DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements
draft-iab-2870bis-03

[Ballot discuss]
This is an educate-Spencer Discuss, but

      MUST generate checksums when sending UDP datagrams and MUST verify
      checksums when receiving UDP datagrams containing a non-zero
      checksum.

is unchanged from RFC 2870, dated in 2000.

Has anything changed in the past 15 years that would make rejecting UDP packets with zero checksums from root servers a better idea?

A simple "no" will suffice, of course. But at least one TSV AD should ask.

[Ballot comment]

- I assume only copy editing changes will happen
to rssac001 between now and publication. If not then,
I'm confused.

- I'm not sure whether anycast ought be a protocol or a
service requirement. For now it's only in the rssac doc
but is that right? (I can buy that it's good enough.)

- I like E.3.1-B in the rssac doc, that should calm any
worries I'd have thought. (Maybe we should thank them?)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for your work on this draft.  I agree with the other suggestions made by Barry, Pete, & Adrian.

The SecDir review mentions the need for a privacy discussion, but I don't think this draft is the right place for that as it really should be in the referenced drafts for each of the stated requirements (IMO).  If they get updated, it would be good to add those as appropriate for each of the drafts.

[Ballot discuss]
Adding a Discuss to by previous Comments (thanks to Deborah for raising this with me).

Sections 2 and 3 tell us that implementations "MUST" do stuff described in a number of RFCs. I think that makes those RFCs normative references. I'm happy to be talked out of that, but you may a long way to go to persuade me.

[Ballot comment]
I'm balloting No Objection, but there are some relatively trivial things
that could be done to improve the document.

---

It's a shame about the passive voice in the Abstract. It makes it
unclear who has the expectation. Additionally, the choice of words makes
it unclear whether you are saying "we have an expectation that you will
do this" or "we are predict this will happen."

In fact, they are "implementation and deployment requirements." Is there
a need to say more?

---

Section 2

  Operative details are documented in [RSSAC-001] and implementation is
  left to the operators of the root name service.

Implementation of what?

---

The document really should make clear whether there are any changes to
the requirements originally espoused in 2870. If there are, they can be
flagged. If not, it is just a few words to say so.

---

The Abstract should make note of Obsoleting 2870. I believe idnits tells
you to do this.

[Ballot comment]
-- Section 3 --

  The root name service:

      MUST answer queries from any entity conforming to [RFC1122] with a
      valid IP address.

During discussion, Liman agreed that it might be good to add "subject to operational considerations", or something like that.  That sounds like a wise and useful addition.  Thanks for discussing it with me.

[Ballot discuss]
-- Section 3 --

  The root name service:

      MUST answer queries from any entity conforming to [RFC1122] with a
      valid IP address.

Does this mean that the root name service is not allowed to stop answering queries in order to address DoS attacks?  Or is this somehow covered by 1122?

[Ballot discuss]
[Updating per Jari's suggestion that the words should be different now that RSSAC-001 is done.]

I strongly agree with Paul Hoffman's suggested rewording in section 1:

OLD
  The operational requirements are defined in [RSSAC-001].  This
  document defines the protocol requirements and some deployment
  requirements.
NEW
  This document only defines the protocol requirements and some
  deployment requirements; the operational requirements that were
  defined in RFC 2870 are removed. Operational requirements are
  now defined by the Root Server System Advisory Committee of ICANN
  and are documented in [RSSAC-001].
END

Stating it as it is currently written (along with the text in 1.1) makes it sound like RSSAC is somehow part of the BCP, which it obviously cannot be. Please make the above change.

Please strike section 1.1. My understanding is that the IAB does not consider it necessary to move 2870 to Historic, and the fact that this is obsoleting 2870 and replacing it in the BCP series is sufficient. (Even if this weren't so, documents don't "reclassify" other document as Historic.) Further, the above change in section 1 makes the second part of 1.1 unnecessary.

In the header: Please add "BCP: 40 (if approved)"

Sponsoring AD's view of the current state:

I wanted to come back to the status of the discussions.

We have an ongoing discussion of the changes Marc made on the -02. My read of the feedback is that the update has done the right things, but:

1) Paul Hoffman’s clarifications & editorial changes seem useful, but I would like to hear what others think. Marc, you should respond to those as well.

2) Mark Andrews’ suggestion of further requirements regarding reserved bits was discussed, but should proceed separately.

3) Mark Andrews' suggestion of further requirements regarding EDNS0 has not been discussed, but I would note that at this stage we should not add major requirements without substantial community portion indicating that this is needed. I’m not hearing it.

4) I’ve also received feedback from IESG members that the text about moving 2870 to Historic in Section 1.1 could be problematic. While I’m not sure that is necessarily the case, I think this draft merely replaces 2870, so I am not sure we need to say anything more. I have confirmed with the IAB that it does not believe the part about moving 2870 to Historic is necessary. Does anyone object to this change?

With regards to the earlier discussions in the last call in the summer, Marc’s message discussed some of the things where an agreement was clearly found. I don’t think I need to report further on that. However, I wanted to highlight a few other items:

I believe there is rough consensus to publish an updated BCP (subject to some detailed clarifications, still ongoing). There was some discussion about whether it is appropriate for the IETF to do this, but my read of the discussion is that the topic was explored and that a reasonable division of work between the RSSAC and IETF exists, even with some roughness of the opinions within the group. The IETF role in this case is to provide high-level requirements for the service. Specifically for this service, even if some broader statements have been made about all nodes previously. But is not our role to enforce anything or deal with the operational issues.

There was some discussion of the meaning of the requirements currently in the document, and whether clarifying text was needed to specify whether they apply to individual nodes or the service. Michael Richardsson (among others) has supported the current text as it really is about the service. This is another topic where there is some roughness in the group, but I believe the initial question has been adequately answered and has at least some support in the group.

A big problem last summer was that we did not yet have a document from the RSSAC. With the stable RSSAC document now available, it is possible to proceed.

From my read of the commentary, the following items may deserve further thought. Marc, can you deal with these?

* Joe Abley’s comment about qualifying the requirement to answer queries from any valid IP address with respect to operational events (such as attacks). While I believe the operational issues are indeed in the RSSAC scope, I think we should qualify our requirement to be subject to operational issues.

* Klaas Wieranga’s Secdir review made a suggestion about privacy related to root queries, and how caching mitigates some of the concerns. Text could be added about this, although it is of course somewhat obvious state of affairs. I’ll leave it to the editor’s discretion what to do here.

[Ballot discuss]
I strongly agree with Paul Hoffman's suggested rewording in section 1:

Current:
  The operational requirements are defined in [RSSAC-001].  This
  document defines the protocol requirements and some deployment
  requirements.

Proposed:
  This document only defines the protocol requirements and some
  deployment requirements; the operational requirements that were
  defined in RFC 2870 are removed. It is expected that ICANN's
  RSSAC [RSSAC] will define the operational requirements.

Stating it as it is currently written (along with the text in 1.1) makes it sound like RSSAC is somehow part of the BCP, which it obviously cannot be. Please make the above change.

Please strike section 1.1. My understanding is that the IAB does not consider it necessary to move 2870 to Historic, and the fact that this is obsoleting 2870 and replacing it in the BCP series is sufficient. (Even if this weren't so, documents don't "reclassify" other document as Historic.) Further, the above change in section 1 makes the second part of 1.1 unnecessary.

In the header: Please add "BCP: 40 (if approved)"

Confirmed the status with Marc Blanchet. Now that the RSSAC document is out, Marc needs to provide a new revision with LC comments and feedback from RSSAC, and then I will take the document to the IESG for final approval.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-iab-2870bis-01, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that,  upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the Internet Architecture Board
(iab) to consider the following document:

- 'DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-06-20. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

  The DNS Root Name service is a critical part of the Internet
  architecture.  The protocol and deployment requirements expected to
  be implemented for the DNS root name service are defined in this
  document.  Operational requirements are out of scope.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-2870bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-2870bis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.