Skip to main content

Updating Parent Zones
draft-andrews-dnsop-update-parent-zones-00

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Author Mark P. Andrews
Last updated 2013-09-24
RFC stream (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-andrews-dnsop-update-parent-zones-00
Network Working Group                                         M. Andrews
Internet-Draft                                                       ISC
Expires: March 29, 2014                               September 25, 2013

                         Updating Parent Zones
               draft-andrews-dnsop-update-parent-zones-00

Abstract

   DNS UPDATE was developed to allow DNS zones to be updated.

   There is a perception that UPDATE can not be used in conjuction with
   the Registry, Registar, Registrant (RRR) model to update a zone.

   This document explains how UPDATE can be used in the RRR model.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 29, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Andrews                  Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Updating Parent Zones           September 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  Direct to Registrar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Indirect to Registrar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Andrews                  Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            Updating Parent Zones           September 2013

1.  Introduction

   UPDATE [RFC2136]is designed to update any zone in the DNS.  This
   includes updating delegating NS records, glue address records and DS
   record.

   While UPDATE is primarly designed to UPDATE a zone directly there in
   no reason why UPDATE requests cannot be translated to the EPP
   requests to perform the changes.

   This would provide a uniform model to update parent zone regardless
   of where they are in the DNS heirachy.

2.  Translation

   The Registrar would host a server that authenticates UPDATE requests
   received directly or relayed by the Registry using TSIG [RFC2845],
   then translate the actions in the UPDATE request into EPP transaction
   requests.  The results of those EPP transactions would be relayed to
   the UPDATE client.

   Requests that are not TSIG signed are rejected.

   The translating server would handle a restricted subset of UPDATE
   requests, possibly ignoring the prerequiste section.  UPDATE requests
   would be limited to those supported by EPP.

   e.g.  Add NS record.  Delete all NS records.  Add A record.  Delete
   AAAA record.  Add DS record.  Delete DS record.

   The translating server may also override/ignore the TTL in the UPDATE
   request.

3.  Authentication

   Authentication would be done using TSIG.  TSIG was designed to be
   uses in a environment where requests are relayed.

   Authentication can be done down to the <NAME,TYPE> tuple.  There
   exist nameservers that already implement access contols down to this
   level of granuality based on the presented TSIG.

   This would allow nameservers to update their own address records as
   they get renumbered without being able to update anything else.

   This would DNSSEC key management software to update DS records

Andrews                  Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            Updating Parent Zones           September 2013

   without being able to update anything else.

   As Registrars do all the authentication and generate the signed
   responses there is no need for the Registry to have access to the
   private material using in TSIG.  Registrars already handle shared
   keys in these numbers with their web interfaces.

4.  Direct to Registrar

   The hardest part of Direct to Registrar is finding where to send the
   UPDATE request.  This would most probably just be advised to the
   Registrant.

5.  Indirect to Registrar

   In the indirect model the Registry would host a UPDATE relay server
   which would examine the first record of the UPDATE section and relay
   the request to the Registrar of record for the owner name of that
   record.  The response would be relayed back.

   The relay can use either TCP or UDP when forwarding UPDATE requests
   as TSIG supports changes to the DNS id field when a request/response
   is relayed.

   This is consistent with how tools like nsupdate work out where to
   send a UPDATE request.  They look at the ownername of the first
   record and use it to discover the containing zone.

6.  Security Considerations

   The UPDATE requests are all TSIG signed.  This is a proven method for
   securing UPDATE requests in the DNS.

7.  Normative References

   [RFC2136]  Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
              "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
              RFC 2136, April 1997.

   [RFC2845]  Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake, D., and B.
              Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS
              (TSIG)", RFC 2845, May 2000.

Andrews                  Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            Updating Parent Zones           September 2013

Author's Address

   M. Andrews
   Internet Systems Consortium
   950 Charter Street
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   US

   Email: marka@isc.org

Andrews                  Expires March 29, 2014                 [Page 5]