Subject: EDNS0 numbers

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:37:54 -0800

In an upcoming Mac OS X release, we have code that implements two EDNS0 
extensions. Before we ship we obviously need to get official EDNS0 
numbers allocated for these. RFC 2671 says:

>   OPTION-CODE    (Assigned by IANA.)

However, when I look at <http://www.iana.org/numbers.html> I cannot find 
any registry for EDNS0 OPTION-CODEs. Where do we have to go to apply for 
an EDNS0 OPTION-CODE?

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:25:49 +1100

> any registry for EDNS0 OPTION-CODEs. Where do we have to go to apply for 

	I would just write an ID and request a option code in
	IANA Considerations.

	It also looks like "Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations"
	needs to be revised as this should be covered there.
 
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 20:05:23 -0500 (EST)

> > ... RFC 2671 says:

I can't find the registry either.  (IANA, where are you?)  But section
7 of RFC2671 says:

     IESG approval should be required to create new entries in the EDNS
     Extended Label Type or EDNS Version Number registries, while any
     published RFC (including Informational, Experimental, or BCP)
     should be grounds for allocation of an EDNS Option Code.

While very clear, this metric doesn't fall into any of the buckets in
RFC2434.  It sounds closest to "IETF Consensus" (or "IETF Review", as
used by draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-01.txt), but one
could argue that it was intended to be "Specification Required".

As Mark suggested, write an RFC and submit it for publication as
informational, experimental, or even standards track.  If you really
don't want to do an RFC for your option code assignments, then propose
a revision to RFC2929 that includes text on EDNS0 option codes and
makes the registry "specification required".  In either case, the
"where do we go" seems to be "the RFC Editor".

In the meantime, take a look at RFC3692.

-- Sam

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:33:18 +1100

> In the meantime, take a look at RFC3692.

	Stuart you may even need a new EDNS version.  RFC 2671 doesn't
	state what the correct handling, as of EDNS0, of unknown /
	unsupported options.  A new version, with associated options,
	however is well defined (return BADVERS).

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 01:44:38 +0000

> 	however is well defined (return BADVERS).

that's overkill.  any option not understood should just be ignored; use
of a new version should be reserved for occasions where the new signalling
is not in fact optional.