分享
 
 
 

RFC2673 - Binary Labels in the Domain Name System

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group M. Crawford

Request for Comments: 2673 Fermilab

Category: Standards Track August 1999

Binary Labels in the Domain Name System

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the

Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for

improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet

Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state

and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.

1. IntrodUCtion and Terminology

This document defines a "Bit-String Label" which may appear within

domain names. This new label type compactly represents a sequence of

"One-Bit Labels" and enables resource records to be stored at any

bit-boundary in a binary-named section of the domain name tree.

The key Words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",

"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this

document are to be interpreted as described in [KWORD].

2. Motivation

Binary labels are intended to efficiently solve the problem of

storing data and delegating authority on arbitrary boundaries when

the structure of underlying name space is most naturally represented

in binary.

3. Label Format

Up to 256 One-Bit Labels can be grouped into a single Bit-String

Label. Within a Bit-String Label the most significant or "highest

level" bit appears first. This is unlike the ordering of DNS labels

themselves, which has the least significant or "lowest level" label

first. Nonetheless, this ordering seems to be the most natural and

efficient for representing binary labels.

Among consecutive Bit-String Labels, the bits in the first-appearing

label are less significant or "at a lower level" than the bits in

subsequent Bit-String Labels, just as ASCII labels are ordered.

3.1. Encoding

0 1 2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 . . .

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-//+-+-+-+-+-+-+

0 1 ELT Count Label ...

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+//-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

(Each tic mark represents one bit.)

ELT 000001 binary, the six-bit extended label type [EDNS0]

assigned to the Bit-String Label.

Count The number of significant bits in the Label field. A Count

value of zero indicates that 256 bits are significant.

(Thus the null label representing the DNS root cannot be

represented as a Bit String Label.)

Label The bit string representing a sequence of One-Bit Labels,

with the most significant bit first. That is, the One-Bit

Label in position 17 in the diagram above represents a

subdomain of the domain represented by the One-Bit Label in

position 16, and so on.

The Label field is padded on the right with zero to seven

pad bits to make the entire field occupy an integral number

of octets. These pad bits MUST be zero on transmission and

ignored on reception.

A sequence of bits may be split into two or more Bit-String Labels,

but the division points have no significance and need not be

preserved. An excessively clever server implementation might split

Bit-String Labels so as to maximize the effectiveness of message

compression [DNSIS]. A simpler server might divide Bit-String Labels

at zone boundaries, if any zone boundaries happen to fall between

One-Bit Labels.

3.2. Textual Representation

A Bit-String Label is represented in text -- in a zone file, for

example -- as a <bit-spec> surrounded by the delimiters "\[" and "]".

The <bit-spec> is either a dotted quad or a base indicator and a

sequence of digits appropriate to that base, optionally followed by a

slash and a length. The base indicators are "b", "o" and "x",

denoting base 2, 8 and 16 respectively. The length counts the

significant bits and MUST be between 1 and 32, inclusive, after a

dotted quad, or between 1 and 256, inclusive, after one of the other

forms. If the length is omitted, the implicit length is 32 for a

dotted quad or 1, 3 or 4 times the number of binary, octal or

hexadecimal digits supplied, respectively, for the other forms.

In augmented Backus-Naur form [ABNF],

bit-string-label = "\[" bit-spec "]"

bit-spec = bit-data [ "/" length ]

/ dotted-quad [ "/" slength ]

bit-data = "x" 1*64HEXDIG

/ "o" 1*86OCTDIG

/ "b" 1*256BIT

dotted-quad = decbyte "." decbyte "." decbyte "." decbyte

decbyte = 1*3DIGIT

length = NZDIGIT *2DIGIT

slength = NZDIGIT [ DIGIT ]

OCTDIG = %x30-37

NZDIGIT = %x31-39

If a <length> is present, the number of digits in the <bit-data> MUST

be just sufficient to contain the number of bits specified by the

<length>. If there are insignificant bits in a final hexadecimal or

octal digit, they MUST be zero. A <dotted-quad> always has all four

parts even if the associated <slength> is less than 24, but, like the

other forms, insignificant bits MUST be zero.

Each number represented by a <decbyte> must be between 0 and 255,

inclusive.

The number represented by <length> must be between 1 and 256

inclusive.

The number represented by <slength> must be between 1 and 32

inclusive.

When the textual form of a Bit-String Label is generated by machine,

the length SHOULD be eXPlicit, not implicit.

3.2.1. Examples

The following four textual forms represent the same Bit-String Label.

\[b11010000011101]

\[o64072/14]

\[xd074/14]

\[208.116.0.0/14]

The following represents two consecutive Bit-String Labels which

denote the same relative point in the DNS tree as any of the above

single Bit-String Labels.

\[b11101].\[o640]

3.3. Canonical Representation and Sort Order

Both the wire form and the text form of binary labels have a degree

of flexibility in their grouping into multiple consecutive Bit-String

Labels. For generating and checking DNS signature records [DNSSEC]

binary labels must be in a predictable form. This canonical form is

defined as the form which has the fewest possible Bit-String Labels

and in which all except possibly the first (least significant) label

in any sequence of consecutive Bit-String Labels is of maximum

length.

For example, the canonical form of any sequence of up to 256 One-Bit

Labels has a single Bit-String Label, and the canonical form of a

sequence of 513 to 768 One-Bit Labels has three Bit-String Labels of

which the second and third contain 256 label bits.

The canonical sort order of domain names [DNSSEC] is extended to

encompass binary labels as follows. Sorting is still label-by-label,

from most to least significant, where a label may now be a One-Bit

Label or a standard (code 00) label. Any One-Bit Label sorts before

any standard label, and a 0 bit sorts before a 1 bit. The absence of

a label sorts before any label, as specified in [DNSSEC].

For example, the following domain names are correctly sorted.

foo.example

\[b1].foo.example

\[b100].foo.example

\[b101].foo.example

bravo.\[b10].foo.example

alpha.foo.example

4. Processing Rules

A One-Bit Label never matches any other kind of label. In

particular, the DNS labels represented by the single ASCII characters

"0" and "1" do not match One-Bit Labels represented by the bit values

0 and 1.

5. Discussion

A Count of zero in the wire-form represents a 256-bit sequence, not

to optimize that particular case, but to make it completely

impossible to have a zero-bit label.

6. IANA Considerations

This document defines one Extended Label Type, termed the Bit-String

Label, and requests registration of the code point 000001 binary in

the space defined by [EDNS0].

7. Security Considerations

All security considerations which apply to traditional ASCII DNS

labels apply equally to binary labels. he canonicalization and

sorting rules of section 3.3 allow these to be addressed by DNS

Security [DNSSEC].

8. References

[ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax

Specifications: ABNF", RFC2234, November 1997.

[DNSIS] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and

specification", STD 13, RFC1035, November 1987.

[DNSSEC] Eastlake, D., 3rd, C. Kaufman, "Domain Name System Security

Extensions", RFC2065, January 1997

[EDNS0] Vixie, P., "Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC2671,

August 1999.

[KWORD] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate

Requirement Levels," BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.

9. Author's Address

Matt Crawford

Fermilab MS 368

PO Box 500

Batavia, IL 60510

USA

Phone: +1 630 840-3461

EMail: crawdad@fnal.gov

10. Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFCEditor function is currently provided by the

Internet Society.

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有