Visual RFC.
ALL RFCs / RFC 1034
Read the RFC ↗
RFC 1034 / DEPLOYMENT CONTEXT

Transport & historical scope

12

RFC 1034 defines concepts. It depends on a companion implementation specification and later extensions for modern DNS.

Related RFCs and changes

“Updates” changes part of an earlier RFC. “Obsoletes” replaces it. This list shows selected related documents.

DIAGRAM§ 3.7 ↗
RFC 1034 · § 3.7EXAMPLE
4 / 4
Transport & historical scopeThe same logical DNS question can take datagram or stream transport without acquiring DNS authenticity.One DNS questionwww.example.org. / A / INUDPmessage datagramsTCPframed byte streamDNS responseanswer · referral · errorTCP transport alone does not authenticate DNS data
04
Carry the same logical question.

Choosing TCP alone does not authenticate the DNS data.

Protocol participantThreat or exceptionProtocol controlSimplified drawings · precise section references
KEY POINT

Read the foundation together with its updates.

  • DNS queries can travel over UDP or TCP.
  • RFC 1035 supplies detailed message encodings and original transport limits.
  • This base design does not provide the cryptographic authenticity introduced by DNSSEC.
DETAILS

The original 512-byte UDP message limit belongs to RFC 1035, not a universal modern limit. EDNS and modern TCP requirements are specified separately.

Read the RFC section ↗

Diagrams simplify the RFC. Read the linked sections for complete requirements.

Privacy
All chapters in this RFC
  1. The name tree
  2. Resource records
  3. Delegation & glue
  4. Iterative resolution
  5. Recursive resolution
  6. Caches & TTL
  7. Aliases
  8. Missing names & failures
  9. Wildcard synthesis
  10. Zone maintenance
  11. Reverse lookups
  12. Transport & historical scope

Drawing view

Scroll the drawing to see every part. Playback controls stay above it.

RFC 9700 / CHAPTERS

Chapters

For full details, tables, algorithms, and exceptions, read the original RFC.

RFC status and corrections ↗