Subject: Re: WG Last Call: DNS-IANA

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:45:51 -0500

At 11:39 AM 12/10/99 , Thomas Narten wrote:

>>      1 - 127
>>    0x0001 - 0x007F - remaining TYPEs in this range are assigned for data
>>           TYPEs only by IETF consensus.
>> 
>>      128 - 255
>>    0x0080 - 0x00FF - remaining TYPEs in this rage are assigned for Q and
>>           Meta TYPEs only by IETF consensus.
>
>Is there a technical reason for this? The document itself states that
>there is already an exception to the above (i.e., OPT).

Yes there are technical reasons
1. separates types that are used by DNS for DNS operations from types that
are stored in DNS. Allowing implementations to better handle unknown/new
types. 
2. Conserves the type space up to 127 (the type numbers covered by NXT). 

>
>>      65280 - 65534
>>    0xFF00 - 0xFFFE - assigned for experimental and pre-standards use.
>>           Because their use is not coordinated, these values/uses may
>>           conflict between different experiments.  These values should
>>           be used in Internet Drafts for protocols that do not yet have
>>           an RFC on the Standards Track [RFC 2026].  When such an RFC
>>           issues, a non-experimental value will be assigned.
>
>Clarification: does IANA give these out (and then reclaim them later)?
>If so, how is their use "not coordinated"? Would "Private Use" as
>defined in 2434 accomplish the same goal without requiring IANA be
>involved with individual requests?

Yes "Private use" is a better. 

	Olafur

--------
Olafur Gudmundsson - NAI Labs 			(443)-259-2389 
The Security Research Division of Network Associates, Inc.
[email-masked]  [email-masked]  Private: [email-masked]