From 7057dff5fe00c76f9baaa9da1733ca811bc637de Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Andrews Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 02:33:31 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] new draft --- .../draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-01.txt | 335 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 335 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-01.txt diff --git a/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-01.txt b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-01.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..123d3cc096 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-01.txt @@ -0,0 +1,335 @@ + +DNS Extensions Working Group J. Schlyter +Internet-Draft August 24, 2004 +Expires: February 22, 2005 + + + RFC 3597 Interoperability Report + draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-01.txt + +Status of this Memo + + By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable + patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, + and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with + RFC 3667. + + Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering + Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other + groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. + + Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months + and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any + time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference + material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." + + The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// + www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. + + The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at + http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. + + This Internet-Draft will expire on February 22, 2005. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + This memo documents the result from the RFC 3597 (Handling of Unknown + DNS Resource Record Types) interoperability testing. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Schlyter Expires February 22, 2005 [Page 1] + +Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report August 2004 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2. Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3. Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3.1 Authoritative Primary Name Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3.2 Authoritative Secondary Name Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3.3 Full Recursive Resolver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3.4 Stub Resolver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3.5 DNSSEC Signer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 4. Problems found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + A. Test zone data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 6 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Schlyter Expires February 22, 2005 [Page 2] + +Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report August 2004 + + +1. Introduction + + This memo documents the result from the RFC 3597 (Handling of Unknown + DNS Resource Record Types) interoperability testing. The test was + performed during June and July 2004 by request of the IETF DNS + Extensions Working Group. + +2. Implementations + + The following is a list, in alphabetic order, of implementations for + compliance of RFC 3597: + + DNSJava 1.6.4 + ISC BIND 8.4.5rc4 + ISC BIND 9.3.0rc2 + NSD 2.1.1 + Net::DNS 0.47 patchlevel 1 + Nominum ANS 2.2.1.0.d + + These implementations covers the following functions (number of + implementations tested for each function in paranthesis): + + Authoritative Name Servers (4) + Full Recursive Resolver (2) + Stub Resolver (4) + DNSSEC Zone Signers (2) + +3. Tests + +3.1 Authoritative Primary Name Server + + The test zone data (Appendix A) was loaded into the name server + implementation and the server was queried for the loaded information. + +3.2 Authoritative Secondary Name Server + + The test zone data (Appendix A) was transferred using AXFR from + another name server implementation and the server was queried for the + transferred information. + +3.3 Full Recursive Resolver + + A recursive resolver was queried for resource records from a domain + with the test zone data (Appendix A). + +3.4 Stub Resolver + + A stub resolver was used to query resource records from a domain with + + + +Schlyter Expires February 22, 2005 [Page 3] + +Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report August 2004 + + + the test zone data (Appendix A). + +3.5 DNSSEC Signer + + A DNSSEC signer was used to sign a zone with test zone data (Appendix + A). + +4. Problems found + + Two implementations had problems with text presentation of zero + length RDATA. + + One implementation had problems with text presentation of RR type + code and classes >= 4096. + + Bug reports were filed for problems found. + +5. Summary + + Unknown type codes works in the tested authoritative servers, + recursive resolvers and stub clients. + + No changes are needed to advance RFC 3597 to draft standard. + +Normative References + + [1] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) + Types", RFC 3597, September 2003. + + +Author's Address + + Jakob Schlyter + + EMail: jakob@rfc.se + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Schlyter Expires February 22, 2005 [Page 4] + +Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report August 2004 + + +Appendix A. Test zone data + + ; A-record encoded as TYPE1 + a TYPE1 \# 4 7f000001 + a TYPE1 192.0.2.1 + a A \# 4 7f000002 + + ; draft-ietf-secsh-dns-05.txt + sshfp TYPE44 \# 22 01 01 c691e90714a1629d167de8e5ee0021f12a7eaa1e + + ; bogus test record (from RFC 3597) + type731 TYPE731 \# 6 abcd ( + ef 01 23 45 ) + + ; zero length RDATA (from RFC 3597) + type62347 TYPE62347 \# 0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Schlyter Expires February 22, 2005 [Page 5] + +Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report August 2004 + + +Intellectual Property Statement + + The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any + Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to + pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in + this document or the extent to which any license under such rights + might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has + made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information + on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can + be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any + assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an + attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of + such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this + specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at + http://www.ietf.org/ipr. + + The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any + copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary + rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at + ietf-ipr@ietf.org. + + +Disclaimer of Validity + + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET + ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, + INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE + INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + + +Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject + to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and + except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. + + +Acknowledgment + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + +Schlyter Expires February 22, 2005 [Page 6] +