RFC 882

Non-hyperlinked document RFC index
Add to your favorites

Network Working Group                                     P. Mockapetris
Request for Comments:  882                                           ISI
                                                           November 1983


        |                                                     |
        | This RFC introduces domain style names, their use   |
        | for ARPA Internet mail and host address support,    |
        | and the protocols and servers used to implement     |
        | domain name facilities.                             |
        |                                                     |
        | This memo describes the conceptual framework of the |
        | domain system and some uses, but it omits many      |
        | uses, fields, and implementation details.  A        |
        | complete specification of formats, timeouts, etc.   |
        | is presented in RFC 883, "Domain Names -            |
        | Implementation and Specification".  That RFC        |
        | assumes that the reader is familiar with the        |
        | concepts discussed in this memo.                    |
        |                                                     |


   The need for domain names

      As applications grow to span multiple hosts, then networks, and
      finally internets, these applications must also span multiple
      administrative boundaries and related methods of operation
      (protocols, data formats, etc).  The number of resources (for
      example mailboxes), the number of locations for resources, and the
      diversity of such an environment cause formidable problems when we
      wish to create consistent methods for referencing particular
      resources that are similar but scattered throughout the

      The ARPA Internet illustrates the size-related problems; it is a
      large system and is likely to grow much larger.  The need to have
      a mapping between host names (e.g., USC-ISIF) and ARPA Internet
      addresses (e.g., is beginning to stress the existing
      mechanisms.  Currently hosts in the ARPA Internet are registered
      with the Network Information Center (NIC) and listed in a global
      table (available as the file <NETINFO>HOSTS.TXT on the SRI-NIC
      host) [1].  The size of this table, and especially the frequency
      of updates to the table are near the limit of manageability.  What
      is needed is a distributed database that performs the same
      function, and hence avoids the problems caused by a centralized

      The problem for computer mail is more severe.  While mail system
      implementers long ago recognized the impossibility of centralizing
      mailbox names, they have also created an increasingly large and
      irregular set of methods for identifying the location of a
      mailbox.  Some of these methods involve the use of routes and
      forwarding hosts as part of the mail destination address, and
      consequently force the mail user to know multiple address formats,
      the capabilities of various forwarders, and ad hoc tricks for
      passing address specifications through intermediaries.

      These problems have common characteristics that suggest the nature
      of any solution:

         The basic need is for a consistent name space which will be
         used for referring to resources.  In order to avoid the
         problems caused by ad hoc encodings, names should not contain
         addresses, routes, or similar information as part of the name.

         The sheer size of the database and frequency of updates suggest
         that it must be maintained in a distributed manner, with local
         caching to improve performance.  Approaches that attempt to
         collect a consistent copy of the entire database will become
         more and more expensive and difficult, and hence should be
         avoided.  The same principle holds for the structure of the
         name space, and in particular mechanisms for creating and
         deleting names; these should also be distributed.

         The costs of implementing such a facility dictate that it be
         generally useful, and not restricted to a single application.
         We should be able to use names to retrieve host addresses,
         mailbox data, and other as yet undetermined information.

         Because we want the name space to be useful in dissimilar
         networks, it is unlikely that all users of domain names will be
         able to agree on the set of resources or resource information
         that names will be used to retrieve.  Hence names refer to a
         set of resources, and queries contain resource identifiers.
         The only standard types of information that we expect to see
         throughout the name space is structuring information for the
         name space itself, and resources that are described using
         domain names and no nonstandard data.

         We also want the name server transactions to be independent of
         the communications system that carries them. Some systems may
         wish to use datagrams for simple queries and responses, and
         only establish virtual circuits for transactions that need the
         reliability (e.g. database updates, long transactions); other
         systems will use virtual circuits exclusively.
   Elements of the solution

      The proposed solution has three major components:

         The DOMAIN NAME SPACE, which is a specification for a tree
         structured name space.  Conceptually, each node and leaf of the
         domain name space tree names a set of information, and query
         operations are attempts to extract specific types of
         information from a particular set.  A query names the domain
         name of interest and describes the type of resource information
         that is desired.  For example, the ARPA Internet uses some of
         its domain names to identify hosts; queries for address
         resources return ARPA Internet host addresses.  However, to
         preserve the generality of the domain mechanism, domain names
         are not required to have a one-to-one correspondence with host
         names, host addresses, or any other type of information.

         NAME SERVERS are server programs which hold information about
         the domain tree's structure and set information.  A name server
         may cache structure or set information about any part of the
         domain tree, but in general a particular name server has
         complete information about a subset of the domain space, and
         pointers to other name servers that can be used to lead to
         information from any part of the domain tree.  Name servers
         know the parts of the domain tree for which they have complete
         information; these parts are called ZONEs; a name server is an
         AUTHORITY for these parts of the name space.

         RESOLVERS are programs that extract information from name
         servers in response to user requests.  Resolvers must be able
         to access at least one name server and use that name server's
         information to answer a query directly, or pursue the query
         using referrals to other name servers.  A resolver will
         typically be a system routine that is directly accessible to
         user programs; hence no protocol is necessary between the
         resolver and the user program.

      These three components roughly correspond to the three layers or
      views of the domain system:

         From the user's point of view, the domain system is accessed
         through simple procedure or OS calls to resolvers.  The domain
         space consists of a single tree and the user can request
         information from any section of the tree.

         From the resolver's point of view, the domain system is
         composed of an unknown number of name servers.  Each name
         server has one or more pieces of the whole domain tree's data,
         but the resolver views each of these databases as essentially

         From a name server's point of view, the domain system consists
         of separate sets of local information called zones.  The name
         server has local copies of some of the zones.  The name server
         must periodically refresh its zones from master copies in local
         files or foreign name servers.  The name server must
         concurrently process queries that arrive from resolvers using
         the local zones.

      In the interests of performance, these layers blur a bit.  For
      example, resolvers on the same machine as a name server may share
      a database and may also introduce foreign information for use in
      later queries.  This cached information is treated differently
      from the authoritative data in zones.

   Database model

      The organization of the domain system derives from some
      assumptions about the needs and usage patterns of its user
      community and is designed to avoid many of the the complicated
      problems found in general purpose database systems.

      The assumptions are:

         The size of the total database will initially be proportional
         to the number of hosts using the system, but will eventually
         grow to be proportional to the number of users on those hosts
         as mailboxes and other information are added to the domain

         Most of the data in the system will change very slowly (e.g.,
         mailbox bindings, host addresses), but that the system should
         be able to deal with subsets that change more rapidly (on the
         order of minutes).

         The administrative boundaries used to distribute responsibility
         for the database will usually correspond to organizations that
         have one or more hosts.  Each organization that has
         responsibility for a particular set of domains will provide
         redundant name servers, either on the organization's own hosts
         or other hosts that the organization arranges to use.

         Clients of the domain system should be able to identify trusted
         name servers they prefer to use before accepting referrals to
         name servers outside of this "trusted" set.

         Access to information is more critical than instantaneous
         updates or guarantees of consistency.  Hence the update process
         allows updates to percolate out though the users of the domain
         system rather than guaranteeing that all copies are
         simultaneously updated.  When updates are unavailable due to
         network or host failure, the usual course is to believe old
         information while continuing efforts to update it.  The general
         model is that copies are distributed with timeouts for
         refreshing.  The distributor sets the timeout value and the
         recipient of the distribution is responsible for performing the
         refresh.  In special situations, very short intervals can be
         specified, or the owner can prohibit copies.

         Some users will wish to access the database via datagrams;
         others will prefer virtual circuits.  The domain system is
         designed so that simple queries and responses can use either
         style, although refreshing operations need the reliability of
         virtual circuits.  The same overall message format is used for
         all communication.  The domain system does not assume any
         special properties of the communications system, and hence
         could be used with any datagram or virtual circuit protocol.

         In any system that has a distributed database, a particular
         name server may be presented with a query that can only be
         answered by some other server.  The two general approaches to
         dealing with this problem are "recursive", in which the first
         server pursues the query for the client at another server, and
         "iterative", in which the server refers the client to another
         server and lets the client pursue the query.  Both approaches
         have advantages and disadvantages, but the iterative approach
         is preferred for the datagram style of access.  The domain
         system requires implementation of the iterative approach, but
         allows the recursive approach as an option.  The optional
         recursive style is discussed in [14], and omitted from further
         discussion in this memo.

      The domain system assumes that all data originates in master files
      scattered through the hosts that use the domain system.  These
      master files are updated by local system administrators.  Master
      files are text files that are read by a local name server, and
      hence become available to users of the domain system.  A standard
      format for these files is given in [14].

      The standard format allows these files to be exchanged between
      hosts (via FTP, mail, or some other mechanism); this facility is
      useful when an organization wants a domain, but doesn't want to
      support a name server.  The organization can maintain the master
      files locally using a text editor, transfer them to a foreign host
      which runs a name server, and then arrange with the system
      administrator of the name server to get the files loaded.
      Each host's name servers and resolvers are configured by a local
      system administrator.  For a name server, this configuration data
      includes the identity of local master files and instructions on
      which non-local master files are to be loaded from foreign
      servers.  The name server uses the master files or copies to load
      its zones.  For resolvers, the configuration data identifies the
      name servers which should be the primary sources of information.

      The domain system defines procedures for accessing the data and
      for referrals to other name servers.  The domain system also
      defines procedures for caching retrieved data and for periodic
      refreshing of data defined by the system administrator.

      The system administrators provide:

         The definition of zone boundaries

         Master files of data

         Updates to master files

         Statements of the refresh policies desired

      The domain system provides:

         Standard formats for resource data

         Standard methods for querying the database

         Standard methods for name servers to refresh local data from
         foreign name servers


   Name space specifications and terminology

      The domain name space is a tree structure.  Each node and leaf on
      the tree corresponds to a resource set (which may be empty).  Each
      node and leaf has an associated label.  Labels are NOT guaranteed
      to be unique, with the exception of the root node, which has a
      null label.  The domain name of a node or leaf is the path from
      the root of the tree to the node or leaf.  By convention, the
      labels that compose a domain name are read left to right, from the
      most specific (lowest) to the least specific (highest).

      Internally, programs that manipulate domain names represent them
      as sequences of labels, where each label is a length octet
      followed by an octet string.  Because all domain names end at the
      root, which has a null string for a label, these internal
      representations can use a length byte of zero to terminate a
      domain name.  When domain names are printed, labels in a path are
      separated by dots (".").  The root label and its associated dot
      are omitted from printed domain names, but the root can be named
      by a null domain name (" " in this memo).

      To simplify implementations, the total number of octets that
      represent label octets and label lengths is limited to 255.  Thus
      a printed domain name can be up to 254 characters.

      A special label is defined that matches any other label.  This
      label is the asterisk or "*".  An asterisk matches a single label.
      Thus *.ARPA matches FOO.ARPA, but does not match FOO.BAR.ARPA.
      The asterisk is mainly used to create default resource records at
      the boundary between protocol families, and requires prudence in
      its use.

      A domain is identified by a domain name, and consists of that part
      of the domain name space that is at or below the domain name which
      specifies the domain.  A domain is a subdomain of another domain
      if it is contained within that domain.  This relationship can be
      tested by seeing if the subdomain's name has the containing
      domain's name as the right part of its name.  For example, A.B.C.D
      is a subdomain of B.C.D, C.D, D, and " ".

      This tree structure is intended to parallel the administrative
      organization and delegation of authority.  Potentially, each node
      or leaf on the tree can create new subdomains ad infinitum.  In
      practice, this delegation can be limited by the administrator of
      the name servers that manage the domain space and resource data.

      The following figure shows an example of a domain name space.

                |                  |                  |         
              COLORS            FLAVORS             TRUTH       
                |                  |                            
          +-----+-----+            |                            
          |     |     |         NATURAL                         
         RED  BLUE  GREEN          |                            
                   |               |               |            
               CHOCOLATE        VANILLA        STRAWBERRY       

      In this example, the root domain has three immediate subdomains:
      COLORS, FLAVORS, and TRUTH.  The FLAVORS domain has one immediate
      subdomain named NATURAL.FLAVORS.  All of the leaves are also
      domains.  This domain tree has the names " "(the root), COLORS,
      STRAWBERRY.NATURAL.FLAVORS, and TRUTH.  If we wished to add a new
      domain of ARTIFICIAL under FLAVORS, FLAVORS would typically be the
      administrative entity that would decide; if we wished to create
      would typically be the appropriate administrative entity.

   Resource set information

      A domain name identifies a set of resource information.  The set
      of resource information associated with a particular name is
      composed of separate resource records (RRs).

      Each resource record has the following major components:

         The domain name which identifies resource set that holds this
         record, and hence the "owner" of the information.  For example,
         a RR that specifies a host address has a domain name the
         specifies the host having that address.  Thus F.ISI.ARPA might
         be the owner of a RR which specified an address field of  Since name servers typically store their resource
         information in tree structures paralleling the organization of
         the domain space, this information can usually be stored
         implicitly in the database; however it is always included in
         each resource record carried in a message.

         Other information used to manage the RR, such as length fields,
         timeouts, etc.  This information is omitted in much of this
         memo, but is discussed in [14].

         A resource type field that specifies the type of the resource
         in this resource record.  Types refer to abstract resources
         such as host addresses or mail delivery agents.  The type field
         is two octets long and uses an encoding that is standard
         throughout the domain name system.

         A class field identifies the format of the resource data, such
         as the ARPA Internet format (IN) or the Computer Science
         Network format (CSNET), for certain RR types (such as address
         data).  Note that while the class may separate different
         protocol families, networks, etc. it does not do so in all
         cases.  For example, the IN class uses 32 bit IP addresses
         exclusively, but the CSNET class uses 32 bit IP addresses, X.25
         addresses, and phone numbers.  Thus the class field should be
         used as a guide for interpreting the resource data.  The class
         field is two octets long and uses an encoding that is standard
         throughout the domain name system.
         Resource data that describes the resource.  The format of this
         data can be determined given the type and class fields, but
         always starts with a two octet length field that allows a name
         server or resolver to determine the boundaries of the resource
         data in any transaction, even if it cannot "understand" the
         resource data itself.  Thus name servers and resolvers can hold
         and pass on records which they cannot interpret.  The format of
         the internal data is restricted only by the maximum length of
         65535 octets; for example the host address record might specify
         a fixed 32 bit number for one class, and a variable length list
         of addresses in another class.

      While the class field in effect partitions the resource data in
      the domain name system into separate parallel sections according
      to class, services can span class boundaries if they use
      compatible resource data formats.  For example, the domain name
      system uses compatible formats for structure information, and the
      mail data decouples mail agent identification from details of how
      to contact the agent (e.g. host addresses).

      This memo uses the following types in its examples:

         A     - the host address associated with the domain name

         MF    - identifies a mail forwarder for the domain

         MD    - identifies a mail destination for the domain

         NS    - the authoritative name server for the domain

         SOA   - identifies the start of a zone of authority

         CNAME - identifies the canonical name of an alias

      This memo uses the following classes in its examples:

         IN - the ARPA Internet system

         CS - the CSNET system

      The first type of resource record holds a host name to host
      address binding.  Its fields are:

  |<owner> |   A    | <class>| <class specific address>information  |
      The content of the class specific information varies according to
      the value in the CLASS field; for the ARPA Internet, it is the 32
      bit ARPA Internet address of the host, for the CSNET it might be
      the phone number of the host.  For example, F.ISI.ARPA might have
      two A records of the form:

       |F.ISI.ARPA|   A    |   IN   |         |
       |F.ISI.ARPA|   A    |   CS   |         213-822-2112       |

      Note that the data formats for the A type are class dependent, and
      the Internet address and phone number formats shown above are for
      purposes of illustration only.  The actual data formats are
      specified in [14].  For example, CS class data for type A records
      might actually be a list of Internet addresses, phone numbers and
      TELENET addresses.

      The mail forwarder (MF) and mail delivery (MD) records have the
      following format:

        |<owner> | MD/MF  | <class>|       <domain name>        |

      The <domain name> field is a domain name of the host that will
      handle mail; note that this domain name may be completely
      different from the domain name which names the resource record.
      For example, F.ISI.ARPA might have two records of the form:

       |F.ISI.ARPA|  MD    |   IN   |         F.ISI.ARPA         |
       |F.ISI.ARPA|  MF    |   IN   |         B.ISI.ARPA         |

      These records mean that mail for F.ISI.ARPA can either be
      delivered to the host F.ISI.ARPA or forwarded to B.ISI.ARPA, which
      will accept responsibility for its eventual delivery.  In
      principle, an additional name lookup is required to map the domain
      name of the host to the appropriate address, in practice this
      information is usually returned in the response to the mail query.

      The SOA and NS types of resource records are used to define limits
      of authority.  The domain name given by the owner field of a SOA
      record is the start of a zone; the domain name given by the owner
      field of a NS record identifies a point in the name space where
      authority has been delegated, and hence marks the zone boundary.
      Except in the case where a name server delegates authority to
      itself, the SOA identifies the top limit of authority, and NS
      records define the first name outside of a zone.  These resource
      records have a standard format for all of the name space:

      | <owner>  |   SOA  | <class>|       <domain name, etc>    |
      | <owner>  |   NS   | <class>|       <domain name>         |

      The SOA record marks the start of a zone when it is present in a
      database; the NS record both marks the end of a zone started by an
      SOA (if a higher SOA is present) and also points to a name server
      that has a copy of the zone specified by the <owner. field of the
      NS record.

      The <domain name, etc> in the SOA record specifies the original
      source of the information in the zone and other information used
      by name servers to organize their activities.  SOA records are
      never cached (otherwise they would create false zones); they can
      only be created in special name server maintenance operations.

      The NS record says that a name server which is authoritative for
      records of the given CLASS can be found at <domain name>.


      Queries to a name server must include a domain name which
      identifies the target resource set (QNAME), and the type and class
      of desired resource records.  The type and class fields in a query
      can include any of the corresponding type and class fields that
      are defined for resource records; in addition, the query type
      (QTYPE) and query class (QCLASS) fields may contain special values
      that match more than one of the corresponding fields in RRs.

      For example, the QTYPE field may contain:

         MAILA - matches all mail agent RRs (e.g. MD and MF).

         *     - matches any RR type.
      The QCLASS field may contain:

         *    - matches any RR class.

      Using the query domain name, QTYPE, and QCLASS, the name server
      looks for matching RRs.  In addition to relevant records, the name
      server may return RRs that point toward a name server that has the
      desired information or RRs that are expected to be useful in
      interpreting the relevant RRs.  For example a name server that
      doesn't have the requested information may know a name server that
      does; a name server that returns a domain name in a relevant RR
      may also return the RR that binds that domain name to an address.

      Note that the QCLASS=* construct requires special interpretation
      regarding authority.  Since a name server may not know all of the
      classes available in the domain system, it can never know if it is
      authoritative for all classes.  Hence responses to QCLASS=*
      queries can never be authoritative.

   Example space

      For purposes of exposition, the following name space is used for
      the remainder of this memo:

                 |                  |                  |         
                DDN               ARPA               CSNET       
                 |                  |                  |         
           +-----+-----+            |            +-----+-----+   
           |     |     |            |            |           |   
          JCS  ARMY  NAVY           |           UDEL        UCI  
           |        |               |               |        |   
          DTI      MIT             ISI             UDEL     NBS  
                    |               |                            
                +---+---+       +---+---+                        
                |       |       |   |   |                        
               DMS     AI       A   B   F                        




      Name servers store a distributed database consisting of the
      structure of the domain name space, the resource sets associated
      with domain names, and other information used to coordinate
      actions between name servers.

      In general, a name server will be an authority for all or part of
      a particular domain.  The region covered by this authority is
      called a zone.  Name servers may be responsible for no
      authoritative data, and hence have no zones, or may have several
      zones.  When a name server has multiple zones, the zones may have
      no common borders or zones may be contiguous.

      While administrators should not construct overlapping zones, and
      name servers must defend against overlapping zones, overlapping is
      regarded as a non-fatal flaw in the database.  Hence the measures
      taken to protect against it are omitted for the remainder of this
      memo.  A detailed discussion can be found in [14].

      When presented with a query for a domain name over which it has
      authority, a name server returns the desired resource information
      or an indication that the query refers to a domain name or
      resource that does not exist.  If a name server is presented with
      a query for a domain name that is not within its authority, it may
      have the desired information, but it will also return a response
      that points toward an authoritative name server.  If a name server
      is not an authority for a query, it can never return a negative

      There is no requirement that a name server for a domain reside in
      a host which has a name in the same domain, although this will
      usually be the case.  There is also no restriction on the number
      of name servers that can have authority over a particular domain;
      most domains will have redundant authoritative name servers.  The
      assumption is that different authoritative copies are identical,
      even though inconsistencies are possible as updates are made.

      Name server functions are designed to allow for very simple
      implementations of name servers.  The simplest name server has a
      static set of information and uses datagrams to receive queries
      and return responses.

      More sophisticated name server implementations can improve the
      performance of their clients by caching information from other
      domains.  Although this information can be acquired in a number of
      ways, the normal method is to store the information acquired by a
      resolver when the resolver consults other name servers.  In a
      sophisticated host, the resolver and name server will coordinate
      their actions and use a shared database.  This cooperation
      requires the incorporation of a time-to-live (TTL) field in all
      cached resource records.  Caching is discussed in the resolver
      section of this memo; this section is devoted to the actions of a
      name servers that don't cache.

      In order to free simple name servers of the requirement of
      managing these timeouts, simple name servers should only contain
      resource records that are expected to remain constant over very
      long periods or resource records for which the name server is an
      authority.  In the following discussion, the TTL field is assumed
      to be stored in the resource record but is omitted in descriptions
      of databases and responses in the interest of clarity.

   Authority and administrative control of domains

      Although we want to have the potential of delegating the
      privileges of name space management at every node, we don't want
      such delegation to be required.

      Hence we introduce the concept of authority.  Authority is vested
      in name servers.  A name server has authority over all of its
      domain until it delegates authority for a subdomain to some other
      name server.

      Any administrative entity that wishes to establish its own domain
      must provide a name server, and have that server accepted by the
      parent name server (i.e. the name server that has authority over
      the place in the domain name space that will hold the new domain).
      While the principles of authority allow acceptance to be at the
      discretion of parent name servers, the following criteria are used
      by the root, and are recommended to all name servers because they
      are responsible for their children's actions:

         1.  It must register with the parent administrator of domains.

         2.  It must identify a responsible person.

         3.  In must provide redundant name servers.

      The domain name must be registered with the administrator to avoid
      name conflicts and to make the domain related information
      available to other domains.  The central administrator may have
      further requirements, and a domain is not registered until the
      central administrator agrees that all requirements are met.

      There must be a responsible person associated with each domain to
      be a contact point for questions about the domain, to verify and
      update the domain related information, and to resolve any problems
      (e.g., protocol violations) with hosts in the domain.

      The domain must provide redundant (i.e., two or more) name servers
      to provide the name to address resolution service.  These name
      servers must be accessible from outside the domain (as well as
      inside) and must resolve names for at least all the hosts in the

      Once the central administrator is satisfied, he will communicate
      the existence to the appropriate administrators of other domains
      so that they can incorporate NS records for the new name server
      into their databases.

   Name server logic

      The processing steps that a name server performs in responding to
      a query are conceptually simple, although implementations may have
      internal databases that are quite complex.

      For purposes of explanation, we assume that the query consists of
      a type QTYPE, a class QCLASS, and a domain name QNAME; we assume
      that the name server stores its RRs in sets where each set has all
      of the RRs for a particular domain.  Note that this database
      structure and the following algorithms are meant to illustrate one
      possible implementation, rather than a specification of how all
      servers must be implemented.

      The following notation is used:

      ord(DOMAIN-NAME)     returns the number of labels in DOMAIN-NAME.

      findset(DOMAIN-NAME) returns a pointer to the set of stored RRs
                           for DOMAIN-NAME, or NULL if there is no such

      set(POINTER)         refers to a set located previously by
                           findset, where POINTER is the value returned
                           by findset.

      relevant(QTYPE,TYPE) returns true if a RR of the specified TYPE is
                           relevant to the specified QTYPE.  For
                           example, relevant(MAILA,MF) is true and
                           relevant(MAILA,NS) is false.

      right(NAME,NUMBER)   returns a domain name that is the rightmost
                           NUMBER labels in the string NAME.
      copy(RR)             copies the resource record specified by RR
                           into the response.

      The name server code could be represented as the following
      sequence of steps:

     {    find out whether the database makes this server          
          authoritative for the domain name specified by QNAME   } 

     for i:=0 to ord(QNAME) { sequence through all nodes in QNAME }
     do   begin                                                    
          if ptr<>NULL                                             
          then { there is domain data for this domain name }       
               for all RRs in set(ptr)                             
               do   if type(RR)=NS and class(RR)=QCLASS            
                    then begin                                     
               for all RRs in set(ptr)                             
               do   if type(RR)=SOA and class(RR)=QCLASS           
                    then auth:=true                                

      {    copy out authority search results }                     

      if auth                                                      
      then { if authority check for domain found }                 
           if ptr=null                                             
           then return(Name error)                                 
      else { if not authority, copy NS RRs }                       
           for all RRs in set(nsptr)                               
           do   if (type(RR)=NS and class(RR)=QCLASS)              
                then copy(RR);                                     

      {    Copy all RRs that answer the question }                 

      for all RRs in set(ptr)                                      
      do   if class(RR)=QCLASS and relevant(QTYPE,type(RR))        
           then copy(RR);                                          

      The first section of the code (delimited by the for loop over all
      of the subnodes of QNAME) discovers whether the name server is
      authoritative for the domain specified by QNAME.  It sequences
      through all containing domains of QNAME, starting at the root.  If
      it encounters a SOA it knows that the name server is authoritative
      unless it finds a lower NS RR which delegates authority.  If the
      name server is authoritative, it sets auth=true; if the name
      server is not authoritative, it sets NSptr to point to the set
      which contains the NS RR closest to the domain specified by QNAME.

      The second section of the code reflects the result of the
      authority search into the response.  If the name server is
      authoritative, the code checks to see that the domain specified by
      QNAME exists; if not, a name error is returned.  If the name
      server is not authoritative, the code copies the RRs for a closer
      name server into the response.

      The last section of the code copies all relevant RRs into the

      Note that this code is not meant as an actual implementation and
      is incomplete in several aspects.  For example, it doesn't deal
      with providing additional information, wildcards, QCLASS=*, or
      with overlapping zones.  The first two of these issues are dealt
      with in the following discussions, the remaining issues are
      discussed in [14].

   Additional information

      When a resolver returns information to a user program, the
      returned information will often lead to a second query.  For
      example, if a mailer asks a resolver for the appropriate mail
      agent for a particular domain name, the name server queried by the
      resolver returns a domain name that identifies the agent.  In
      general, we would expect that the mailer would then request the
      domain name to address binding for the mail agent, and a new name
      server query would result.

      To avoid this duplication of effort, name servers return
      additional information with a response which satisfies the
      anticipated query.  This information is kept in a separate section
      of the response.  Name servers are required to complete the
      appropriate additional information if such information is
      available, but the requestor should not depend on the presence of
      the information since the name server may not have it.  If the
      resolver caches the additional information, it can respond to the
      second query without an additional network transaction.

      The appropriate information is defined in [14], but generally
      consists of host to address bindings for domain names in returned

   Aliases and canonical names

      In existing systems, hosts and other resources often have several
      names that identify the same resource.  For example, under current
      ARPA Internet naming support, USC-ISIF and ISIF both identify the
      same host.  Similarly, in the case of mailboxes, many
      organizations provide many names that actually go to the same
      mailbox; for example Mockapetris@ISIF, Mockapetris@ISIB, etc., all
      go to the same mailbox (although the mechanism behind this is
      somewhat complicated).

      Most of these systems have a notion that one of the equivalent set
      of names is the canonical name and all others are aliases.

      The domain system provides a similar feature using the canonical
      name (CNAME) RR.  When a name server fails to find a desired RR in
      a set associated with some domain name, it checks to see if the
      resource set contains a CNAME record with a matching class.  If
      so, the name server includes the CNAME record in the response, and
      continues the query at the domain name specified in the data field
      of the CNAME record.

      Suppose a name server was processing a query with QNAME=ISIF.ARPA,
      QTYPE=A, and QCLASS=IN, and had the following resource records:

            ISIF.ARPA     CNAME   IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            F.ISI.ARPA    A       IN          

      Both of these RRs would be returned in the response.

      In the above example, because ISIF.ARPA has no RRs other than the
      CNAME RR, the resources associated with ISIF.ARPA will appear to
      be exactly those associated with F.ISI.ARPA for the IN CLASS.
      Since the CNAME is effective only when the search fails, a CNAME
      can also be used to construct defaults.  For example, suppose the
      name server had the following set of RRs:

            F.ISI.ARPA    A       IN          
            F.ISI.ARPA    MD      IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            XXXX.ARPA     CNAME   IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            XXXX.ARPA     MF      IN     A.ISI.ARPA         

      Using this database, type A queries for XXXX.ARPA would return the
      queries to XXXX.ARPA would return the XXXX.ARPA MF RR without any
      information from F.ISI.ARPA.  This structure might be used to send
      mail addressed to XXXX.ARPA to A.ISI.ARPA and to direct TELNET for


      In certain cases, an administrator may wish to associate default
      resource information for all or part of a domain.  For example,
      the CSNET domain administrator may wish to establish IN class mail
      forwarding for all hosts in the CSNET domain without IN
      capability.  In such a case, the domain system provides a special
      label "*" that matches any other label.  Note that "*" matches
      only a single label, and not zero or more than one label.  Note
      also that the "*" is distinct from the "*" values for QCLASS and

      The semantics of "*" depend upon whether it appears in a query
      domain name (QNAME) or in a RR in a database.

         When an "*" is used in a QNAME, it can only match a "*" in a
         resource record.

         When "*" appears in a RR in a database, it can never override
         an existing exact match.  For example, if a name server
         received a query for the domain UDEL.CSNET, and had appropriate
         RRs for both UDEL.CSNET and *.CSNET, the UDEL.CSNET RRs would
         be used and the *.CSNET RRs would be ignored.  If a query to
         the same database specified FOO.CSNET, the *.CSNET RR would be
         used, but the corresponding labels from the QNAME would replace
         the "*".  Thus the FOO.CSNET query would match the *.CSNET RR
         and return a RR for FOO.CSNET rather than *.CSNET.

         RRs containing "*" labels are copied exactly when zones are
         transfered via name server maintenance operations.

      These semantics are easily implemented by having the name server
      first search for an exact match for a query, and then replacing
      the leftmost label with a "*" and trying again, repeating the
      process until all labels became "*" or the search succeeded.

      TYPE=* in RRs is prohibited.  If it were to be allowed, the
      requestor would have no way of interpreting the data in the RR
      because this data is type dependent.

      CLASS=* is also prohibited.  Similar effects can be achieved using
      QCLASS=*, and allowing both QCLASS=* and CLASS=* leads to
      complexities without apparent benefit.
   A scenario

      In our sample domain space, suppose we wanted separate
      administrative control for the root, DDN, ARPA, CSNET, MIT and ISI
      domains.  We might allocate name servers as follows:

                |                  |                  |           
               DDN               ARPA               CSNET         
                |(JCS.DDN)         |(F.ISI.ARPA)      |(UDEL.ARPA)
          +-----+-----+            |(A.ISI.ARPA)+-----+-----+     
          |     |     |            |            |           |     
         JCS  ARMY  NAVY           |           UDEL        UCI    
          |        |               |               |        |     
         DTI      MIT             ISI             UDEL     NBS    
                   |(AI.MIT.ARPA)  |(F.ISI.ARPA)                  
               +---+---+       +---+---+                          
               |       |       |   |   |                          
              DMS     AI       A   B   F                          

      In this example the authoritative name server is shown in
      parentheses at the point in the domain tree at which is assumes

      Thus the root name servers are on B.ISI.ARPA and UDEL.CSNET, the
      DDN name server is on JCS.DDN, the CSNET domain server is on
      UDEL.ARPA, etc.

      In an actual system, all domains should have redundant name
      servers, but in this example only the ARPA domain has redundant
      servers A.ISI.ARPA and F.ISI.ARPA.  (The B.ISI.ARPA and UDEL.CSNET
      name servers happen to be not redundant because they handle
      different classes.)  The F.ISI.ARPA name server has authority over
      the ARPA domain, but delegates authority over the MIT.ARPA domain
      to the name server on AI.MIT.ARPA.  The A.ISI.ARPA name server
      also has authority over the ARPA domain, but delegates both the
      ISI.ARPA and MIT.ARPA domains to other name servers.
   B.ISI.ARPA Name server for " "

      B.ISI.ARPA has the root name server for the IN class.  Its
      database might contain:

            Domain        Resource Record                   

            " "           SOA     IN     A.ISI.ARPA         
            DDN           NS      IN     JCS.DDN            
            ARPA          NS      IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            CSNET         NS      IN     UDEL.ARPA          
            " "           NS      IN     B.ISI.ARPA         
            " "           NS      CS     UDEL.CSNET         
            JCS.DDN       A       IN            
            F.ISI.ARPA    A       IN          
            UDEL.CSNET    A       CS     302-555-0000       
            UDEL.ARPA     A       IN          

      The SOA record for the root is necessary so that the name server
      knows that it is authoritative for the root domain for class IN.
      The contents of the SOA resource record point back to A.ISI.ARPA
      and denote that the master data for the zone of authority is
      originally from this host.  The first three NS records denote
      delegation of authority.  The NS root entry for the B.ISI.ARPA
      name server is necessary so that this name server knows about
      itself, and can respond correctly to a query for NS information
      about the root (for which it is an authority).  The root entry for
      class CS denotes that UDEL.CSNET is the authoritative name server
      for the CS class root.  UDEL.CSNET and UDEL.ARPA may or may not
      refer to the same name server; from this information it is
      impossible to tell.

      If this name server was sent a query specifying QTYPE=MAILA,
      QCLASS=IN, QNAME=F.ISI.ARPA, it would begin processing (using the
      previous algorithm) by determining that it was not an authority
      for F.ISI.ARPA.  The test would note that it had authority at " ",
      but would also note that the authority was delegated at ARPA and
      never reestablished via another SOA.  Thus the response would
      return the NS record for the domain ARPA.

      Any queries presented to this server with QCLASS=CS would result
      in the UDEL.CSNET NS record being returned in the response.
   F.ISI.ARPA Name server for ARPA and ISI.ARPA

      In the same domain space, the F.ISI.ARPA database for the domains
      ARPA and ISI.ARPA might be:

            Domain        Resource Record                   

            " "           NS      IN     B.ISI.ARPA         
            " "           NS      CS     CSNET.UDEL         
            ARPA          SOA     IN     B.ISI.ARPA         
            ARPA          NS      IN     A.ISI.ARPA         
            ARPA          NS      IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            MIT.ARPA      NS      IN     AI.MIT.ARPA        
            ISI.ARPA      SOA     IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            ISI.ARPA      NS      IN     F.ISI.ARPA         

            A.ISI.ARPA    MD      IN     A.ISI.ARPA         
            ISI.ARPA      MD      IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            A.ISI.ARPA    MF      IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            B.ISI.ARPA    MD      IN     B.ISI.ARPA         
            B.ISI.ARPA    MF      IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            F.ISI.ARPA    MD      IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            F.ISI.ARPA    MF      IN     A.ISI.ARPA         
            DTI.ARPA      MD      IN     DTI.ARPA           
            NBS.ARPA      MD      IN     NBS.ARPA           
            UDEL.ARPA     MD      IN     UDEL.ARPA          

            A.ISI.ARPA    A       IN          
            F.ISI.ARPA    A       IN          
            B.ISI.ARPA    A       IN          
            DTI.ARPA      A       IN          
            AI.MIT.ARPA   A       IN           
            DMS.MIT.ARPA  A       IN           
            NBS.ARPA      A       IN          
            UDEL.ARPA     A       IN          

      For the IN class, the SOA RR for ARPA denotes that this name
      server is authoritative for the domain ARPA, and that the master
      file for this authority is stored on B.ISI.ARPA.  This zone
      extends to ISI.ARPA, where the database delegates authority back
      to this name server in another zone, and doesn't include the
      domain MIT.ARPA, which is served by a name server on AI.MIT.ARPA.

      This name server is not authoritative for any data in the CS
      class.  It has a pointer to the root server for CS data which
      could be use to resolve CS class queries.

      Suppose this name server received a query of the form
      QNAME=A.ISI.ARPA, QTYPE=A, and QCLASS=IN.  The authority search
      would notice the NS record for " ", its SOA at ARPA, a delegation
      at ISI.ARPA, and the reassumption of authority at ISI.ARPA.  Hence
      it would know that it was an authority for this query.  It would
      then find the A record for A.ISI.ARPA, and return a datagram
      containing this record.

      Another query might be QNAME=B.ISI.ARPA, QTYPE=MAILA, QCLASS=*.
      In this case the name server would know that it cannot be
      authoritative because of the "*" value of QCLASS, and would look
      for records for domain B.ISI.ARPA that match.  Assuming that the
      name server performs the additional record inclusion mentioned in
      the name server algorithm, the returned datagram would include:

            ISI.ARPA      NS      IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            " "           NS      CS     UDEL.CSNET         
            B.ISI.ARPA    MD      IN     B.ISI.ARPA         
            B.ISI.ARPA    MF      IN     F.ISI.ARPA         
            B.ISI.ARPA    A       IN          
            F.ISI.ARPA    A       IN          

      If the query were QNAME=DMS.MIT.ARPA, QTYPE=MAILA, QCLASS=IN, the
      name server would discover that AI.MIT.ARPA was the authoritative
      name server and return the following:

            MIT.ARPA      NS      IN     AI.MIT.ARPA        
            AI.MIT.ARPA   A       IN           

      In this case, the requestor is directed to seek information from
      the MIT.ARPA domain name server residing on AI.MIT.ARPA.
   UDEL.ARPA and UDEL.CSNET name server

      In the previous discussion of the sample domain, we stated that
      UDEL.CSNET and UDEL.ARPA might be the same name server.  In this
      example, we assume that this is the case.  As such, the name
      server is an authority for the root for class CS, and an authority
      for the CSNET domain for class IN.

      This name server deals with mail forwarding between the ARPA
      Internet and CSNET systems.  Its RRs illustrate one approach to
      solving this problem.  The name server has the following resource

            " "           SOA     CS     UDEL.CSNET         
            " "           NS      CS     UDEL.CSNET         
            " "           NS      IN     B.ISI.ARPA         
            CSNET         SOA     IN     UDEL.ARPA          
            CSNET         NS      IN     UDEL.ARPA          
            ARPA          NS      IN     A.ISI.ARPA         

            *.CSNET       MF      IN     UDEL.ARPA          
            UDEL.CSNET    MD      CS     UDEL.CSNET         
            UCI.CSNET     MD      CS     UCI.CSNET          
            UDEL.ARPA     MD      IN     UDEL.ARPA          

            B.ISI.ARPA    A       IN          
            UDEL.ARPA     A       IN          
            UDEL.CSNET    A       CS     302-555-0000       
            UCI.CSNET     A       CS     714-555-0000       

      Suppose this name server received a query of the form
      QNAME=UCI.CSNET, QTYPE=MAILA, and QCLASS=IN.  The name server
      would discover it was authoritative for the CSNET domain under
      class IN, but would find no explicit mail data for UCI.CSNET.
      However, using the *.CSNET record, it would construct a reply:

            UCI.CSNET     MF      IN     UDEL.ARPA          
            UDEL.ARPA     A       IN          

      If this name server received a query of the form QNAME=UCI.CSNET,
      QTYPE=MAILA, and QCLASS=CS, the name server would return:

            UCI.CSNET     MD      CS     UCI.CSNET          
            UCI.CSNET     A       CS     714-555-0000       

      Note that although this scheme allows for forwarding of all mail
      addressed as <anything>.CSNET, it doesn't help with names that
      have more than two components, e.g. A.B.CSNET.  Although this
      problem could be "fixed" by a series of MF entries for *.*.CSNET,
      *.*.*.CSNET, etc, a more tasteful solution would be to introduce a
      cleverer pattern matching algorithm in the CSNET name server.

   Summary of requirements for name servers

      The requirements for a name server are as follows:

         1. It must be recognized by its parent.

         2. It must have complete resource information for all domain
            names for which it is the authority.

         3. It must periodically refresh authoritative information from
            a master file or name server which holds the master.

         4. If it caches information it must also handle TTL management
            for that information.

         5. It must answer simple queries.

   Inverse queries

      Name servers may also support inverse queries that map a
      particular resource to a domain name or domain names that have
      that resource.  For example, while a query might map a domain name
      to a host address, the corresponding inverse query might map the
      address back to the domain name.

      Implementation of this service is optional in a name server, but
      all name servers must at least be able to understand an inverse
      query message and return an error response.

      The domain system cannot guarantee the completeness or uniqueness
      of inverse queries because the domain system is organized by
      domain name rather than by host address or any other resource
      type.  In general, a resolver or other program that wishes to
      guarantee that an inverse query will work must use a name server
      that is known to have the appropriate data, or ask all name
      servers in a domain of interest.

      For example, if a resolver wishes to perform an inverse query for
      an arbitrary host on the ARPA Internet, it must consult a set of
      name servers sufficient to know that all IN data was considered.
      In practice, a single inverse query to a name server that has a
      fairly comprehensive database should satisfy the vast majority of
      inverse queries.

      A detailed discussion of inverse queries is contained in [14].
   Completion services

      Some existing systems provide the ability to complete partial
      specifications of arguments.  The general principle is that the
      user types the first few characters of the argument and then hits
      an escape character to prompt the system to complete the rest.
      Some completion systems require that the user type enough of the
      argument to be unique; others do not.

      Other systems allow the user to specify one argument and ask the
      system to fill in other arguments.  For example, many mail systems
      allow the user to specify a username without a host for local mail

      The domain system defines name server completion transactions that
      perform the analogous service for the domain system.
      Implementation of this service is optional in a name server, but
      all name servers must at least be able to understand a completion
      request and return an error response.

      When a resolver wishes to request a completion, it sends a name
      server a message that sets QNAME to the partial string, QTYPE to
      the type of resource desired, and QCLASS to the desired class.
      The completion request also includes a RR for the target domain.
      The target domain RR identifies the preferred location of the
      resource.  In completion requests, QNAME must still have a null
      label to terminate the name, but its presence is ignored.  Note
      that a completion request is not a query, but shares some of the
      same field formats.

      For example, a completion request might contain QTYPE=A, QNAME=B,
      QCLASS=IN and a RR for ISI.ARPA.  This request asks for completion
      for a resource whose name begins with "B" and is "close" to
      ISI.ARPA.  This might be a typical shorthand used in the ISI
      community which uses "B" as a way of referring to B.ISI.ARPA.

      The first step in processing a completion request is to look for a
      "whole label" match.  When the name server receives the request
      mentioned above, it looks at all records that are of type A, class
      IN, and whose domain name starts (on the left) with the labels of
      QNAME, in this case, "B".  If multiple records match, the name
      server selects those whose domain names match (from the right) the
      most labels of the preferred domain name.  If there are still
      multiple candidates, the name server selects the records that have
      the shortest (in terms of octets in the name) domain name.  If
      several records remain, then the name server returns them all.

      If no records are found in the previous algorithm, the name server
      assumes that the rightmost label in QNAME is not complete, and
      looks for records that match but require addition of characters to
      the rightmost label of QNAME.  For example, the previous search
      would not match BB.ARPA to B, but this search would.  If multiple
      hits are found, the same discarding strategy is followed.

      A detailed discussion of completion can be found in [14].




      Resolvers are programs that interface user programs to domain name
      servers.  In the simplest case, a resolver receives a request from
      a user program (e.g. mail programs, TELNET, FTP) in the form of a
      subroutine call, system call etc., and returns the desired
      information in a form compatible with the local host's data

      Because a resolver may need to consult several name servers, the
      amount of time that a resolver will take to complete can vary.
      This variance is part of the justification for the split between
      name servers and resolvers; name servers may use datagrams and
      have a response time that is essentially equal to network delay
      plus a short service time, while resolvers may take an essentially
      indeterminate amount of time.

      We expect to see two types of resolvers: simple resolvers that can
      chain through multiple name servers when required, and more
      complicated resolvers that cache resource records for use in
      future queries.

   Simple resolvers

      A simple resolver needs the following capabilities:

      1. It must know how to access a name server, and should know the
         authoritative name server for the host that it services.

      2. It must know the protocol capabilities for its clients so that
         it can set the class fields of the queries it sends to return
         information that is useful to its clients.  If the resolver
         serves a client that has multiple protocol capabilities, it
         should be able to support the preferences of the client.

         The resolver for a multiple protocol client can either collect
         information for all classes using the * class value, or iterate
         on the classes supported by the client.  Note that in either
         case, the resolver must understand the preferences of the host.
         For example, the host that supports both CSNET and ARPA
         Internet protocols might prefer mail delivery (MD) to mail
         forwarding (MF), regardless of protocol, or might prefer one
         protocol regardless of whether MD or MF is required.  Care is
         required to prevent loops.

      3. The resolver must be capable of chaining through multiple name
         servers to get to an authoritative name server for any query.
         The resolver should guard against loops in referrals; a simple
         policy is to discard referrals that don't match more of the
         query name than the referring name server, and also to avoid
         querying the same name server twice (This test should be done
         using addresses of name servers instead of domain names to
         avoid problems when a name server has multiple domain names or
         errors are present in aliases).

      4. The resolver must be able to try alternate name servers when a
         name server doesn't respond.

      5. The resolver must be able to communicate different failure
         conditions to its client.  These failure conditions include
         unknown domain name, unknown resource for a know domain name,
         and inability to access any of the authoritative name servers
         for a domain.

      6. If the resolver uses datagrams for queries, it must recover
         from lost and duplicate datagrams.

   Resolvers with cache management

      Caching provides a tool for improving the performance of name
      service, but also is a potential source of incorrect results.  For
      example, a database might cache information that is later changed
      in the authoritative name servers.  While this problem can't be
      eliminated without eliminating caching, it can be reduced to an
      infrequent problem through the use of timeouts.

      When name servers return resource records, each record has an
      associated time-to-live (TTL) field.  This field is expressed in
      seconds, and has 16 bits of significance.

      When a resolver caches a returned resource record it must also
      remember the TTL field.  The resolver must discard the record when
      the equivalent amount of time has passed.  If the resolver shares
      a database with a name server, it must decrement the TTL field of
      imported records periodically rather than simply deleting the
      record.  This strategy is necessary to avoid exporting a resource
      record whose TTL field doesn't reflect the amount of time that the
      resource record has been cached.  Of course, the resolver should
      not decrement the TTL fields of records for which the associated
      name server is an authority.

Appendix 1 - Domain Name Syntax Specification

   The preferred syntax of domain names is given by the following BNF
   rules.  Adherence to this syntax will result in fewer problems with
   many applications that use domain names (e.g., mail, TELNET).  Note
   that some applications described in [14] use domain names containing
   binary information and hence do not follow this syntax.

      <domain> ::=  <subdomain> | " "

      <subdomain> ::=  <label> | <subdomain> "." <label>

      <label> ::= <letter> [ [ <ldh-str> ] <let-dig> ]

      <ldh-str> ::= <let-dig-hyp> | <let-dig-hyp> <ldh-str>

      <let-dig-hyp> ::= <let-dig> | "-"

      <let-dig> ::= <letter> | <digit>

      <letter> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z
      in upper case and a through z in lower case

      <digit> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9

   Note that while upper and lower case letters are allowed in domain
   names no significance is attached to the case.  That is, two names
   with the same spelling but different case are to be treated as if

   The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names.  They must
   start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior
   characters only letters, digits, and hyphen.  There are also some
   restrictions on the length.  Labels must be 63 characters or less.

   For example, the following strings identify hosts in the ARPA



   [1]  E. Feinler, K. Harrenstien, Z. Su, and V. White, "DOD Internet
        Host Table Specification", RFC 810, Network Information Center,
        SRI International, March 1982.

   [2]  J. Postel, "Computer Mail Meeting Notes", RFC 805,
        USC/Information Sciences Institute, February 1982.

   [3]  Z. Su, and J. Postel, "The Domain Naming Convention for Internet
        User Applications", RFC 819, Network Information Center, SRI
        International, August 1982.

   [4]  Z. Su, "A Distributed System for Internet Name Service",
        RFC 830, Network Information Center, SRI International,
        October 1982.

   [5]  K. Harrenstien, and V. White, "NICNAME/WHOIS", RFC 812, Network
        Information Center, SRI International, March 1982.

   [6]  M. Solomon, L. Landweber, and D. Neuhengen, "The CSNET Name
        Server", Computer Networks, vol 6, nr 3, July 1982.

   [7]  K. Harrenstien, "NAME/FINGER", RFC 742, Network Information
        Center, SRI International, December 1977.

   [8]  J. Postel, "Internet Name Server", IEN 116, USC/Information
        Sciences Institute, August 1979.

   [9]  K. Harrenstien, V. White, and E. Feinler, "Hostnames Server",
        RFC 811, Network Information Center, SRI International,
        March 1982.

   [10] J. Postel, "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
        USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1981.

   [11] J. Postel, "User Datagram Protocol", RFC 768, USC/Information
        Sciences Institute, August 1980.

   [12] J. Postel, "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 821,
        USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1980.

   [13] J. Reynolds, and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 870,
        USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1983.

   [14] P. Mockapetris, "Domain Names - Implementation and
        Specification", RFC 883, USC/Information Sciences Institute,
        November 1983.