--- /dev/null
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ DNSOP Working Group Paul Vixie, ISC
+ INTERNET-DRAFT Akira Kato, WIDE
+ <draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-06.txt> August 2006
+
+ DNS Referral Response Size Issues
+
+ Status of this Memo
+ By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
+ applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
+ have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
+ aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
+
+ 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.
+
+ Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). All Rights Reserved.
+
+
+
+
+ Abstract
+
+ With a mandated default minimum maximum message size of 512 octets,
+ the DNS protocol presents some special problems for zones wishing to
+ expose a moderate or high number of authority servers (NS RRs). This
+ document explains the operational issues caused by, or related to
+ this response size limit, and suggests ways to optimize the use of
+ this limited space. Guidance is offered to DNS server implementors
+ and to DNS zone operators.
+
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 1]
+\f
+ INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
+
+
+ 1 - Introduction and Overview
+
+ 1.1. The DNS standard (see [RFC1035 4.2.1]) limits message size to 512
+ octets. Even though this limitation was due to the required minimum IP
+ reassembly limit for IPv4, it became a hard DNS protocol limit and is
+ not implicitly relaxed by changes in transport, for example to IPv6.
+
+ 1.2. The EDNS0 protocol extension (see [RFC2671 2.3, 4.5]) permits
+ larger responses by mutual agreement of the requester and responder.
+ The 512 octet message size limit will remain in practical effect until
+ there is widespread deployment of EDNS0 in DNS resolvers on the
+ Internet.
+
+ 1.3. Since DNS responses include a copy of the request, the space
+ available for response data is somewhat less than the full 512 octets.
+ Negative responses are quite small, but for positive and delegation
+ responses, every octet must be carefully and sparingly allocated. This
+ document specifically addresses delegation response sizes.
+
+ 2 - Delegation Details
+
+ 2.1. RELEVANT PROTOCOL ELEMENTS
+
+ 2.1.1. A delegation response will include the following elements:
+
+ Header Section: fixed length (12 octets)
+ Question Section: original query (name, class, type)
+ Answer Section: empty, or a CNAME/DNAME chain
+ Authority Section: NS RRset (nameserver names)
+ Additional Section: A and AAAA RRsets (nameserver addresses)
+
+ 2.1.2. If the total response size exceeds 512 octets, and if the data
+ that does not fit was "required", then the TC bit will be set
+ (indicating truncation). This will usually cause the requester to retry
+ using TCP, depending on what information was desired and what
+ information was omitted. For example, truncation in the authority
+ section is of no interest to a stub resolver who only plans to consume
+ the answer section. If a retry using TCP is needed, the total cost of
+ the transaction is much higher. See [RFC1123 6.1.3.2] for details on
+ the requirement that UDP be attempted before falling back to TCP.
+
+ 2.1.3. RRsets are never sent partially unless TC bit set to indicate
+ truncation. When TC bit is set, the final apparent RRset in the final
+ non-empty section must be considered "possibly damaged" (see [RFC1035
+ 6.2], [RFC2181 9]).
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 2]
+\f
+ INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
+
+
+ 2.1.4. With or without truncation, the glue present in the additional
+ data section should be considered "possibly incomplete", and requesters
+ should be prepared to re-query for any damaged or missing RRsets. Note
+ that truncation of the additional data section might not be signalled
+ via the TC bit since additional data is often optional (see discussion
+ in [RFC4472 B]).
+
+ 2.1.5. DNS label compression allows a domain name to be instantiated
+ only once per DNS message, and then referenced with a two-octet
+ "pointer" from other locations in that same DNS message (see [RFC1035
+ 4.1.4]). If all nameserver names in a message share a common parent
+ (for example, all ending in ".ROOT-SERVERS.NET"), then more space will
+ be available for incompressable data (such as nameserver addresses).
+
+ 2.1.6. The query name can be as long as 255 octets of network data. In
+ this worst case scenario, the question section will be 259 octets in
+ size, which would leave only 240 octets for the authority and additional
+ sections (after deducting 12 octets for the fixed length header.)
+
+ 2.2. ADVICE TO ZONE OWNERS
+
+ 2.2.1. Average and maximum question section sizes can be predicted by
+ the zone owner, since they will know what names actually exist, and can
+ measure which ones are queried for most often. Note that if the zone
+ contains any wildcards, it is possible for maximum length queries to
+ require positive responses, but that it is reasonable to expect
+ truncation and TCP retry in that case. For cost and performance
+ reasons, the majority of requests should be satisfied without truncation
+ or TCP retry.
+
+ 2.2.2. Some queries to non-existing names can be large, but this is not
+ a problem because negative responses need not contain any answer,
+ authority or additional records. See [RFC2308 2.1] for more information
+ about the format of negative responses.
+
+ 2.2.3. The minimum useful number of name servers is two, for redundancy
+ (see [RFC1034 4.1]). A zone's name servers should be reachable by all
+ IP transport protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use.
+
+ 2.2.4. The best case is no truncation at all. This is because many
+ requesters will retry using TCP immediately, or will automatically re-
+ query for RRsets that are possibly truncated, without considering
+ whether the omitted data was actually necessary.
+
+
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 3]
+\f
+ INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
+
+
+ 2.3. ADVICE TO SERVER IMPLEMENTORS
+
+ 2.3.1. In case of multi-homed name servers, it is advantageous to
+ include an address record from each of several name servers before
+ including several address records for any one name server. If address
+ records for more than one transport (for example, A and AAAA) are
+ available, then it is advantageous to include records of both types
+ early on, before the message is full.
+
+ 2.3.2. Each added NS RR for a zone will add 12 fixed octets (name, type,
+ class, ttl, and rdlen) plus 2 to 255 variable octets (for the NSDNAME).
+ Each A RR will require 16 octets, and each AAAA RR will require 28
+ octets.
+
+ 2.3.3. While DNS distinguishes between necessary and optional resource
+ records, this distinction is according to protocol elements necessary to
+ signify facts, and takes no official notice of protocol content
+ necessary to ensure correct operation. For example, a nameserver name
+ that is in or below the zone cut being described by a delegation is
+ "necessary content," since there is no way to reach that zone unless the
+ parent zone's delegation includes "glue records" describing that name
+ server's addresses.
+
+ 2.3.4. It is also necessary to distinguish between "explicit truncation"
+ where a message could not contain enough records to convey its intended
+ meaning, and so the TC bit has been set, and "silent truncation", where
+ the message was not large enough to contain some records which were "not
+ required", and so the TC bit was not set.
+
+ 2.3.5. A delegation response should prioritize glue records as follows.
+
+ first
+ All glue RRsets for one name server whose name is in or below the
+ zone being delegated, or which has multiple address RRsets (currently
+ A and AAAA), or preferably both;
+
+ second
+ Alternate between adding all glue RRsets for any name servers whose
+ names are in or below the zone being delegated, and all glue RRsets
+ for any name servers who have multiple address RRsets (currently A
+ and AAAA);
+
+ thence
+ All other glue RRsets, in any order.
+
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 4]
+\f
+ INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
+
+
+ Whenever there are multiple candidates for a position in this priority
+ scheme, one should be chosen on a round-robin or fully random basis.
+
+ The goal of this priority scheme is to offer "necessary" glue first,
+ avoiding silent truncation for this glue if possible.
+
+ 2.3.6. If any "necessary content" is silently truncated, then it is
+ advisable that the TC bit be set in order to force a TCP retry, rather
+ than have the zone be unreachable. Note that a parent server's proper
+ response to a query for in-child glue or below-child glue is a referral
+ rather than an answer, and that this referral MUST be able to contain
+ the in-child or below-child glue, and that in outlying cases, only EDNS
+ or TCP will be large enough to contain that data.
+
+ 3 - Analysis
+
+ 3.1. An instrumented protocol trace of a best case delegation response
+ follows. Note that 13 servers are named, and 13 addresses are given.
+ This query was artificially designed to exactly reach the 512 octet
+ limit.
+
+ ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANS: 0, AUTH: 13, ADDIT: 13
+ ;; QUERY SECTION:
+ ;; [23456789.123456789.123456789.\
+ 123456789.123456789.123456789.com A IN] ;; @80
+
+ ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
+ com. 86400 NS E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @112
+ com. 86400 NS F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @128
+ com. 86400 NS G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @144
+ com. 86400 NS H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @160
+ com. 86400 NS I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @176
+ com. 86400 NS J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @192
+ com. 86400 NS K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @208
+ com. 86400 NS L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @224
+ com. 86400 NS M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @240
+ com. 86400 NS A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @256
+ com. 86400 NS B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @272
+ com. 86400 NS C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @288
+ com. 86400 NS D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. ;; @304
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 5]
+\f
+ INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
+
+
+ ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
+ A.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.5.6.30 ;; @320
+ B.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.33.14.30 ;; @336
+ C.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.26.92.30 ;; @352
+ D.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.31.80.30 ;; @368
+ E.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.12.94.30 ;; @384
+ F.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.35.51.30 ;; @400
+ G.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.42.93.30 ;; @416
+ H.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.54.112.30 ;; @432
+ I.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.43.172.30 ;; @448
+ J.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.48.79.30 ;; @464
+ K.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.52.178.30 ;; @480
+ L.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.41.162.30 ;; @496
+ M.GTLD-SERVERS.NET. 86400 A 192.55.83.30 ;; @512
+
+ ;; MSG SIZE sent: 80 rcvd: 512
+
+ 3.2. For longer query names, the number of address records supplied will
+ be lower. Furthermore, it is only by using a common parent name (which
+ is GTLD-SERVERS.NET in this example) that all 13 addresses are able to
+ fit, due to the use of DNS compression pointers in the last 12
+ occurances of the parent domain name. The following output from a
+ response simulator demonstrates these properties.
+
+ % perl respsize.pl a.dns.br b.dns.br c.dns.br d.dns.br
+ a.dns.br requires 10 bytes
+ b.dns.br requires 4 bytes
+ c.dns.br requires 4 bytes
+ d.dns.br requires 4 bytes
+ # of NS: 4
+ For maximum size query (255 byte):
+ only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
+ A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 3 (yellow)
+ preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 3 (yellow)
+ For average size query (64 byte):
+ only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
+ A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 4 (green)
+ preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 4 (green)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 6]
+\f
+ INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
+
+
+ % perl respsize.pl ns-ext.isc.org ns.psg.com ns.ripe.net ns.eu.int
+ ns-ext.isc.org requires 16 bytes
+ ns.psg.com requires 12 bytes
+ ns.ripe.net requires 13 bytes
+ ns.eu.int requires 11 bytes
+ # of NS: 4
+ For maximum size query (255 byte):
+ only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
+ A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 3 (yellow)
+ preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 2 (yellow)
+ For average size query (64 byte):
+ only A is considered: # of A is 4 (green)
+ A and AAAA are considered: # of A+AAAA is 4 (green)
+ preferred-glue A is assumed: # of A is 4, # of AAAA is 4 (green)
+
+ (Note: The response simulator program is shown in Section 5.)
+
+ Here we use the term "green" if all address records could fit, or
+ "yellow" if two or more could fit, or "orange" if only one could fit, or
+ "red" if no address record could fit. It's clear that without a common
+ parent for nameserver names, much space would be lost. For these
+ examples we use an average/common name size of 15 octets, befitting our
+ assumption of GTLD-SERVERS.NET as our common parent name.
+
+ We're assuming a medium query name size of 64 since that is the typical
+ size seen in trace data at the time of this writing. If
+ Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) or any other technology which
+ results in larger query names be deployed significantly in advance of
+ EDNS, then new measurements and new estimates will have to be made.
+
+ 4 - Conclusions
+
+ 4.1. The current practice of giving all nameserver names a common parent
+ (such as GTLD-SERVERS.NET or ROOT-SERVERS.NET) saves space in DNS
+ responses and allows for more nameservers to be enumerated than would
+ otherwise be possible, since the common parent domain name only appears
+ once in a DNS message and is referred to via "compression pointers"
+ thereafter.
+
+ 4.2. If all nameserver names for a zone share a common parent, then it
+ is operationally advisable to make all servers for the zone thus served
+ also be authoritative for the zone of that common parent. For example,
+ the root name servers (?.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) can answer authoritatively
+ for the ROOT-SERVERS.NET. This is to ensure that the zone's servers
+ always have the zone's nameservers' glue available when delegating, and
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 7]
+\f
+ INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
+
+
+ will be able to respond with answers rather than referrals if a
+ requester who wants that glue comes back asking for it. In this case
+ the name server will likely be a "stealth server" -- authoritative but
+ unadvertised in the glue zone's NS RRset. See [RFC1996 2] for more
+ information about stealth servers.
+
+ 4.3. Thirteen (13) is the effective maximum number of nameserver names
+ usable traditional (non-extended) DNS, assuming a common parent domain
+ name, and given that implicit referral response truncation is
+ undesirable in the average case.
+
+ 4.4. Multi-homing of name servers within a protocol family is
+ inadvisable since the necessary glue RRsets (A or AAAA) are atomically
+ indivisible, and will be larger than a single resource record. Larger
+ RRsets are more likely to lead to or encounter truncation.
+
+ 4.5. Multi-homing of name servers across protocol families is less
+ likely to lead to or encounter truncation, partly because multiprotocol
+ clients are more likely to speak EDNS which can use a larger response
+ size limit, and partly because the resource records (A and AAAA) are in
+ different RRsets and are therefore divisible from each other.
+
+ 4.6. Name server names which are at or below the zone they serve are
+ more sensitive to referral response truncation, and glue records for
+ them should be considered "less optional" than other glue records, in
+ the assembly of referral responses.
+
+ 4.7. If a zone is served by thirteen (13) name servers having a common
+ parent name (such as ?.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) and each such name server has a
+ single address record in some protocol family (e.g., an A RR), then all
+ thirteen name servers or any subset thereof could multi-home in a second
+ protocol family by adding a second address record (e.g., an AAAA RR)
+ without reducing the reachability of the zone thus served.
+
+ 5 - Source Code
+
+ #!/usr/bin/perl
+ #
+ # SYNOPSIS
+ # repsize.pl [ -z zone ] fqdn_ns1 fqdn_ns2 ...
+ # if all queries are assumed to have a same zone suffix,
+ # such as "jp" in JP TLD servers, specify it in -z option
+ #
+ use strict;
+ use Getopt::Std;
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 8]
+\f
+ INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
+
+
+ my ($sz_msg) = (512);
+ my ($sz_header, $sz_ptr, $sz_rr_a, $sz_rr_aaaa) = (12, 2, 16, 28);
+ my ($sz_type, $sz_class, $sz_ttl, $sz_rdlen) = (2, 2, 4, 2);
+ my (%namedb, $name, $nssect, %opts, $optz);
+ my $n_ns = 0;
+
+ getopt('z', %opts);
+ if (defined($opts{'z'})) {
+ server_name_len($opts{'z'}); # just register it
+ }
+
+ foreach $name (@ARGV) {
+ my $len;
+ $n_ns++;
+ $len = server_name_len($name);
+ print "$name requires $len bytes\n";
+ $nssect += $sz_ptr + $sz_type + $sz_class + $sz_ttl
+ + $sz_rdlen + $len;
+ }
+ print "# of NS: $n_ns\n";
+ arsect(255, $nssect, $n_ns, "maximum");
+ arsect(64, $nssect, $n_ns, "average");
+
+ sub server_name_len {
+ my ($name) = @_;
+ my (@labels, $len, $n, $suffix);
+
+ $name =~ tr/A-Z/a-z/;
+ @labels = split(/\./, $name);
+ $len = length(join('.', @labels)) + 2;
+ for ($n = 0; $#labels >= 0; $n++, shift @labels) {
+ $suffix = join('.', @labels);
+ return length($name) - length($suffix) + $sz_ptr
+ if (defined($namedb{$suffix}));
+ $namedb{$suffix} = 1;
+ }
+ return $len;
+ }
+
+ sub arsect {
+ my ($sz_query, $nssect, $n_ns, $cond) = @_;
+ my ($space, $n_a, $n_a_aaaa, $n_p_aaaa, $ansect);
+ $ansect = $sz_query + 1 + $sz_type + $sz_class;
+ $space = $sz_msg - $sz_header - $ansect - $nssect;
+ $n_a = atmost(int($space / $sz_rr_a), $n_ns);
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 9]
+\f
+ INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
+
+
+ $n_a_aaaa = atmost(int($space
+ / ($sz_rr_a + $sz_rr_aaaa)), $n_ns);
+ $n_p_aaaa = atmost(int(($space - $sz_rr_a * $n_ns)
+ / $sz_rr_aaaa), $n_ns);
+ printf "For %s size query (%d byte):\n", $cond, $sz_query;
+ printf " only A is considered: ";
+ printf "# of A is %d (%s)\n", $n_a, &judge($n_a, $n_ns);
+ printf " A and AAAA are considered: ";
+ printf "# of A+AAAA is %d (%s)\n",
+ $n_a_aaaa, &judge($n_a_aaaa, $n_ns);
+ printf " preferred-glue A is assumed: ";
+ printf "# of A is %d, # of AAAA is %d (%s)\n",
+ $n_a, $n_p_aaaa, &judge($n_p_aaaa, $n_ns);
+ }
+
+ sub judge {
+ my ($n, $n_ns) = @_;
+ return "green" if ($n >= $n_ns);
+ return "yellow" if ($n >= 2);
+ return "orange" if ($n == 1);
+ return "red";
+ }
+
+ sub atmost {
+ my ($a, $b) = @_;
+ return 0 if ($a < 0);
+ return $b if ($a > $b);
+ return $a;
+ }
+
+ 6 - Security Considerations
+
+ The recommendations contained in this document have no known security
+ implications.
+
+ 7 - IANA Considerations
+
+ This document does not call for changes or additions to any IANA
+ registry.
+
+ 8 - Acknowledgement
+
+ The authors thank Peter Koch, Rob Austein, Joe Abley, and Mark Andrews
+ for their valuable comments and suggestions.
+
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 10]
+\f
+ INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
+
+
+ This work was supported by the US National Science Foundation (research
+ grant SCI-0427144) and DNS-OARC.
+
+ 9 - References
+
+ [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P.V., "Domain names - Concepts and Facilities",
+ RFC1034, November 1987.
+
+ [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P.V., "Domain names - Implementation and
+ Specification", RFC1035, November 1987.
+
+ [RFC1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
+ Application and Support", RFC1123, October 1989.
+
+ [RFC1996] Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
+ Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC1996, August 1996.
+
+ [RFC2181] Elz, R., Bush, R., "Clarifications to the DNS Specification",
+ RFC2181, July 1997.
+
+ [RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)",
+ RFC2308, March 1998.
+
+ [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC2671,
+ August 1999.
+
+ [RFC4472] Durand, A., Ihren, J., Savola, P., "Operational Consideration
+ and Issues with IPV6 DNS", April 2006.
+
+ 10 - Authors' Addresses
+
+ Paul Vixie
+ Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
+ 950 Charter Street
+ Redwood City, CA 94063
+ +1 650 423 1301
+ vixie@isc.org
+
+ Akira Kato
+ University of Tokyo, Information Technology Center
+ 2-11-16 Yayoi Bunkyo
+ Tokyo 113-8658, JAPAN
+ +81 3 5841 2750
+ kato@wide.ad.jp
+
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 11]
+\f
+ INTERNET-DRAFT August 2006 RESPSIZE
+
+
+ Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
+
+ 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.
+
+ 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.
+
+ Intellectual Property
+
+ 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
+ procedures with respect to rights in RFC 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.
+
+ Acknowledgement
+
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
+ Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
+
+
+
+
+ Expires January 2007 [Page 12]
+\f
+
projects / thirdparty / bind9.git / commitdiff
