）、answer count（ANCOUNT）、authority count（NSCOUNT）和additional information count（ARCOUNT）表示除Update[RFC2136]之外的所有操作码的每个部分中的记录数。这些字段具有相同的更新结构和数据类型，但它们是区域（ZOCOUNT）、前提条件（PRCOUNT）、更新（UPCOUNT）和附加信息（ARCOUNT）部分的计数。
There have been ancient DNS implementations for which the Z bit being on in a query meant that only a response from the primary server for a zone is acceptable. It is believed that current DNS implementations ignore this bit.
有一些古老的DNS实现，对于这些实现，查询中的Z位为on意味着只能接受来自主服务器的区域响应。据信，当前的DNS实现忽略了此位。
Assigning a meaning to the Z bit requires an IETF Standards Action.
为Z位赋值需要IETF标准操作。
Currently DNS OpCodes are assigned as follows:
目前，DNS操作码分配如下：
OpCode Name Reference
操作码名称引用
0 Query [RFC1035]
1 IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC3425]
2 Status [RFC1035]
3 available for assignment
4 Notify [RFC1996]
5 Update [RFC2136]
6-15 available for assignment
0 Query [RFC1035]
1 IQuery (Inverse Query, Obsolete) [RFC3425]
2 Status [RFC1035]
3 available for assignment
4 Notify [RFC1996]
5 Update [RFC2136]
6-15 available for assignment
New OpCode assignments require an IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020].
新的操作码分配需要[RFC4020]修改的IETF标准行动。
It would appear from the DNS header above that only four bits of RCODE, or response/error code, are available. However, RCODEs can appear not only at the top level of a DNS response but also inside OPT RRs [RFC2671], TSIG RRs [RFC2845], and TKEY RRs [RFC2930]. The OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field, and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit RCODE field.
从上面的DNS头可以看出，只有四位RCODE或响应/错误代码可用。但是，RCODE不仅可以出现在DNS响应的顶层，还可以出现在OPT RRs[RFC2671]、TSIG RRs[RFC2845]和TKEY RRs[RFC2930]内部。OPT RR提供8位扩展，产生12位RCODE字段，TSIG和TKEY RRs具有16位RCODE字段。
Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these three RR types all refer to the same error code space with the single exception of error code 16, which has a different meaning in the OPT RR from its meaning in other contexts. See table below.
出现在DNS标头和这三种RR类型中的错误代码均指相同的错误代码空间，唯一的例外是错误代码16，它在OPT RR中的含义与其在其他上下文中的含义不同。见下表。
RCODE Name Description Reference
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0 NoError No Error [RFC1035]
1 FormErr Format Error [RFC1035]
2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC1035]
3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC1035]
4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC1035]
5 Refused Query Refused [RFC1035]
6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC2136]
7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC2136]
8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC2136]
9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC2136]
10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC2136]
11 - 15 Available for assignment
16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC2671]
16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC2845]
17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC2845]
18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC2845]
19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC2930]
20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC2930]
21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC2930]
22 BADTRUC Bad Truncation [RFC4635]
23 - 3,840
0x0017 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment
RCODE Name Description Reference
Decimal
Hexadecimal
0 NoError No Error [RFC1035]
1 FormErr Format Error [RFC1035]
2 ServFail Server Failure [RFC1035]
3 NXDomain Non-Existent Domain [RFC1035]
4 NotImp Not Implemented [RFC1035]
5 Refused Query Refused [RFC1035]
6 YXDomain Name Exists when it should not [RFC2136]
7 YXRRSet RR Set Exists when it should not [RFC2136]
8 NXRRSet RR Set that should exist does not [RFC2136]
9 NotAuth Server Not Authoritative for zone [RFC2136]
10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC2136]
11 - 15 Available for assignment
16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC2671]
16 BADSIG TSIG Signature Failure [RFC2845]
17 BADKEY Key not recognized [RFC2845]
18 BADTIME Signature out of time window [RFC2845]
19 BADMODE Bad TKEY Mode [RFC2930]
20 BADNAME Duplicate key name [RFC2930]
21 BADALG Algorithm not supported [RFC2930]
22 BADTRUC Bad Truncation [RFC4635]
23 - 3,840
0x0017 - 0x0F00 Available for assignment
3,841 - 4,095 0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Private Use
3841-4095 0x0F01-0x0FFF私人使用
4,096 - 65,534 0x1000 - 0xFFFE Available for assignment
4096-65534 0x1000-0xFFFE可用于分配
65,535 0xFFFF Reserved, can only be allocated by an IETF Standards Action.
65535 0xFFFF保留，只能由IETF标准操作分配。
Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability, assignment of new RCODE listed above as "available for assignment" requires an IETF Review.
由于理解RCODE以实现互操作性非常重要，因此上述“可供分配”的新RCODE分配需要IETF审查。
All RRs have the same top-level format, shown in the figure below taken from [RFC1035].
所有RRs具有相同的顶级格式，如下图所示，摘自[RFC1035]。
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |
/ /
/ NAME /
/ /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TYPE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| CLASS |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TTL |
| |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| RDLENGTH |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
/ RDATA /
/ /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| |
/ /
/ NAME /
/ /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TYPE |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| CLASS |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| TTL |
| |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| RDLENGTH |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--|
/ RDATA /
/ /
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
NAME is an owner name, i.e., the name of the node to which this resource record pertains. NAMEs are specific to a CLASS as described in section 3.2. NAMEs consist of an ordered sequence of one or more labels, each of which has a label type [RFC1035] [RFC2671].
NAME是所有者名称，即此资源记录所属节点的名称。如第3.2节所述，名称是特定于类的。名称由一个或多个标签的有序序列组成，每个标签都有一个标签类型[RFC1035][RFC2671]。
TYPE is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RRTYPE codes. See section 3.1.
类型是包含一个RRTYPE代码的2个八位无符号整数。见第3.1节。
CLASS is a 2-octet unsigned integer containing one of the RR CLASS codes. See section 3.2.
类是包含一个RR类代码的2个八位无符号整数。见第3.2节。
TTL is a 4-octet (32-bit) unsigned integer that specifies, for data TYPEs, the number of seconds that the resource record may be cached before the source of the information should again be consulted. Zero is interpreted to mean that the RR can only be used for the transaction in progress.
TTL是一个4-octet（32位）无符号整数，对于数据类型，它指定在再次查询信息源之前可以缓存资源记录的秒数。零被解释为意味着RR只能用于正在进行的事务。
RDLENGTH is an unsigned 16-bit integer that specifies the length in octets of the RDATA field.
RDLENGTH是一个无符号16位整数，指定RDATA字段的长度（以八位字节为单位）。
RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the resource. The format of this information varies according to the TYPE and, in some cases, the CLASS of the resource record.
RDATA是组成资源的可变长度八位字节字符串。此信息的格式根据资源记录的类型以及在某些情况下的类别而有所不同。
There are three subcategories of RRTYPE numbers: data TYPEs, QTYPEs, and Meta-TYPEs.
RRTYPE编号有三个子类别：数据类型、QTYPE和元类型。
Data TYPEs are the means of storing data. QTYPES can only be used in queries. Meta-TYPEs designate transient data associated with a particular DNS message and, in some cases, can also be used in queries. Thus far, data TYPEs have been assigned from 1 upward plus the block from 100 through 103 and from 32,768 upward, while Q and Meta-TYPEs have been assigned from 255 downward except for the OPT Meta-RR, which is assigned TYPE 41. There have been DNS implementations that made caching decisions based on the top bit of the bottom byte of the RRTYPE.
数据类型是存储数据的手段。QTYPES只能在查询中使用。元类型指定与特定DNS消息关联的瞬态数据，在某些情况下，还可以在查询中使用。迄今为止，数据类型已从1向上分配，加上从100到103的块和从32768向上分配，而Q和元类型已从255向下分配，但OPT Meta RR除外，后者被分配为类型41。有一些DNS实现基于RRTYPE的底部字节的顶部位做出缓存决策。
There are currently three Meta-TYPEs assigned: OPT [RFC2671], TSIG [RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs assigned: * (ALL), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR.
目前分配了三种元类型：OPT[RFC2671]、TSIG[RFC2845]和TKEY[RFC2930]。目前分配了五个QType:*（全部）、MAILA、MAILB、AXFR和IXFR。
RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the following regular expression:
RRTYPE的助记符必须与用于类的助记符完全分离，并且必须与以下正则表达式匹配：
[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*
[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*
Considerations for the allocation of new RRTYPEs are as follows:
分配新RRT类型的注意事项如下：
Decimal Hexadecimal
十六进制
0 0x0000 - RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG (0) RR [RFC2931] and in other circumstances, and it must never be allocated for ordinary use.
0 0x0000-RRTYPE zero用作SIG（0）RR[RFC2931]和其他情况下的特殊指示器，且不得分配用于普通用途。
1 - 127 0x0001 - 0x007F - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for data TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified in Section 3.1.1.
1-127 0x0001-0x007F-此范围内的剩余RRTYPE由DNS RRTYPE分配策略分配给数据类型，如第3.1.1节所述。
128 - 255 0x0080 - 0x00FF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for Q and Meta TYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified in Section 3.1.1.
128-255 0x0080-0x00FF-此范围内的剩余RRTYPE由DNS RRTYPE分配策略分配给Q和元类型，如第3.1.1节所述。
256 - 61,439 0x0100 - 0xEFFF - Remaining RRTYPEs in this range are assigned for data RRTYPEs by the DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy as specified in Section 3.1.1. (32,768 and 32,769 (0x8000 and 0x8001) have been assigned.)
256-61439 0x0100-0xEFFF-此范围内的剩余RRTYPE由DNS RRTYPE分配策略分配给数据RRTYPE，如第3.1.1节所述。（已分配32768和32769（0x8000和0x8001）
61,440 - 65,279 0xF000 - 0xFEFF - Reserved for future use. IETF Review required to define use.
61440-65279 0xF000-0xFEFF-保留供将来使用。定义使用所需的IETF评审。
65,280 - 65,534 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65280-65534 0xFF00-0xFFFE-私人使用。
65,535 0xFFFF - Reserved; can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.
65535 0xFFFF-预留；只能由IETF标准行动分配。
Parameter values specified in Section 3.1 above, as assigned based on DNS RRTYPE Allocation Policy, are allocated by Expert Review if they meet the two requirements listed below. There will be a pool of a small number of Experts appointed by the IESG. Each application will be ruled on by an Expert selected by IANA. In any case where the selected Expert is unavailable or states they have a conflict of interest, IANA may select another Expert from the pool.
根据DNS RRTYPE分配策略分配的上述第3.1节中规定的参数值，如果满足以下两个要求，则由专家评审进行分配。IESG将任命少量专家。每项申请将由IANA选定的专家裁决。在任何情况下，如果选定的专家不可用或表示他们存在利益冲突，IANA可以从人才库中选择另一位专家。
Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2. RRTYPEs that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be allocated by IETF Standards Action as modified by [RFC4020].
第3.1.2节给出了一些专家指南。不符合以下要求的RRT类型可由[RFC4020]修改的IETF标准行动分配。
1. A complete template as specified in Appendix A has been posted for three weeks to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list before the Expert Review decision.
1. 附录A中规定的完整模板已张贴至namedroppers@ops.ietf.org专家评审决定前的邮件列表。
Note that partially completed or draft templates may be posted directly by the applicant for comment and discussion, but the formal posting to start the three week period is made by the Expert.
请注意，部分完成的模板或模板草案可由申请人直接发布以供评论和讨论，但正式发布以开始为期三周的时间是由专家进行的。
2. The RR for which an RRTYPE code is being requested is either (a) a data TYPE that can be handled as an Unknown RR as described in [RFC3597] or (b) a Meta-Type whose processing is optional, i.e., it is safe to simply discard RRs with that Meta-Type in queries or responses.
2. 请求RRTYPE代码的RR是（a）可作为[RFC3597]中所述的未知RR处理的数据类型，或（b）其处理是可选的元类型，即，在查询或响应中简单地丢弃带有该元类型的RRs是安全的。
Note that such RRs may include additional section processing, provided such processing is optional.
注意，如果这样的处理是可选的，那么这样的RRs可以包括额外的部分处理。
No less than three weeks and no more than six weeks after a completed template has been formally posted to namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, the selected Expert shall post a message, explicitly accepting or rejecting the application, to IANA, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, and the email address provided by the applicant. If the Expert does not post such a message, the application shall be considered rejected but may be re-submitted to IANA.
完成的模板正式发布到网站后不少于三周，不超过六周namedroppers@ops.ietf.org，选定的专家应向IANA发布消息，明确接受或拒绝申请，namedroppers@ops.ietf.org，以及申请人提供的电子邮件地址。如果专家未发布此类信息，则该申请将被视为被拒绝，但可以重新提交给IANA。
IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates.
IANA应保存批准模板的公共档案。
The selected DNS RRTYPE Expert is required to monitor discussion of the proposed RRTYPE, which may occur on the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list, and may consult with other technical experts as necessary. The Expert should normally reject any RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of the following criterion:
所选DNS RRTYPE专家需要监控对建议RRTYPE的讨论，这可能发生在namedroppers@ops.ietf.org邮件列表，必要时可咨询其他技术专家。专家通常应拒绝满足以下一个或多个标准的任何RRTYPE分配请求：
1. Was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear to evaluate or implement.
1. 记录的方式不够清晰，无法进行评估或实施。
2. The proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs affect DNS processing and do not meet the criteria in point 2 of Section 3.1.1 above.
2. 建议的RRTYPE或RRTYPE会影响DNS处理，且不符合上述第3.1.1节第2点中的标准。
3. The documentation of the proposed RRTYPE or RRTYPEs is incomplete. (Additional documentation can be provided during the public comment period or by the Expert.)
3. 拟议RRTYPE或RRTYPE的文件不完整。（其他文件可在公众评论期间或由专家提供。）
4. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about DNS protocol behavior, such as wild cards, CNAME, DNAME, etc.
4. 有文档记录的应用程序使用对DNS协议行为（如通配符、CNAME、DNAME等）做出了错误的假设。
5. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the purpose could be met with a smaller number or with Private Use values.
5. 当使用较小的值或专用值可以满足目的时，请求的RRTYPE值过多。
The OPT (OPTion) RR (RRTYPE 41) and its IANA Considerations are specified in [RFC2671]. Its primary purpose is to extend the effective field size of various DNS fields including RCODE, label type, OpCode, flag bits, and RDATA size. In particular, for resolvers and servers that recognize it, it extends the RCODE field from 4 to 12 bits.
[RFC2671]中规定了OPT（OPTion）RR（RRTYPE 41）及其IANA注意事项。其主要目的是扩展各种DNS字段的有效字段大小，包括RCODE、标签类型、操作码、标志位和RDATA大小。特别是，对于识别RCODE的解析器和服务器，它将RCODE字段从4位扩展到12位。
The AFSDB RR [RFC1183] is a CLASS-insensitive RR that has the same RDATA field structure as the MX RR, but the 16-bit unsigned integer field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a subtype as follows:
AFSDB RR[RFC1183]是一种不区分类的RR，它与MX RR具有相同的RDATA字段结构，但RDATA开头的16位无符号整数字段被解释为一个子类型，如下所示：
Decimal Hexadecimal
十六进制
0 0x0000 - Reserved; allocation requires IETF Standards Action.
0 0x0000-保留；分配需要IETF标准行动。
1 0x0001 - Andrews File Service v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183].
1 0x0001-Andrews文件服务v3.0位置服务[RFC1183]。
2 0x0002 - DCE/NCA root cell directory node [RFC1183].
2 0x0002-DCE/NCA根单元目录节点[RFC1183]。
3 - 65,279 0x0003 - 0xFEFF - Allocation by IETF Review.
3-65279 0x0003-0xFEFF-由IETF评审分配。
65,280 - 65,534 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65280-65534 0xFF00-0xFFFE-私人使用。
65,535 0xFFFF - Reserved; allocation requires IETF Standards Action.
65535 0xFFFF-预留；分配需要IETF标准行动。
There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data-containing classes and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries or updates.
DNS类目前有两个子类：普通类、包含数据的类和仅在查询或更新中有意义的QClass。
DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary relationship between the name space or root servers for one data CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types are the same, and the null label is usable only as root in every CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use.
DNS类很少使用，但构成了DNS分布式数据库的另一个维度。特别是，一个数据类的名称空间或根服务器与另一个数据类的名称空间或根服务器之间没有必要的关系。相同的DNS名称在不同的类中可能具有完全不同的含义。标签类型是相同的，空标签只能作为每个类中的根使用。随着全球网络和DNS的发展，IN或Internet类已经主导了DNS的使用。
As yet there has not be a requirement for "meta-CLASSes". That would be a CLASS to designate transient data associated with a particular DNS message, which might be usable in queries. However, it is possible that there might be a future requirement for one or more "meta-CLASSes".
到目前为止，还没有对“元类”的要求。这将是一个类，用于指定与特定DNS消息关联的瞬态数据，这些数据可能在查询中可用。然而，未来可能需要一个或多个“元类”。
CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the following regular expression:
类的助记符必须与用于RRTYPE的助记符完全分离，并且必须与以下正则表达式匹配：
[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*
[A-Z][A-Z0-9-]*
The current CLASS assignments and considerations for future assignments are as follows:
目前的课堂作业和未来作业的注意事项如下：
Decimal Hexadecimal
十六进制
0 0x0000 - Reserved; assignment requires an IETF Standards Action.
0 0x0000-保留；分配需要IETF标准行动。
1 0x0001 - Internet (IN).
1 0x0001-互联网（IN）。
2 0x0002 - Available for assignment by IETF Review as a data CLASS.
2 0x0002-可作为数据类由IETF评审分配。
3 0x0003 - Chaos (CH) [Moon1981].
3 0x0003-混沌（CH）[1981]。
4 0x0004 - Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987].
4 0x0004-赫西奥德（HS）[Dyer1987]。
5 - 127 0x0005 - 0x007F - Available for assignment by IETF Review for data CLASSes only.
5-127 0x0005-0x007F-仅适用于数据类的IETF评审分配。
128 - 253 0x0080 - 0x00FD - Available for assignment by IETF Review for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only.
128-253 0x0080-0x00FD-仅适用于QCLASSes和meta类的IETF评审分配。
254 0x00FE - QCLASS NONE [RFC2136].
254 0x00FE-QCLASS NONE[RFC2136]。
255 0x00FF - QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035].
255 0x00FF-QCLASS*（任何）[RFC1035]。
256 - 32,767 0x0100 - 0x7FFF - Assigned by IETF Review.
256-32767 0x0100-0x7FFF-由IETF评审分配。
32,768 - 57,343 0x8000 - 0xDFFF - Assigned for data CLASSes only, based on Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226].
32768-57343 0x8000-0xDFFF-根据[RFC5226]中定义的规范，仅为数据类分配。
57,344 - 65,279 0xE000 - 0xFEFF - Assigned for QCLASSes and meta-CLASSes only, based on Specification Required as defined in [RFC5226].
57344-65279 0xE000-0xFEFF-根据[RFC5226]中定义的规范，仅为QClass和meta类分配。
65,280 - 65,534 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - Private Use.
65280-65534 0xFF00-0xFFFE-私人使用。
65,535 0xFFFF - Reserved; can only be assigned by an IETF Standards Action.
65535 0xFFFF-预留；只能由IETF标准行动分配。
DNS NAMEs are sequences of labels [RFC1035].
DNS名称是标签序列[RFC1035]。
At the present time, there are two categories of label types: data labels and compression labels. Compression labels are pointers to data labels elsewhere within an RR or DNS message and are intended to shorten the wire encoding of NAMEs.
目前，有两类标签类型：数据标签和压缩标签。压缩标签是指向RR或DNS消息中其他位置的数据标签的指针，旨在缩短名称的有线编码。
The two existing data label types are sometimes referred to as Text and Binary. Text labels can, in fact, include any octet value including zero-value octets, but many current uses involve only [US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII upper and lower case letter codes as matching [RFC4343]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary label type is Experimental [RFC3363].
现有的两种数据标签类型有时称为文本和二进制。事实上，文本标签可以包含任何八位字节值，包括零值八位字节，但当前的许多使用仅涉及[US-ASCII]。对于检索，文本标签被定义为将ASCII大写和小写字母代码视为匹配[RFC4343]。二进制标签是位序列[RFC2673]。二进制标签类型是实验性的[RFC3363]。
IANA considerations for label types are given in [RFC2671].
[RFC2671]中给出了标签类型的IANA注意事项。
The last label in each NAME is "ROOT", which is the zero-length label. By definition, the null or ROOT label cannot be used for any other NAME purpose.
每个名称中的最后一个标签是“根”，即零长度标签。根据定义，null或ROOT标签不能用于任何其他名称目的。
NAMEs are local to a CLASS. The Hesiod [Dyer1987] and Chaos [Moon1981] CLASSes are for essentially local use. The IN, or Internet, CLASS is thus the only DNS CLASS in global use on the Internet at this time.
名称是类的本地名称。Hesiod[Dyer1987]和Chaos[Moon1981]类基本上是本地使用的。因此，IN或Internet类是目前Internet上唯一一个全局使用的DNS类。
A somewhat out-of-date description of name allocation in the IN Class is given in [RFC1591]. Some information on reserved top-level domain names is in BCP 32 [RFC2606].
[RFC1591]中给出了类内名称分配的过时描述。有关保留顶级域名的一些信息，请参见BCP 32[RFC2606]。
This document addresses IANA considerations in the allocation of general DNS parameters, not security. See [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035] for secure DNS considerations.
本文档介绍了IANA在分配通用DNS参数时的注意事项，而不是安全性。有关安全DNS注意事项，请参阅[RFC4033]、[RFC4034]和[RFC4035]。
This document consists entirely of DNS IANA Considerations and includes the following changes from its predecessor [RFC2929]. It affects the DNS Parameters registry and its subregistries, which are available from http://www.iana.org.
本文档完全包含DNS IANA注意事项，并包括对其前身[RFC2929]的以下更改。它影响DNS参数注册表及其子域，可从http://www.iana.org.
1. In the Domain Name System "Resource record (RR) TYPES and QTYPEs" registry, it changes most "IETF Consensus" and all "Specification Required" allocation policies for RRTYPEs to be "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy" and changes the policy for RRTYPE 0xFFFF to be "IETF Standards Action". Remaining instances of "IETF Consensus" are changed to "IETF Review", per [RFC5226]. It also specifies the "DNS TYPE Allocation Policy", which is based on Expert Review with additional provisions and restrictions, including the submittal of a completed copy of the template in Appendix A to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org, in most cases, and requires "IETF Standards Action" as modified by [RFC4020] in other cases.
1. 在域名系统“资源记录（RR）类型和QTYPEs”注册表中，它将RRTYPEs的大多数“IETF共识”和所有“规范要求”分配策略更改为“DNS类型分配策略”，并将RRType0xFFFF的策略更改为“IETF标准行动”。根据[RFC5226]，将“IETF共识”的剩余实例更改为“IETF审查”。它还规定了“DNS类型分配政策”，该政策以专家审查为基础，并附有附加规定和限制，包括提交DNS rrtype附录a中模板的完整副本-applications@ietf.org，在大多数情况下，需要“IETF标准行动”，在其他情况下需要[RFC4020]修改。
IANA shall establish a process for accepting such templates, selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form applications, archiving, and making available all approved RRTYPE allocation templates. It is the duty of the selected Expert to post the formal application template to the namedroppers@ops.ietf.org mailing list. See Section 3.1 and Appendix A for more details.
IANA应建立一个流程，以接受此类模板，从指定人员中选择一名专家审查此类模板申请，存档，并提供所有批准的RRTYPE分配模板。所选专家的职责是将正式的应用程序模板发布到namedroppers@ops.ietf.org邮件列表。详见第3.1节和附录A。
2. For OpCodes (see Section 2.2), it changes "IETF Standards Action" allocation requirements to add "as modified by [RFC4020]".
2. 对于操作码（见第2.2节），将“IETF标准行动”分配要求更改为添加“经[RFC4020]修改”。
3. It changes the allocation status of RCODE 0xFFFF to be "IETF Standards Action required". See Section 2.3.
3. 它将RCODE 0xFFFF的分配状态更改为“需要IETF标准操作”。见第2.3节。
4. It adds an IANA allocation policy for the AFSDB RR Subtype field, which requires the creation of a new registry. See Section 3.1.4.
4. 它为AFSDB RR子类型字段添加了IANA分配策略，这需要创建新的注册表。见第3.1.4节。
5. It splits Specification Required CLASSes into data CLASSes and query or meta CLASSes. See Section 3.2.
5. 它将规范所需的类拆分为数据类和查询类或元类。见第3.2节。
DNS RRTYPE PARAMETER ALLOCATION TEMPLATE
DNS RRTYPE参数分配模板
When ready for formal consideration, this template is to be submitted to IANA for processing by emailing the template to dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org.
当准备正式考虑时，该模板将通过电子邮件发送至dns rrtype提交给IANA处理-applications@ietf.org.
A. Submission Date:
A.提交日期：
B. Submission Type: [ ] New RRTYPE [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
B.提交类型：[]新RRTYPE[]对现有RRTYPE的修改
C. Contact Information for submitter: Name: Email Address: International telephone number: Other contact handles:
C.提交人的联系信息：姓名：电子邮件地址：国际电话号码：其他联系方式：
(Note: This information will be publicly posted.)
（注：此信息将公开发布。）
D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application? Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE. Remember most reviewers will be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your application space.
D.新RRTYPE应用的动机？请将此部分保持在较高水平，以告知专家和审查人员RRTYPE的使用情况。请记住，大多数审阅者都是DNS专家，他们可能对您的应用程序空间知之甚少。
E. Description of the proposed RR type. This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an attachment, or with a publicly available URL:
E.建议RR类型的说明。此说明可以在模板中以联机方式提供、作为附件提供或使用公开可用的URL提供：
F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need and why are they unsatisfactory?
F.哪些现有的RRTYPE或RRTYPE最接近满足该需求，为什么它们不令人满意？
G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)? Note: This can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the template is accepted.
G.新RRTYPE需要什么助记符（可选）？注意：这可以留空，并且在接受模板后决定助记符。
H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA Registry or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in DNS Parameters? If so, please indicate which registry is to be used or created. If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy for it and its initial contents. Also include what the modification procedures will be.
H.请求的RRTYPE是否使用了任何现有的IANA注册表或要求在DNS参数中创建新的IANA子注册表？如果是，请说明将使用或创建哪个注册表。如果需要新的子注册表，请指定其分配策略及其初始内容。还包括修改程序。
I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?
I.提案是否要求/预期DNS服务器/解析程序中的任何更改，以防止将新类型作为未知RRTYPE处理（请参见[RFC3597]）？
J. Comments:
J.评论：
Normative References
规范性引用文件
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1034]Mockapetris，P.，“域名-概念和设施”，STD 13，RFC 1034，1987年11月。
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC1035]Mockapetris，P.，“域名-实现和规范”，STD 13，RFC 1035，1987年11月。
[RFC1996] Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996.
[RFC1996]Vixie，P.，“区域变更即时通知机制（DNS通知）”，RFC 1996，1996年8月。
[RFC2136] Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, April 1997.
[RFC2136]Vixie，P.，Ed.，Thomson，S.，Rekhter，Y.，和J.Bound，“域名系统中的动态更新（DNS更新）”，RFC 21361997年4月。
[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.
[RFC2181]Elz，R.和R.Bush，“DNS规范的澄清”，RFC 21811997年7月。
[RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC 2671, August 1999.
[RFC2671]Vixie，P.，“DNS的扩展机制（EDNS0）”，RFC 26711999年8月。
[RFC2845] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B. Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000.
[RFC2845]Vixie，P.，Gudmundsson，O.，Eastlake 3rd，D.，和B.Wellington，“DNS秘密密钥交易认证（TSIG）”，RFC 28452000年5月。
[RFC2930] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000.
[RFC2930]Eastlake 3rd，D.，“DNS密钥建立（TKEY RR）”，RFC 2930，2000年9月。
[RFC3425] Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425, November 2002.
[RFC3425]劳伦斯，D.，“淘汰液体”，RFC 34252002年11月。
[RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
[RFC3597]Gustafsson，A.，“未知DNS资源记录（RR）类型的处理”，RFC3597，2003年9月。
[RFC4020] Kompella, K. and A. Zinin, "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 4020, February 2005.
[RFC4020]Kompella，K.和A.Zinin，“早期IANA标准轨道代码点分配”，BCP 100，RFC 4020，2005年2月。
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March 2005.
[RFC4033]Arends，R.，Austein，R.，Larson，M.，Massey，D.，和S.Rose，“DNS安全介绍和要求”，RFC 4033，2005年3月。
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4034]Arends，R.，Austein，R.，Larson，M.，Massey，D.，和S.Rose，“DNS安全扩展的资源记录”，RFC 40342005年3月。
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC4035]Arends，R.，Austein，R.，Larson，M.，Massey，D.，和S.Rose，“DNS安全扩展的协议修改”，RFC 4035，2005年3月。
[RFC4635] Eastlake 3rd, D., "HMAC SHA (Hashed Message Authentication Code, Secure Hash Algorithm) TSIG Algorithm Identifiers", RFC 4635, August 2006.
[RFC4635]Eastlake 3rd，D.，“HMAC SHA（哈希消息认证码，安全哈希算法）TSIG算法标识符”，RFC 4635，2006年8月。
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，2008年5月。
[US-ASCII] ANSI, "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange", X3.4, American National Standards Institute: New York, 1968.
[US-ASCII]ANSI，“美国信息交换标准代码”，X3.4，美国国家标准协会：纽约，1968年。
Informative References
资料性引用
[Dyer1987] Dyer, S., and F. Hsu, "Hesiod", Project Athena Technical Plan - Name Service, April 1987.
[Dyer1987]Dyer，S.和F.Hsu，“赫西奥德”，雅典娜项目技术计划-名称服务，1987年4月。
[Moon1981] Moon, D., "Chaosnet", A.I. Memo 628, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, June 1981.
[Moon1981]Moon，D.，“Chaosnet”，A.I.备忘录628，麻省理工学院人工智能实验室，1981年6月。
[RFC1183] Everhart, C., Mamakos, L., Ullmann, R., and P. Mockapetris, "New DNS RR Definitions", RFC 1183, October 1990.
[RFC1183]Everhart，C.，Mamakos，L.，Ullmann，R.，和P.Mockapetris，“新的DNS RR定义”，RFC 1183，1990年10月。
[RFC1591] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994.
[RFC1591]Postel，J.，“域名系统结构和授权”，RFC15911994年3月。
[RFC2606] Eastlake 3rd, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC2606]Eastlake 3rd，D.和A.Panitz，“保留顶级DNS名称”，BCP 32，RFC 26061999年6月。
[RFC2673] Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System", RFC 2673, August 1999.
[RFC2673]克劳福德，M.，“域名系统中的二进制标签”，RFC2673，1999年8月。
[RFC2929] Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning, "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929, September 2000.
[RFC2929]Eastlake 3rd，D.，Brunner Williams，E.，和B.Manning，“域名系统（DNS）IANA注意事项”，BCP 42，RFC 29292000年9月。
[RFC2931] Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, September 2000.
[RFC2931]Eastlake 3rd，D.，“DNS请求和事务签名（SIG（0）s）”，RFC 29312000年9月。
[RFC3363] Bush, R., Durand, A., Fink, B., Gudmundsson, O., and T. Hain, "Representing Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Addresses in the Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 3363, August 2002.
[RFC3363]Bush，R.，Durand，A.，Fink，B.，Gudmundsson，O.，和T.Hain，“代表域名系统（DNS）中的互联网协议版本6（IPv6）地址”，RFC 33632002年8月。
[RFC4343] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343, January 2006.
[RFC4343]Eastlake 3rd，D.，“域名系统（DNS）案例不敏感澄清”，RFC 4343，2006年1月。
Author's Address
作者地址
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Stellar Switches 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA
美国马萨诸塞州米尔福德海狸街155号Donald E.Eastlake 3rd Stellar Switchs 01757
Phone: +1-508-634-2066 (h)
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Phone: +1-508-634-2066 (h)
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com