add
This commit is contained in:
646
doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsind-kitchen-sink-01.txt
Normal file
646
doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsind-kitchen-sink-01.txt
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,646 @@
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
|
||||
IBM
|
||||
Expires February 2000 August 1999
|
||||
|
||||
draft-ietf-dnsind-kitchen-sink-01.txt
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The Kitchen Sink DNS Resource Record
|
||||
--- ------- ---- --- -------- ------
|
||||
|
||||
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Status of This Document
|
||||
|
||||
This draft, file name draft-ietf-dnsind-kitchen-sink-01.txt, is
|
||||
intended to be become a Proposed Standard RFC. Distribution of this
|
||||
document is unlimited. Comments should be sent to
|
||||
<namedroppers@internic.net> or to the author.
|
||||
|
||||
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
|
||||
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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. Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
|
||||
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet-
|
||||
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a
|
||||
``working draft'' or ``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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check the
|
||||
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
|
||||
Directories as listed at <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Abstract
|
||||
|
||||
Periodically people desire to put proprietary, complex, and/or
|
||||
obscure data into the Domain Name System (DNS). This draft defines a
|
||||
kitchen sink Resource Record that will satisfy this desire for the
|
||||
storage of miscellaneous structured information.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 1]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT The Kitchen Sink Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Acknowledgements
|
||||
|
||||
The suggestions or information provided by the following persons have
|
||||
improved this document and they are gratefully acknowledged:
|
||||
|
||||
Rob Austein
|
||||
Johnny Eriksson
|
||||
Phillip H. Griffin
|
||||
Michael A. Patton
|
||||
David Singer
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Table of Contents
|
||||
|
||||
Status of This Document....................................1
|
||||
Abstract...................................................1
|
||||
|
||||
Acknowledgements...........................................2
|
||||
Table of Contents..........................................2
|
||||
|
||||
1. Introduction............................................3
|
||||
2. Kitchen Sink Resource Record............................3
|
||||
2.1 The Meaning Octet......................................4
|
||||
2.2 The Coding and Subcoding Octets........................5
|
||||
2.2.1 ASN.1 Subcodings.....................................7
|
||||
2.2.2 MIME Subcodings......................................7
|
||||
2.2.3 Text Subcodings......................................8
|
||||
3. Master File Representation..............................8
|
||||
4. Performance Considerations..............................8
|
||||
5. Security Considerations.................................9
|
||||
6. IANA Considerations.....................................9
|
||||
|
||||
References................................................10
|
||||
Author's Address..........................................11
|
||||
Expiration and File Name..................................11
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 2]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT The Kitchen Sink Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1. Introduction
|
||||
|
||||
The Domain Name System (DNS) provides a replicated distributed secure
|
||||
hierarchical database which stores "resource records" (RRs) under
|
||||
hierarchical domain names. This data is structured into zones which
|
||||
are independently maintained. [RFC 1034, 1035, 2535]
|
||||
|
||||
Numerous types of RRs have been defined. These support such critical
|
||||
functions as host name to address translation (A, AAAA, etc. RRs),
|
||||
automatic mail routing (MX etc. RRs), and other functions. In
|
||||
addition, there are RRs defined related to the zone structure and
|
||||
administration of the DNS (SOA, NS, and RP RRs), security (SIG, KEY,
|
||||
and NXT RRs), etc. There is a TXT RR for the inclusion of general
|
||||
human readable text.
|
||||
|
||||
New RRs that are reasonably simple and designed via the open IETF
|
||||
standards process are periodically added as new needs become
|
||||
apparent. But there are periodically people who want to put some
|
||||
proprietary, complex and/or non-standard structured data in the DNS.
|
||||
In the past they have frequently come up with some way of
|
||||
reinterpreting the TXT RR, since that is one of the least constrained
|
||||
RRs. This is likely a bad idea since all previous ways to
|
||||
reinterpreting the TXT RR have sunk without a trace. (Well, if they
|
||||
actually got an RFC out, it's still there, but, practically speaking,
|
||||
almost nobody actually uses it.)
|
||||
|
||||
If a new type of data is needed for a global interoperable use in the
|
||||
DNS, the best course is to design a new RR that meets the need
|
||||
through the IETF standards process. This draft defines an extremely
|
||||
general and flexible RR which can be used for other data, such as
|
||||
proprietary data, where global interoperability is not a
|
||||
consideration. It includes representations of OSI ASN.1, MIME, XML,
|
||||
and, recursively, DNS RRs.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
2. Kitchen Sink Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
The symbol for the kitchen sink resource record is SINK. Its type
|
||||
number is 40. This type is defined across all DNS classes.
|
||||
|
||||
The RDATA portion of the SINK RR is structured as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 3]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT The Kitchen Sink Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
1 1 1 1 1 1
|
||||
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
|
||||
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|
||||
| meaning | coding |
|
||||
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|
||||
| subcoding | /
|
||||
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ /
|
||||
/ data /
|
||||
/ /
|
||||
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|
||||
|
||||
The "meaning", "coding", and "subcoding" octets are always present.
|
||||
The "data" portion is variable length and could be null in some
|
||||
cases. The size of the "data" portion can always be determined by
|
||||
subtracting 3 from the SINK resource record RDLENGTH. The coding
|
||||
octet gives the general structure of the data. The subcoding octet
|
||||
provides additional information depending on the value of the coding
|
||||
nibble.
|
||||
|
||||
All references to "domain name" in this document mean domain name in
|
||||
the IP DNS class.
|
||||
|
||||
Although it is unlikely, it is noted that multiple popular uses of
|
||||
SINK might develop that are not distinguished by using different
|
||||
parts of the DNS name space or different DNS classes. If this
|
||||
occurs, retrievals may fetch large sets of SINK RRs which will likely
|
||||
have to be sorted through at the application level. Should this
|
||||
occur, such popular uses of SINK should obtain and migrate to their
|
||||
own RR number using normal RR number allocation procedures or it
|
||||
would be possible to define an extended query operation that used a
|
||||
more fine grained selection method than just the RR type.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
2.1 The Meaning Octet
|
||||
|
||||
The meaning octet indicates whether any semantic labeling appears at
|
||||
the beginning of the data field and the format of such semantic
|
||||
labeling. This contrasts with the coding and subcoding octets which
|
||||
merely indicate format.
|
||||
|
||||
The types of labels available are chosen to be globally unique and
|
||||
under the control of some "owner". The owner designates the meaning
|
||||
associated with the labels they control. Where the label is a URI,
|
||||
it is recommended that a retrieval from the URI fetch material that
|
||||
would be helpful in determining this meaning. No a priori method is
|
||||
defined for determining the meaning of other labels beside an out of
|
||||
band question to the owner.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 4]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT The Kitchen Sink Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INITIAL ASSIGNED MEANING VALUES
|
||||
|
||||
0 - reserved.
|
||||
|
||||
1 - none.
|
||||
2 - OID.
|
||||
3 - domain name.
|
||||
4 - URI.
|
||||
|
||||
5-254 - available for assignment, see section 6.
|
||||
|
||||
255 - reserved.
|
||||
|
||||
A meaning octet value of 1 indicates that there is no semantic
|
||||
labeling at the beginning of the data area. The information,
|
||||
whatever it is, starts at the beginning of the data field and is
|
||||
coded according to the coding and subcoding octets.
|
||||
|
||||
Meaning octet values of 2, 3, or 4, indicate, on the other hand, that
|
||||
a semantic label is present. A value of two indicates that a BER
|
||||
[X.690] encoded OID appears prefixed by a single unsigned octet of
|
||||
OID length count. A value of three indicates that a DNS domain name
|
||||
appears in wire format with name compression prohibited. And a value
|
||||
of four indicates that a null (zero) octet terminated URI appears.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
2.2 The Coding and Subcoding Octets
|
||||
|
||||
The coding octet gives the major method by which the data in the data
|
||||
field is encoded. It should always have a meaningful value. The
|
||||
subcoding octet is intended to give additional coding details.
|
||||
Although the subcoding octet is always present, it must be
|
||||
interpreted in the context of the coding octet. For any coding octet
|
||||
value which does not specify subcoding octet value meanings, the
|
||||
subcoding octet MUST be ignored and SHOULD be zero.
|
||||
|
||||
While not explicitly mentioned below, the data field will actually
|
||||
start with a semantic label if indicated by the meaning octet. If
|
||||
such a semantic label is present, any data prefix required by the
|
||||
coding or subcoding octet is placed after the semantic label and
|
||||
before the data.
|
||||
|
||||
CODING OCTET VALUES
|
||||
|
||||
0 - reserved.
|
||||
|
||||
1 - DNS RRs. The data portion consists of DNS resource records
|
||||
as they would be transmitted in a DNS response section. The
|
||||
subcoding octet is the number of RRs in the data area as an
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 5]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT The Kitchen Sink Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
unsigned integer. Domain names may be compressed via pointers
|
||||
as in DNS replies. The origin for the pointers is the beginning
|
||||
of the RDATA section of the SINK RR. Thus the SINK RR is safe
|
||||
to cache since only code that knows how to parse the data
|
||||
portion of a SINK RR need know of and can expand these
|
||||
compressions.
|
||||
|
||||
2 - MIME structured data [RFC 2045, 2046]. The data portion is
|
||||
a MIME structured message. The "MIME-Version:" header line may
|
||||
be omitted unless the version is other than "1.0". The top
|
||||
level Content-Transfer-Encoding may be encoded into the
|
||||
subcoding octet (see section 2.2.2). Note that, to some extent,
|
||||
the size limitations of DNS RRs may be overcome in the MIME case
|
||||
by using the "Content-Type: message/external-body" mechanism.
|
||||
|
||||
3 - Text tagged data. The data potion consists of text formated
|
||||
as specified in the TXT RR except that the first and every
|
||||
subsequent odd numbered text item is considered to be a tag
|
||||
labeling the immediately following text item. If there are an
|
||||
odd number of text items overall, then the last is considered to
|
||||
label a null text item. Syntax of the tags is as specified in
|
||||
RFC 2396 for the "Authority Component" without the two leading
|
||||
slashes ("//") or trailing slash using the DNS for authority.
|
||||
Thus any organization with a domain name can assign tags without
|
||||
fear of conflict. The subcodings octet specifies the encoding
|
||||
of the labeled text items as specified in section 2.2.3.
|
||||
|
||||
4 - HTML. The subcoding octet indicates the version of HTML
|
||||
with the major version number in the upper nibble and the minor
|
||||
version number in the lower nibble. Thus, for example, HTML 3.2
|
||||
would be indicated by a 0x32 octet.
|
||||
|
||||
5 - XML. The subcoding octet is the version of XML, currently
|
||||
1.
|
||||
|
||||
6 - ASN.1 [X.680, etc.]. See section 2.2.1.
|
||||
|
||||
7-251 - Available for assignment, see section 6.
|
||||
|
||||
252 - Private coding format indicated by an OID. The format of
|
||||
the data portion is indicated by an initial BER encoded OID
|
||||
which is prefixed by a one octet unsigned length count for the
|
||||
OID. The subcoding octet is available for whatever use the
|
||||
private formating wishes to make of it.
|
||||
|
||||
253 - Private coding format indicated by a domain name. The
|
||||
format of the data portion is indicated by an initial wire
|
||||
format domain name with compression prohibited. (Such names are
|
||||
self delimiting.) The subcoding octet is available for whatever
|
||||
use the private formating wishes to make of it.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 6]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT The Kitchen Sink Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
254 - Private coding format indicated by a URI. The format of
|
||||
the data portion is indicated by an initial URI [RFC 2396] which
|
||||
is terminated by a zero (null) valued octet followed by the data
|
||||
with that format. The subcoding octet is available for whatever
|
||||
use the private formating wishes to make of it. The manner in
|
||||
which the URI specifies the format is not defined but presumably
|
||||
the retriever will recognize the URI by some pattern match.
|
||||
|
||||
255 - reserved.
|
||||
|
||||
NOTE: the existence of a DNS RR coding and the infinite possibilities
|
||||
of ASN.1, XML, and MIME permit one to SINK to even greater depths by
|
||||
nesting.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
2.2.1 ASN.1 Subcodings
|
||||
|
||||
For ASN.1 [X.680, etc.] data, a specific concrete encoding must be
|
||||
chosen as indicated by the subcoding octet.
|
||||
|
||||
ASN.* SUBCODINGS
|
||||
|
||||
0 - reserved.
|
||||
1 - BER ( Basic Encoding Rules [X.690] ).
|
||||
2 - DER ( Distinguished Encoding Rules [X.690] ).
|
||||
3 - PER ( Packed Encoding Rules ) Aligned [X.691].
|
||||
4 - PER Unaligned [X.691].
|
||||
5 - CER ( Canonical Encoding Rules [X.690] ).
|
||||
6-253 - available for assignment, see section 6.
|
||||
254 - private. This subcoding will never be assigned to a standard
|
||||
set of encoding rules. An OID preceded by a one octet unsigned
|
||||
length of OID appears at the beginning of the data area after
|
||||
the ASN coding OID.
|
||||
255 - reserved.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
2.2.2 MIME Subcodings
|
||||
|
||||
If the coding octet indicates the data is MIME structured, the
|
||||
precise encoding is given by the subcoding octets as listed below.
|
||||
|
||||
MIME SUBCODINGS
|
||||
|
||||
0 - reserved, see section 6.
|
||||
1 - 7bit.
|
||||
2 - 8bit.
|
||||
3 - binary.
|
||||
4 - quoted-printable.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 7]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT The Kitchen Sink Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
5 - base64.
|
||||
6 - 253 - available for assignment, see section 6.
|
||||
254 - private. The data portion must start with an "x-" token
|
||||
denoting the private content-transfer-encoding immediately
|
||||
followed by one null (zero) octet followed by the remainder of
|
||||
the MIME object.
|
||||
255 - reserved, see section 6.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
2.2.3 Text Subcodings
|
||||
|
||||
If the coding octet indicates the data is text, the exact encoding of
|
||||
the text items is indicated by the subcoding octet as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
TEXT SUBCODINGS
|
||||
|
||||
0 - reserved, see section 6.
|
||||
1 - ASCII.
|
||||
2 - UTF-7 [RFC 1642].
|
||||
3 - UTF-8 [RFC 2044].
|
||||
4 - ASCII with MIME header escapes [RFC 2047].
|
||||
5 - 253 - available for assignment, see section 6.
|
||||
254 - private. Each text item must start with a domain name [RFC
|
||||
1034] denoting the private text encoding immediately followed by
|
||||
one null (zero) octet followed by the remainder of the text
|
||||
item.
|
||||
255 - reserved, see section 6.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
3. Master File Representation
|
||||
|
||||
SINK resource records may appear as lines in zone master files. The
|
||||
meaning, coding, and subcoding appear as unsigned decimal integers.
|
||||
The data portion can be quite long. It is represented in base 64
|
||||
[RFC 2045] and may be divided up into any number of white space
|
||||
separated substrings, down to single base 64 digits, which are
|
||||
concatenated to obtain the full data. These substrings can span
|
||||
lines using the standard parenthesis notation. (This type of base64
|
||||
master file data is also required to support the DNS KEY and SIG
|
||||
security RRs [RFC 2535].)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
4. Performance Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
Currently DNS is optimized for small data transfers, generally not
|
||||
exceeding 512 octets including overhead. Larger transfers are less
|
||||
efficient but do work correctly and efforts are underway to make them
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 8]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT The Kitchen Sink Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
more efficient.
|
||||
|
||||
It is easy to create very large RRs or RR sets using SINK. DNS
|
||||
administrators should think about this and may wish to discourage
|
||||
large RRs or RR sets. Consideration should also be given to putting
|
||||
zones from which large RRs or RR sets will be commonly retrieved on
|
||||
separate hosts which can be tuned for the load this will represent.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
5. Security Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
Since the SINK resource record can be used to store arbitrary data in
|
||||
the DNS, this data could have security consequences, particularly if
|
||||
it is control, executable, macro, or interpretable information or
|
||||
very large and might cause buffer overflow. Due care should be
|
||||
taken.
|
||||
|
||||
[RFC 2535] covers data original authentication of the data in the
|
||||
domain name system including SINK RRs.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
6. IANA Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
Assignment of specific meaning to the values listed herein as
|
||||
"reserved" requires an IETF standards action.
|
||||
|
||||
All other assignments of available meaning, coding, or subcoding
|
||||
octet values are by IETF consensus.
|
||||
|
||||
The many provisions for private indicita specified by separately
|
||||
allocated OIDs, domain names, or URIs should cover most requirements
|
||||
for private or proprietary values.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 9]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT The Kitchen Sink Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
|
||||
[RFC 1034] - P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - concepts and
|
||||
facilities", 11/01/1987.
|
||||
|
||||
[RFC 1035] - P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - implementation and
|
||||
specification", 11/01/1987.
|
||||
|
||||
[RFC 1642] - D. Goldsmith, M. Davis, "UTF-7 - A Mail-Safe
|
||||
Transformation Format of Unicode", 07/13/1994.
|
||||
|
||||
[RFC 2044] - F. Yergeau, "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode
|
||||
and ISO 10646", 10/30/1996.
|
||||
|
||||
[RFC 2045] - N. Freed, N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
|
||||
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
|
||||
12/02/1996.
|
||||
|
||||
[RFC 2046] - N. Freed, N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
|
||||
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", 12/02/1996.
|
||||
|
||||
[RFC 2047] - K. Moore, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
|
||||
Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
|
||||
12/02/1996.
|
||||
|
||||
[RFC 2396] - T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter, "Uniform
|
||||
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", August 1998.
|
||||
|
||||
[RFC 2535] - D. Eastlake, "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
|
||||
March 1999.
|
||||
|
||||
[X.680] - ITU-T Recommendation X.680 (1997) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:1998,
|
||||
Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1):
|
||||
Specification of Basic Notation
|
||||
|
||||
[X.681] - ITU-T Recommendation X.681 (1997) | ISO/IEC 8824-2:1998,
|
||||
Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1):
|
||||
Information Object Specification
|
||||
|
||||
[X.682] - ITU-T Recommendation X.682 (1997) | ISO/IEC 8824-3:1998,
|
||||
Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1):
|
||||
Constraint Specification
|
||||
|
||||
[X.683] - ITU-T Recommendation X.683 (1997) | ISO/IEC 8824-4:1998,
|
||||
Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1):
|
||||
Parameterization of ASN.1 Specifications
|
||||
|
||||
[X.690] - ITU-T Recommendation X.690 (1997) | ISO/IEC 8825-1:1998,
|
||||
Information Technology - ASN.1 Encoding Rules: Specification of Basic
|
||||
Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 10]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
INTERNET-DRAFT The Kitchen Sink Resource Record
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)
|
||||
|
||||
[X.691] - ITU-T Recommendation X.691 (1997) | ISO/IEC 8825-2:1998,
|
||||
Information Technology - ASN.1 Encoding Rules: Specification of
|
||||
Packed Encoding Rules (PER)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Author's Address
|
||||
|
||||
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
|
||||
IBM
|
||||
65 Shindegan Hill Road
|
||||
Carmel, 10512 USA
|
||||
|
||||
Telephone: +1 914-276-2668 (h)
|
||||
+1 914-784-7913 (w)
|
||||
FAX: +1 914-784-3833 (w)
|
||||
EMail: dee3@us.ibm.com
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Expiration and File Name
|
||||
|
||||
This draft expires February 2000.
|
||||
|
||||
Its file name is draft-ietf-dnsind-kitchen-sink-01.txt.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
D. Eastlake 3rd [Page 11]
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user