A. Submission Date: October 31, 2023

B.1 Submission Type:  [ X ] New RRTYPE  [ ] Modification to RRTYPE
B.2 Kind of RR:  [ X ] Data RR  [ ] Meta-RR

C. Contact Information for submitter (will be publicly posted):

   Name: Mohamed BOUCADAIR
   Email Address:  Mohamed.boucadair&orange.com

D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application.

   The ADD WG is chartered to define mechanisms for discovering behavior properties
   of encrypted DNS resolvers. This RR allows recursive resolvers to describe
   their capabilities in a well-structured manner.

   DNS clients can then use the resolver information to identify the capabilities
   of DNS resolvers. For example, retrieved information can be used to feed the
   server selection procedure. 

E. Description of the proposed RR type.

   Resolver information as key-value pairs of the pre-existing text format
   defined in Section 6.3 of RFC 6763.

F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need
   and why are they unsatisfactory?

   SVCB and HTTPS records carry key-value stores that could in a literal sense be
   used for this purpose. However, reuse of the SVCB or HTTPS RR types
   was ruled out by the WG as bad practice for describing DNS server properties
   that are not strictly necessary to establish connectivity.

G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?

   RESINFO

H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA registry
   or require the creation of a new IANA subregistry in DNS
   Parameters?  If so, please indicate which registry is to be used
   or created.  If a new subregistry is needed, specify the
   allocation policy for it and its initial contents.  Also include
   what the modification procedures will be.

   The requested RRTYPE requires the creation of a new subregistry to be called
   “DNS Resolver Information Keys” under the “Domain Name System (DNS)
   Parameters” registry. The format of this registry is provided below
   with requested initial entries.

   Note that draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-06 is to be replaced with the RFC number to be
   assigned to draft-ietf-add-resolver-info.

 

   +==========+==========+============================+===============+

   |   Name   |  Value   | Description                | Specification |

   |          |   Type   |                            |               |

   +==========+==========+============================+===============+

   | qnamemin |   None   | The presence of the key    |    draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-06    |

   |          |          | name indicates that        |               |

   |          |          | 'QNAME minimization' is     |               |

   |          |          | enabled                    |               |

   +----------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+

   |  exterr  |  16-bit  | Lists the set of supported |    draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-06    |

   |          | unsigned | extended DNS errors.  It   |               |

   |          | integer  | must be an INFO-CODE decimal value in the     |               |

   |          |          | "Extended DNS Error Codes" |               |

   |          |          | registry.                  |               |

   +----------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+

   | infourl  |  string  | Provides an URL that       |    draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-06    |

   |          |          | points to an unstructured  |               |

   |          |          | resolver information that  |               |

   |          |          | is used for                |               |

   |          |          | troubleshooting            |               |

   +----------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+

   |   sig    |  binary  | Includes a signature of    |    draft-ietf-add-resolver-info-06    |

   |          |          | RESINFO RR for data origin |               |

   |          |          | authentication             |               |

   +----------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+

I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
   servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed
   as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?
   
   No.

J. Comments:

   Please refer to the associated specification that defines this new RR TYPE:

   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-add-resolver-info/

   The document has passed the WGLC and is about to be sent to the IESG for
   publication.