Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd
Request for Comments: 6895 Huawei
BCP: 42 April 2013
Obsoletes: 6195
Updates: 1183, 2845, 2930, 3597
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake 3rd
Request for Comments: 6895 Huawei
BCP: 42 April 2013
Obsoletes: 6195
Updates: 1183, 2845, 2930, 3597
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations
域名系统（DNS）IANA注意事项
Abstract
摘要
This document specifies Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) parameter assignment considerations 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. It obsoletes RFC 6195 and updates RFCs 1183, 2845, 2930, and 3597.
本文档规定了分配域名系统（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资源记录子类型时的Internet Assigned Numbers Authority（IANA）参数分配注意事项。它淘汰了RFC 6195，并更新了RFC 1183、2845、2930和3597。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
本备忘录记录了互联网最佳实践。
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 BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关BCP的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
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/rfc6895.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6895.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2013 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. 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.
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。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology ................................................3
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 .......................10
3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR .........................10
3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field .........................10
3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations ..............................11
3.3. Label Considerations ......................................13
3.3.1. Label Types ........................................13
3.3.2. Label Contents and Use .............................13
4. Security Considerations ........................................14
5. IANA Considerations ............................................14
Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template ............................15
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 6195 .................................16
Normative References ..............................................17
Informative References ............................................18
Acknowledgements ..................................................19
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology ................................................3
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 .......................10
3.1.3. Special Note on the OPT RR .........................10
3.1.4. The AFSDB RR Subtype Field .........................10
3.2. RR CLASS IANA Considerations ..............................11
3.3. Label Considerations ......................................13
3.3.1. Label Types ........................................13
3.3.2. Label Contents and Use .............................13
4. Security Considerations ........................................14
5. IANA Considerations ............................................14
Appendix A. RRTYPE Allocation Template ............................15
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 6195 .................................16
Normative References ..............................................17
Informative References ............................................18
Acknowledgements ..................................................19
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. Familiarity with [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2136], [RFC2181], and [RFC4033] 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。假设熟悉[RFC1034]、[RFC1035]、[RFC2136]、[RFC2181]和[RFC4033]。
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 [RFC6195]; however, the only significant changes are those to the RRTYPE IANA allocation process, aimed at streamlining it and clarifying the expected behavior of the parties involved, and the closing of the AFSDB subtype registry.
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[RFC6195]；然而，唯一的重大变化是RRA类型IANA分配流程的变化，旨在简化该流程并澄清相关方的预期行为，以及关闭AFSDB子类型注册。
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>.
"Standards Action", "IETF Review", "Specification Required", and "Private Use" are as defined in [RFC5226].
“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]:
DNS查询和响应的标题包含取自[RFC2136]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, and CD bits are each theoretically meaningful only in queries or only in responses, depending on the bit. The AD bit was only meaningful in responses but is expected to have a separate but related meaning in queries (see Section 5.7 of [RFC6840]). Only the RD and CD bits are expected to be copied from the query to the response; however, some DNS implementations copy all the query header as the initial value of the response header. 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 may be dangerous, given the existing implementation. Meanings for these bits may only be assigned by a Standards Action.
AA、TC、RD、RA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。AD位仅在响应中有意义，但在查询中有单独但相关的意义（见[RFC6840]第5.7节）。只有RD和CD位需要从查询复制到响应；但是，一些DNS实现将所有查询头复制为响应头的初始值。因此，考虑到现有实现，在响应中使用具有不同含义的“查询”位或为“响应”位定义查询含义的任何尝试都可能是危险的。这些位的含义只能由标准操作指定。
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
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属性
structure and data type for Update but are instead the counts for the zone (ZOCOUNT), prerequisite (PRCOUNT), update (UPCOUNT), and additional information (ARCOUNT) sections.
用于更新的结构和数据类型，而是区域（ZOCOUNT）、先决条件（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 a Standards Action.
为Z位赋值需要标准操作。
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 Unassigned
4 Notify [RFC1996]
5 Update [RFC2136]
6-15 Unassigned
0 Query [RFC1035]
1 IQuery (Inverse Query, OBSOLETE) [RFC3425]
2 Status [RFC1035]
3 Unassigned
4 Notify [RFC1996]
5 Update [RFC2136]
6-15 Unassigned
Although the Status OpCode is reserved in [RFC1035], its behavior has not been specified. New OpCode assignments require a Standards Action with early allocation permitted as specified in [RFC4020].
尽管状态操作码在[RFC1035]中保留，但尚未指定其行为。按照[RFC4020]中的规定，新的操作码分配需要允许提前分配的标准操作。
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 TSIG RRs [RFC2845], TKEY RRs [RFC2930], and extended by OPT RRs [RFC6891]. The OPT RR provides an 8-bit extension to the 4 header bits, resulting in a 12-bit RCODE field, and the TSIG and TKEY RRs have a 16-bit field designated in their RFCs as the "Error" 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TSIG RRs[RFC2845]、TKEY RRs[RFC2930]内部，并通过OPT RRs[RFC6891]进行扩展。OPT RR为4个报头位提供8位扩展，形成12位RCODE字段，TSIG和TKEY RRs在其RFC中有一个16位字段指定为“错误”字段。
Error codes appearing in the DNS header and in these other RR types all refer to the same error code space with the exception of error code 16, which has a different meaning in the OPT RR than in the TSIG RR, and error code 9, whose variations are described after the table below. The duplicate assignment of 16 was accidental. To the extent that any prior RFCs imply any sort of different error number space for the OPT, TSIG, or TKEY RRs, they are superseded by this unified
出现在DNS标头和这些其他RR类型中的错误代码均指相同的错误代码空间，但错误代码16除外，错误代码16在OPT RR中的含义与TSIG RR中的含义不同，错误代码9的变化如下表所述。16的重复分配是偶然的。如果任何先前的RFC暗示OPT、TSIG或TKEY RRs存在任何不同的错误编号空间，则它们将被此统一的
DNS error number space. (This paragraph is the reason this document updates [RFC2845] and [RFC2930].) With the existing exceptions of error numbers 9 and 16, the same error number must not be assigned for different errors even if they would only occur in different RR types. See table below.
DNS错误号空间。（本段是本文件更新[RFC2845]和[RFC2930]的原因。）除了错误号9和16的现有例外情况，不得为不同的错误分配相同的错误号，即使这些错误只会发生在不同的RR类型中。见下表。
RCODE Name Description Reference Decimal Hexadecimal
RCODE名称描述参考十进制十六进制
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]
9 NotAuth Not Authorized [RFC2845]
10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC2136]
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]
9 NotAuth Not Authorized [RFC2845]
10 NotZone Name not contained in zone [RFC2136]
11 - 15 0xB - 0xF Unassigned
11-15 0xB-0xF未分配
16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC6891]
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 BADTRUNC Bad Truncation [RFC4635]
16 BADVERS Bad OPT Version [RFC6891]
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 BADTRUNC Bad Truncation [RFC4635]
23 - 3,840 0x0017 - 0x0F00 Unassigned
23-3840 0x0017-0x0F00未分配
3,841 - 4,095 0x0F01 - 0x0FFF Reserved for Private Use
3841-4095 0x0F01-0x0FFF保留供私人使用
4,096 - 65,534 0x1000 - 0xFFFE Unassigned
4096-65534 0x1000-0xFFFE未分配
65,535 0xFFFF Reserved; can only be allocated by Standards Action.
预留65535 0xFFFF；只能通过标准操作进行分配。
Note on error number 9 (NotAuth): This error number means either "Not Authoritative" [RFC2136] or "Not Authorized" [RFC2845]. If 9 appears as the RCODE in the header of a DNS response without a TSIG RR or with a TSIG RR having a zero error field, then it means "Not Authoritative". If 9 appears as the RCODE in the header of a DNS response that includes a TSIG RR with a non-zero error field, then it means "Not Authorized".
关于错误号9（NotAuth）的注释：此错误号表示“未授权”[RFC2136]或“未授权”[RFC2845]。如果9在没有TSIG RR或TSIG RR具有零错误字段的DNS响应标头中显示为RCODE，则表示“非权威”。如果9在包含TSIG RR且带有非零错误字段的DNS响应标头中显示为RCODE，则表示“未授权”。
Since it is important that RCODEs be understood for interoperability, assignment of a new RCODE in the ranges listed above as "Unassigned" requires an IETF Review.
由于理解RCODE的互操作性非常重要，因此，将上述范围内的新RCODE分配为“未分配”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] [RFC6891].
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][RFC6891]。
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。到目前为止，数据类型是从1向上分配的，加上从100到103的块，以及从32768向上分配的，而Q和元类型是从255向下分配的，除了OPT Meta RR，它被分配为类型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 [RFC6891], TSIG [RFC2845], and TKEY [RFC2930]. There are currently five QTYPEs assigned: * (ALL/ANY), MAILA, MAILB, AXFR, and IXFR.
目前分配了三种元类型：OPT[RFC6891]、TSIG[RFC2845]和TKEY[RFC2930]。目前分配了五个QTYPE:*（全部/任何）、MAILA、MAILB、AXFR和IXFR。
Allocated RRTYPEs have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the mnemonics used for CLASSes and that must match the regular expression below. In addition, the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names specified in Section 5 of [RFC3597] cannot be assigned as new RRTYPE mnemonics.
分配的RRTYPE的助记符必须与用于类的助记符完全分离，并且必须与下面的正则表达式匹配。此外，[RFC3597]第5节中指定的泛型类和RRTYPE名称不能指定为新的RRTYPE助记符。
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9] but not (TYPE|CLASS)[0-9]*
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]但不是（类型|级）[0-9]*
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 Assignment Policy
十进制十六进制分配策略
0 0x0000 RRTYPE zero is used as a special indicator for the SIG(0) RR [RFC2931] [RFC4034] and in other circumstances and must never be allocated for ordinary use.
0 0x0000 RRTYPE zero用作SIG（0）RR[RFC2931][RFC4034]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 Reserved for Private Use.
65280-65534 0xFF00-0xFFFE保留供私人使用。
65,535 0xFFFF Reserved (Standards Action)
65535 0xFFFF保留（标准行动）
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 judged 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. Some guidelines for the Experts are given in Section 3.1.2.
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选择的专家进行评判。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。第3.1.2节给出了一些专家指南。
RRTYPEs that do not meet the requirements below may nonetheless be allocated by a Standards Action with early allocation permitted as specified in [RFC4020].
不符合以下要求的RRT类型仍可通过标准行动进行分配，并按照[RFC4020]的规定允许提前分配。
1. A complete template as specified in Appendix A has been posted to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list and received by the Expert.
1. 附录A中规定的完整模板已发布到dns rrtype-applications@ietf.org专家收到的邮件列表和地址。
Note that the posting of partially completed, draft, or formally submitted templates to dnsext@ietf.org by the applicant or Expert for comment and discussion is highly encouraged. Before formal submission of an RRTYPE template, we recommend submitting it for community review and considering the responses in order to reduce the probability of initial rejection and the need for modification and resubmission.
请注意，将部分完成、草稿或正式提交的模板发布到dnsext@ietf.org强烈鼓励申请人或专家进行评论和讨论。在正式提交RRTYPE模板之前，我们建议将其提交给社区审查，并考虑回复，以减少最初拒绝的可能性以及修改和重新提交的需要。
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。
After the applicant submits their formal application to IANA by sending the completed template specified in Appendix A to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list, IANA appoints an Expert and sends the completed template to the Expert, copying the applicant. No more than two weeks after receiving the application, the Expert shall explicitly approve or reject the application, informing IANA, the applicant, and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list. A rejection should include the reason for rejection and may include suggestions for improvement. The Expert should consult with other technical experts and the dnsext@ietf.org mailing list as necessary. If the Expert does not approve the application within this period, it is considered rejected. IANA should report non-responsive Experts to the IESG.
申请人通过向dns rrtype发送附录A中规定的完整模板向IANA提交正式申请后-applications@ietf.org邮件列表中，IANA指定一名专家，并将完成的模板发送给专家，复制申请人。在收到申请后两周内，专家应明确批准或拒绝申请，并通知IANA、申请人和dnsext@ietf.org邮件列表。拒绝应包括拒绝的原因，并可能包括改进建议。专家应咨询其他技术专家和dnsext@ietf.org必要时提供邮件列表。如果专家在此期限内不批准申请，则视为拒绝。IANA应向IESG报告非响应专家。
IANA shall maintain a public archive of approved templates. In addition, if the required description of the RRTYPE applied for is referenced by URL, a copy of the document so referenced should be included in the archive.
IANA应保存批准模板的公共档案。此外，如果URL引用了申请的RRTYPE所需的描述，则应在存档中包含如此引用的文档副本。
The Designated Expert should normally be lenient, preferring to approve most requests. However, the Expert should usually reject any RRTYPE allocation request that meets one or more of the following criteria:
指定的专家通常应该宽大，倾向于批准大多数请求。但是，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. The request was documented in a manner that was not sufficiently clear or complete to evaluate or implement. (Additional documentation can be provided during the Expert Review period.)
1. 请求的记录方式不够清晰或完整，无法进行评估或实施。（可在专家审查期间提供其他文件。）
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. Application use as documented makes incorrect assumptions about DNS protocol behavior, such as wildcards, CNAME, DNAME, etc.
3. 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。
4. An excessive number of RRTYPE values is being requested when the purpose could be met with a smaller number of values or with Private Use values.
4. 当使用较少的值或私人使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 [RFC6891]. 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.
[RFC6891]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 [RFC1035], but the 16-bit unsigned integer field at the beginning of the RDATA is interpreted as a subtype as shown below. Use of the AFSDB RR to locate AFS cell database servers was deprecated by [RFC5864]. This subtype registry is hereby closed, and allocation of new subtypes is no longer permitted.
AFSDB RR[RFC1183]是一种不区分类的RR，它与MX RR[RFC1035]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如下所示的子类型。[RFC5864]不赞成使用AFSDB RR定位AFS单元数据库服务器。此子类型注册表在此关闭，不再允许分配新的子类型。
Decimal Hexadecimal Assignment Policy
十进制十六进制分配策略
0 0x0000 Reserved; registry closed
0 0x0000保留；注册表已关闭
1 0x0001 AFS v3.0 Location Service [RFC1183]
1 0x0001 AFS 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 Not allocated; registry closed
3-65279 0x0003-0xFEFF未分配；注册表已关闭
65,280 - 65,534 0xFF00 - 0xFFFE Private Use
65280-65534 0xFF00-0xFFFE私人使用
65,535 0xFFFF Reserved; registry closed
预留65535 0xFFFF；注册表已关闭
There are currently two subcategories of DNS CLASSes: normal, data-containing classes; and QCLASSes that are only meaningful in queries or updates.
目前有两个子类的DNS类：正常，数据包含类；以及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 namespace 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，一个数据类的命名空间或根服务器与另一个数据类的命名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 been 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”。
Assigned CLASSes have mnemonics that must be completely disjoint from the mnemonics used for RRTYPEs and that must match the regular expression below. In addition, the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names specified in Section 5 of [RFC3597] cannot be assigned as new CLASS mnemonics.
指定类的助记符必须与RRTYPE使用的助记符完全分离，并且必须与下面的正则表达式匹配。此外，[RFC3597]第5节中指定的泛型类和RRTYPE名称不能指定为新的类助记符。
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9] but not (CLASS|TYPE)[0-9]*
[A-Z][A-Z0-9\-]*[A-Z0-9]但不是（类别|类型）[0-9]*
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 Assignment / Policy, Reference
十进制十六进制分配/策略，参考
0 0x0000 Reserved; assignment requires a Standards Action.
0 0x0000保留；分配需要标准操作。
1 0x0001 Internet (IN) [RFC1035]
1 0x0001互联网（IN）[RFC1035]
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年]
4 0x0004 Hesiod (HS) [Dyer1987]
4 0x0004赫西奥德（HS）[1 987]
5 - 127 0x0005 - 0x007F Available for assignment by IETF Review for data CLASSes only.
5-127 0x0005-0x007F仅可供IETF审查分配给数据类。
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无[RFC2136]
255 0x00FF QCLASS * (ANY) [RFC1035]
255 0x00FF QCLASS*（任何）[RFC1035]
256 - 32,767 0x0100 - 0x7FFF Available for assignment by IETF Review.
256-32767 0x0100-0x7FFF可供IETF审查分配。
32,768 - 57,343 0x8000 - 0xDFFF Available for assignment to data CLASSes only; Specification Required.
32768-57343 0x8000-0xDFFF仅可分配给数据类；规格要求。
57,344 - 65,279 0xE000 - 0xFEFF Available for assignment to QCLASSes and Meta-CLASSes only; Specification Required.
57344-65279 0xE000-0xFEFF仅可分配给QClass和Meta类；规格要求。
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 a Standards Action.
预留65535 0xFFFF；只能由标准操作指定。
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 printing ASCII characters [US-ASCII]. For retrieval, Text labels are defined to treat ASCII uppercase and lowercase letter codes as matching [RFC4343]. Binary labels are bit sequences [RFC2673]. The Binary Label type is Historic [RFC6891].
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打印ASCII字符[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]。二进制标签类型为历史[RFC6891]。
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.
本文档完全包含DNS IANA注意事项。
IANA has established a process for accepting Appendix A templates and selecting an Expert from those appointed to review such template form applications. IANA forwards the template to the Expert, copying the applicant. IANA archives and makes available all approved RRTYPE allocation templates and referred documentation (unless it is readily available at a stable URI). It is the duty of the applicant to post the formal application template to the dns-rrtype-applications@ietf.org mailing list, which IANA will monitor. The dnsext@ietf.org mailing list is for community discussion and comment. See Section 3.1 and Appendix A for more details.
IANA已经建立了一个程序，用于接受附录a模板，并从指定的人员中选择一名专家来审查此类模板申请。IANA将模板转发给专家，复制申请人。IANA存档并提供所有批准的RRTYPE分配模板和参考文档（除非在稳定的URI中随时可用）。申请人有责任将正式申请模板发布到dns rrtype-applications@ietf.orgIANA将监控的邮件列表。这个dnsext@ietf.org邮件列表用于社区讨论和评论。详见第3.1节和附录A。
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.1 Submission Type: [ ] New RRTYPE [ ] Modification to RRTYPE B.2 Kind of RR: [ ] Data RR [ ] Meta-RR
B.1提交类型：[]新RRTYPE[]对RRTYPE B的修改。2 RR类型：[]数据RR[]元RR
C. Contact Information for submitter (will be publicly posted): Name: Email Address: International telephone number: Other contact handles:
C.提交人的联系信息（将公开发布）：姓名：电子邮件地址：国际电话号码：其他联系方式：
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. 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。大多数审阅者将是DNS专家，他们可能对您的应用程序空间了解有限。
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。此描述可以在模板中联机提供、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)?
G.新RRTYPE需要什么助记符（可选）？
Note: If a mnemonic is not supplied, not allowed, or duplicates an existing RRTYPE or CLASS mnemonic, the Expert will assign a mnemonic.
注：如果未提供助记符、不允许使用助记符或与现有RRTYPE或CLASS助记符重复，专家将指定助记符。
H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA registry or require the creation of a new IANA subregistry in DNS Parameters? If so, please indicate which registry is to be used or created. If a new subregistry 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是否使用任何现有的IANA注册表或要求在DNS参数中创建新的IANA子域？如果是，请说明将使用或创建哪个注册表。如果需要新的子省，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：
Dropped description of changes from RFC 5395 to [RFC6195], since those changes have already happened and we don't need to do them again. Added description of changes from [RFC6195] to this document.
删除了从RFC 5395到[RFC6195]的更改描述，因为这些更改已经发生，我们不需要再次执行。本文件增加了[RFC6195]变更说明。
Cut back RRTYPE Expert Review period to two weeks and eliminated the mandatory dnsext@ietf.org comment period. Changed workflow description for RRTYPE review and allocation to correspond more closely to actual practice.
将RRTYPE专家审查期缩短至两周，并取消了强制性审查dnsext@ietf.org评论期。更改了RRTYPE审查和分配的工作流描述，以更接近实际做法。
Closed the AFSDB subtype registry and added an informative reference to [RFC5864] where the use of the AFSDB RR to locate AFS cell database servers is deprecated.
关闭了AFSDB子类型注册表，并添加了对[RFC5864]的参考信息，其中不推荐使用AFSDB RR定位AFS单元数据库服务器。
Clarified IANA archiving of referenced documentation as well as approved RRTYPE application template.
澄清IANA对参考文件的归档以及经批准的RRTYPE应用程序模板。
In the RRTYPE application template, changed the label of question "B" to "B.1" and added "B.2" to ask about the kind of RR.
在RRTYPE应用程序模板中，将问题“B”的标签更改为“B.1”，并添加“B.2”以询问RR的类型。
Added text and an exclusory regular expression to Sections 3.1 and 3.2 to prohibit the use of a slight generalization of the generic CLASS and RRTYPE names specified in [RFC3597] as the mnemonics for new CLASSes and RRTYPEs.
在第3.1节和第3.2节中添加了文本和排他性正则表达式，以禁止使用[RFC3597]中指定的泛型类和RRTYPE名称的轻微泛化作为新类和RRTYPE的助记符。
Parenthetically listed "ANY" as well as "ALL" as a meaning for the "*" RRTYPE.
在括号中列出“ANY”和“ALL”作为“*”RRTYPE的含义。
Clarified that there is one DNS error number space for headers, OPT extended headers, TSIG RRs, and TKEY RRs. Noted that this is considered to update [RFC2845] and [RFC2930]. Noted the overloading of error number 9 as well as 16.
澄清了头、OPT扩展头、TSIG RRs和TKEY RRs有一个DNS错误号空间。注意，这被视为更新[RFC2845]和[RFC2930]。注意到错误号9和16的过载。
Updated references for revised versions.
修订版本的更新参考。
Incorporated a number of editorial changes and typo fixes.
合并了一些编辑修改和排版修正。
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。
[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。
[RFC6840] Weiler, S., Ed., and D. Blacka, Ed., "Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNS Security (DNSSEC)", RFC 6840, February 2013.
[RFC6840]Weiler，S.，Ed.，和D.Blacka，Ed.“DNS安全性（DNSSEC）的澄清和实施说明”，RFC 68402013年2月。
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, April 2013.
[RFC6891]Damas，J.，Graff，M.，和Vixie，P.，“DNS的扩展机制（EDNS（0）），STD 75，RFC 6891，2013年4月。
[US-ASCII] American National Standards Institute (formerly United States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968.
[US-ASCII]美国国家标准协会（前美国标准协会），“美国信息交换代码”，ANSI X3.4-1968，1968年。
ANSI X3.4-1968 has been replaced by newer versions with slight modifications, but the 1968 version remains definitive for the Internet.
ANSI X3.4-1968已被稍作修改的较新版本所取代，但1968年版本仍然是互联网的最终版本。
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。
[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。
[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。
[RFC5864] Allbery, R., "DNS SRV Resource Records for AFS", RFC 5864, April 2010.
[RFC5864]Allbery，R.，“AFS的DNS SRV资源记录”，RFC 5864，2010年4月。
[RFC6195] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", RFC 6195, March 2011.
[RFC6195]Eastlake 3rd，D.，“域名系统（DNS）IANA注意事项”，RFC 61952011年3月。
Acknowledgements
致谢
Alfred Hoenes' contributions are gratefully acknowledged as are those by Mark Andrews, Dick Franks, and Michael Sheldon.
阿尔弗雷德·霍恩斯（Alfred Hoenes）的贡献以及马克·安德鲁斯（Mark Andrews）、迪克·弗兰克斯（Dick Franks）和迈克尔·谢尔顿（Michael Sheldon）的贡献都得到了感谢。
Author's Address
作者地址
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Huawei Technologies 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA
Donald E.Eastlake第三华为技术有限公司美国马萨诸塞州米尔福德海狸街155号01757
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com