Skip to main content

DNS over CoAP (DoC)
draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-08

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 "Active".
Authors Martine Sophie Lenders , Christian Amsüss , Cenk Gündoğan , Thomas C. Schmidt , Matthias Wählisch
Last updated 2024-09-26 (Latest revision 2024-06-28)
Replaces draft-lenders-dns-over-coap
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Associated WG milestone
Sep 2024
DNS over CoAP (DoC) submitted to IESG for PS
On agenda core at IETF-121
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-08
CoRE                                                       M. S. Lenders
Internet-Draft                                                TU Dresden
Intended status: Standards Track                               C. Amsüss
Expires: 30 March 2025                                                  
                                                             C. Gündoğan
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           T. C. Schmidt
                                                             HAW Hamburg
                                                             M. Wählisch
                                        TU Dresden & Barkhausen Institut
                                                       26 September 2024

                          DNS over CoAP (DoC)
                    draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-08

Abstract

   This document defines a protocol for sending DNS messages over the
   Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP).  These CoAP messages are
   protected by DTLS-Secured CoAP (CoAPS) or Object Security for
   Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE) to provide encrypted DNS
   message exchange for constrained devices in the Internet of Things
   (IoT).

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Constrained RESTful
   Environments Working Group mailing list (core@ietf.org), which is
   archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/core-wg/draft-dns-over-coap.

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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

   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 30 March 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Selection of a DoC Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Discovery by Resource Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Discovery using SVCB Resource Records or DNR  . . . . . .   6
   4.  Basic Message Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  The "application/dns-message" Content-Format  . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  DNS Queries in CoAP Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  Request Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.2.  Support of CoAP Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.3.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  DNS Responses in CoAP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.3.1.  Response Codes and Handling DNS and CoAP errors . . .   9
       4.3.2.  Support of CoAP Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.3.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  CoAP/CoRE Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  DNS Push  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  OSCORE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.3.  Mapping DoC to DoH  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  Considerations for Unencrypted Use  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.1.  DoC Client  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.2.  DoC Server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

     9.1.  New "application/dns-message" Content-Format  . . . . . .  13
     9.2.  New "docpath" SVCB Service Parameter  . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.3.  New "core.dns" Resource Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix A.  Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Appendix B.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.1.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-07  . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.2.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-06  . . . . . . . . .  18
     B.3.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-05  . . . . . . . . .  19
     B.4.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-04  . . . . . . . . .  19
     B.5.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-03  . . . . . . . . .  19
     B.6.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-02  . . . . . . . . .  19
     B.7.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-01  . . . . . . . . .  20
     B.8.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-00  . . . . . . . . .  20
     B.9.  Since draft-lenders-dns-over-coap-04  . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction

   This document defines DNS over CoAP (DoC), a protocol to send DNS
   [RFC1035] queries and get DNS responses over the Constrained
   Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252].  Each DNS query-response pair
   is mapped into a CoAP message exchange.  Each CoAP message is secured
   by DTLS [RFC6347] [RFC9147] or Object Security for Constrained
   RESTful Environments (OSCORE) [RFC8613] to ensure message integrity
   and confidentiality.

   The application use case of DoC is inspired by DNS over HTTPS
   [RFC8484] (DoH).  DoC, however, aims for the deployment in the
   constrained Internet of Things (IoT), which usually conflicts with
   the requirements introduced by HTTPS.  Constrained IoT devices may be
   restricted in memory, power consumption, link layer frame sizes,
   throughput, and latency.  They may only have a handful kilobytes of
   both RAM and ROM.  They may sleep for long durations of time, after
   which they need to refresh the named resources they know about.  Name
   resolution in such scenarios must take into account link layer frame
   sizes of only a few hundred bytes, bit rates in the magnitute of
   kilobits per second, and latencies of several seconds [RFC7228].

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

   To prevent TCP and HTTPS resource requirements, constrained IoT
   devices could use DNS over DTLS [RFC8094].  In contrast to DNS over
   DTLS, DoC utilizes CoAP features to mitigate drawbacks of datagram-
   based communication.  These features include: block-wise transfer,
   which solves the Path MTU problem of DNS over DTLS (see [RFC8094],
   section 5); CoAP proxies, which provide an additional level of
   caching; re-use of data structures for application traffic and DNS
   information, which saves memory on constrained devices.

   To prevent resource requirements of DTLS or TLS on top of UDP (e.g.,
   introduced by DNS over QUIC [RFC9250]), DoC allows for lightweight
   payload encryption based on OSCORE.

                 . FETCH coaps://[2001:db8::1]/
                /
               /
              CoAP request
   +------+   [DNS query]   +------+   DNS query     .---------------.
   | DoC  |---------------->| DoC  |--- --- --- --->|      DNS        |
   |Client|<----------------|Server|<--- --- --- ---| Infrastructure  |
   +------+  CoAP response  +------+  DNS response   '---------------'
             [DNS response]
      \                        /\                                 /
       '-----DNS over CoAP----'  '--DNS over UDP/HTTPS/QUIC/...--'

                      Figure 1: Basic DoC architecture

   The most important components of DoC can be seen in Figure 1: A DoC
   client tries to resolve DNS information by sending DNS queries
   carried within CoAP requests to a DoC server.  That DoC server is a
   DNS client (i.e., a stub or recursive resolver) that resolves DNS
   information by using other DNS transports such as DNS over UDP
   [RFC1035], DNS over HTTPS [RFC8484], or DNS over QUIC [RFC9250] when
   communicating with the upstream DNS infrastructure.  Using that
   information, the DoC server then replies to the queries of the DoC
   client with DNS responses carried within CoAP responses.

   Note that this specification is disjunct from DoH since the CoRE-
   specific FETCH method is used.  This was done to take benefit from
   having the DNS query in the payload as with POST, but still having
   the caching advantages we would gain with GET.  Having the DNS query
   in the payload means we do not need extra base64 encoding, which
   would increase code complexity and message sizes.  We are also able
   to transfer a query block-wise.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

2.  Terminology

   A server that provides the service specified in this document is
   called a "DoC server" to differentiate it from a classic "DNS
   server".  A DoC server acts either as a DNS stub resolver [RFC8499]
   or a DNS recursive resolver [RFC8499].

   A client using the service specified in this document to retrieve the
   DNS information is called a "DoC client".

   The term "constrained nodes" is used as defined in [RFC7228].

   The terms "CoAP payload" and "CoAP body" are used as defined in
   [RFC7959], Section 2.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Selection of a DoC Server

   While there is no path specified for the DoC resource, it is
   RECOMMENDED to use the root path "/" to keep the CoAP requests small.

   In this document, it is assumed that the DoC client knows the DoC
   server and the DNS resource at the DoC server.  Possible options
   could be manual configuration of a URI [RFC3986] or CRI
   [I-D.ietf-core-href], or automatic configuration, e.g., using a CoRE
   resource directory [RFC9176], DHCP or Router Advertisement options
   [RFC9463] or discovery of designated resolvers [RFC9462].  Automatic
   configuration SHOULD only be done from a trusted source.

3.1.  Discovery by Resource Type

   When discovering the DNS resource through a link mechanism that
   allows describing a resource type (e.g., the Resource Type Attribute
   in [RFC6690]), the resource type "core.dns" can be used to identify a
   generic DNS resolver that is available to the client.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

3.2.  Discovery using SVCB Resource Records or DNR

   A DoC server can also be discovered using SVCB Resource Records (RR)
   [RFC9460], [RFC9461] or DNR Service Parameters [RFC9463].
   [I-D.ietf-core-coap-dtls-alpn] provides solutions to discover CoAP
   over (D)TLS servers using the "alpn" SvcParam.
   [I-D.lenders-core-dnr] provides a problem statement for service
   bindings discovery for OSCORE and EDHOC.  This document specifies
   "docpath" as a single-valued SvcParamKey whose value MUST be a CBOR
   sequence of 0 or more text strings (see [RFC8949]), delimited by the
   length of the SvcParamValue field (in octets).  If the SvcParamValue
   ends within a CBOR text string, the SVCB RR MUST be considered as
   malformed.  As a text format, e.g., in DNS zone files, the CBOR
   diagnostic notation (see Section 8 of [RFC8949]) of that CBOR
   sequence can be used.

   Note, that this specifically does not surround the text string
   sequence with a CBOR array or a similar CBOR data item.  This path
   format was chosen to coincide with the path representation in CRIs
   ([I-D.ietf-core-href]).  Furthermore, it is easily transferable into
   a sequence of CoAP Uri-Path options by mapping the initial byte of
   any present CBOR text string (see [RFC8949], Section 3) into the
   Option Delta and Option Length of the CoAP option, provided these
   CBOR text strings are all of a length between 0 and 12 octets (see
   [RFC7252], Section 3.1).  Likewise, it can be transfered into a URI
   path-abempty form (see [RFC3986], Section 3.3) by replacing the
   initial byte of any present CBOR text string with the "/" character,
   provided these CBOR text strings are all of a length lesser than 24
   octets and do not contain bytes that need escaping.

   To use the service binding from a SVCB RR, the DoC client MUST send
   any DoC request to the CoAP resource identifier constructed from the
   SvcParams including "docpath".  A rough construction algorithm could
   be as follows, going through the provided records in order of their
   priority.

   *  If the "alpn" SvcParam value for the service is "coap", construct
      a CoAP request for CoAP over TLS, if it is "co", construct a CoAP
      request for CoAP over DTLS.  Any other SvcParamKeys specifying a
      CoAP transport are out of scope of this document.

   *  The destination address for the request should be taken from
      additional information about the target, e.g. from an AAAA record
      associated to the target name or from an "ipv6hint" SvcParam
      value, or, as a fallback, by querying an address for the target
      name of the SVCB record.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

   *  The destination port for the address is taken from the "port"
      SvcParam value, if present.  Otherwise, take the default port of
      the CoAP transport.

   *  Set the target name of SVCB record in the URI-Host option.

   *  For each element in the CBOR sequence of the "docpath" SvcParam
      value, add a Uri-Path option to the request.

   *  If a "port" SvcParam value is provided or if a port was queried,
      and if either differs from the default port of the transport or
      the destination port selected above, set that port in the URI-Port
      option.

   *  If the request constructed this way receives a response, use the
      same SVCB record for construction of future DoC queries.  If not,
      or if the endpoint becomes unreachable, repeat with the SVCB
      record with the next highest priority.

   A more generalized construction algorithm can be found in
   [I-D.ietf-core-transport-indication].

4.  Basic Message Exchange

4.1.  The "application/dns-message" Content-Format

   This document defines a CoAP Content-Format number for the Internet
   media type "application/dns-message" to be the mnemonic 553--based on
   the port assignment of DNS.  This media type is defined as in
   [RFC8484] Section 6, i.e., a single DNS message encoded in the DNS
   on-the-wire format [RFC1035].  Both DoC client and DoC server MUST be
   able to parse contents in the "application/dns-message" format.

4.2.  DNS Queries in CoAP Requests

   A DoC client encodes a single DNS query in one or more CoAP request
   messages that use the CoAP FETCH [RFC8132] method.  Requests SHOULD
   include an Accept option to indicate the type of content that can be
   parsed in the response.

   Since CoAP provides reliability of the message layer (e.g.  CON) the
   retransmission mechanism of the DNS protocol as defined in [RFC1035]
   is not needed.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

4.2.1.  Request Format

   When sending a CoAP request, a DoC client MUST include the DNS query
   in the body of the CoAP request.  As specified in [RFC8132]
   Section 2.3.1, the type of content of the body MUST be indicated
   using the Content-Format option.  This document specifies the usage
   of Content-Format "application/dns-message" (details see
   Section 4.1).  A DoC server MUST be able to parse requests of
   Content-Format "application/dns-message".

4.2.2.  Support of CoAP Caching

   The DoC client SHOULD set the ID field of the DNS header always to 0
   to enable a CoAP cache (e.g., a CoAP proxy en-route) to respond to
   the same DNS queries with a cache entry.  This ensures that the CoAP
   Cache-Key (see [RFC8132] Section 2) does not change when multiple DNS
   queries for the same DNS data, carried in CoAP requests, are issued.

4.2.3.  Examples

   The following example illustrates the usage of a CoAP message to
   resolve "example.org.  IN AAAA" based on the URI
   "coaps://[2001:db8::1]/".  The CoAP body is encoded in "application/
   dns-message" Content Format.

   FETCH coaps://[2001:db8::1]/
   Content-Format: application/dns-message
   Accept: application/dns-message
   Payload: 00 00 01 20 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 07 65 78 61 [binary]
            6d 70 6c 65 03 6f 72 67 00 00 1c 00 01 c0 0c 00 [binary]
            01 00 01                                        [binary]

4.3.  DNS Responses in CoAP Responses

   Each DNS query-response pair is mapped to a CoAP REST request-
   response operation.  DNS responses are provided in the body of the
   CoAP response.  A DoC server MUST be able to produce responses in the
   "application/dns-message" Content-Format (details see Section 4.1)
   when requested.  A DoC client MUST understand responses in
   "application/dns-message" format when it does not send an Accept
   option.  Any other response format than "application/dns-message"
   MUST be indicated with the Content-Format option by the DoC server.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

4.3.1.  Response Codes and Handling DNS and CoAP errors

   A DNS response indicates either success or failure in the Response
   code of the DNS header (see [RFC1035] Section 4.1.1).  It is
   RECOMMENDED that CoAP responses that carry any valid DNS response use
   a "2.05 Content" response code.

   CoAP responses use non-successful response codes MUST NOT contain a
   DNS response and MUST only be used on errors in the CoAP layer or
   when a request does not fulfill the requirements of the DoC protocol.

   Communication errors with a DNS server (e.g., timeouts) SHOULD be
   indicated by including a SERVFAIL DNS response in a successful CoAP
   response.

   A DoC client might try to repeat a non-successful exchange unless
   otherwise prohibited.  The DoC client might also decide to repeat a
   non-successful exchange with a different URI, for instance, when the
   response indicates an unsupported Content-Format.

4.3.2.  Support of CoAP Caching

   For reliability and energy saving measures content decoupling and
   thus en-route caching on proxies takes a far greater role than it
   does, e.g., in HTTP.  Likewise, CoAP utilizes cache validation to
   refresh stale cache entries without large messages which regularly
   uses hashing over the message content for ETag generation.  As such,
   the approach to guarantee the same cache key for DNS responses as
   proposed in DoH ([RFC8484], section 5.1) is not sufficient and needs
   to be updated so that the TTLs in the response are more often the
   same regardless of query time.

   The DoC server MUST ensure that any sum of the Max-Age value of a
   CoAP response and any TTL in the DNS response is less or equal to the
   corresponding TTL received from an upstream DNS server.  This also
   includes the default Max-Age value of 60 seconds (see [RFC7252],
   section 5.10.5) when no Max-Age option is provided.  The DoC client
   MUST then add the Max-Age value of the carrying CoAP response to all
   TTLs in a DNS response on reception and use these calculated TTLs for
   the associated records.

   The RECOMMENDED algorithm to assure the requirement for the DoC is to
   set the Max-Age option of a response to the minimum TTL of a DNS
   response and to subtract this value from all TTLs of that DNS
   response.  This prevents expired records unintentionally being served
   from an intermediate CoAP cache.  Additionally, it allows for the
   ETag value for cache validation, if it is based on the content of the
   response, not to change even if the TTL values are updated by an

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

   upstream DNS cache.  If only one record set per DNS response is
   assumed, a simplification of this algorithm is to just set all TTLs
   in the response to 0 and set the TTLs at the DoC client to the value
   of the Max-Age option.

4.3.3.  Examples

   The following examples illustrate the replies to the query
   "example.org.  IN AAAA record", recursion turned on.  Successful
   responses carry one answer record including address
   2001:db8:1::1:2:3:4 and TTL 58719.

   A successful response:

   2.05 Content
   Content-Format: application/dns-message
   Max-Age: 58719
   Payload: 00 00 81 a0 00 01 00 01 00 00 00 00 07 65 78 61 [binary]
            6d 70 6c 65 03 6f 72 67 00 00 1c 00 01 c0 0c 00 [binary]
            1c 00 01 00 01 37 49 00 10 20 01 0d b8 00 01 00 [binary]
            00 00 01 00 02 00 03 00 04                      [binary]

   When a DNS error (SERVFAIL in this case) is noted in the DNS
   response, the CoAP response still indicates success:

   2.05 Content
   Content-Format: application/dns-message
   Payload: 00 00 81 a2 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 07 65 78 61 [binary]
            6d 70 6c 65 03 6f 72 67 00 00 1c 00 01          [binary]

   When an error occurs on the CoAP layer, the DoC server SHOULD respond
   with an appropriate CoAP error, for instance "4.15 Unsupported
   Content-Format" if the Content-Format option in the request was not
   set to "application/dns-message" and the Content-Format is not
   otherwise supported by the server.

5.  CoAP/CoRE Integration

5.1.  DNS Push

   DNS Push requires additional overhead, which conflicts with
   constrained resources, This is the reason why it is RECOMMENDED to
   use CoAP Observe [RFC7641] instead of DNS Push in the DoC domain.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

   If the CoAP request indicates that the DoC client wants to observe a
   resource record, a DoC server MAY use a DNS Subscribe message
   [RFC8765] instead of a classic DNS query to fetch the information on
   behalf of a DoC client.  If this is not supported by the DoC server,
   it MUST act as if the resource were not observable.

   Whenever the DoC server receives a DNS Push message [RFC8765] from
   the DNS infrastructure for an observed resource record, the DoC
   server sends an appropriate Observe response to the DoC client.

   If no more DoC clients observe a resource record for which the DoC
   server has an open subscription, the DoC server MUST use a DNS
   Unsubscribe message [RFC8765] to close its subscription to the
   resource record as well.

5.2.  OSCORE

   It is RECOMMENDED to carry DNS messages encrypted using OSCORE
   [RFC8613] between the DoC client and the DoC server.  The
   establishment and maintenance of the OSCORE Security Context is out
   of the scope of this document.

   If cache retrieval of OSCORE responses is desired, it can be
   achieved, for instance, by using the method defined in
   [I-D.amsuess-core-cachable-oscore].  This has, however, implications
   on message sizes and security properties, which are compiled in that
   document.

5.3.  Mapping DoC to DoH

   This document provides no specification how to map between DoC and
   DoH, e.g., at a CoAP-HTTP-proxy, and it is NOT RECOMMENDED.
   Rewriting the FETCH method (Section 4.2) and the TTL rewriting
   (Section 4.3.2) as specified in this draft would be non-trivial.  It
   is RECOMMENDED to use a DNS forwarder to map between DoC and DoH, as
   would be the case for mapping between any other DNS transport.

6.  Considerations for Unencrypted Use

   The use of DoC without a security mode of CoAP is NOT RECOMMENDED.
   Without a security mode, many possible attacks need to be evaluated
   in the context of the application's threat model.  This includes
   threats that are mitigated even by DNS over UDP: For example, the
   random ID of the DNS header afford some protection against off-path
   cache poisoning attacks---a threat that might be mitigated by using
   random large token values in the CoAP request.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

7.  Implementation Status

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

7.1.  DoC Client

   The authors of this document provide a DoC client implementation
   available in the IoT operating system RIOT (https://doc.riot-os.org/
   group__net__gcoap__dns.html).

   Level of maturity:  production

   Version compability:  draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-08

   License:  LGPL-2.1

   Contact information:  Martine S.  Lenders <martine.lenders@tu-
      dresden.de>

   Last update of this information:  September 2024

7.2.  DoC Server

   The authors of this document provide a DoC server implementation in
   Python (https://github.com/anr-bmbf-pivot/aiodnsprox).

   Level of maturity:  production

   Version compability:  draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-08

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

   License:  MIT

   Contact information:  Martine S.  Lenders <martine.lenders@tu-
      dresden.de>

   Last update of this information:  September 2024

8.  Security Considerations

   General CoAP security considerations apply.  Exceeding those in
   Section 11 of [RFC7252], the request patterns of DoC make it likely
   that long-lived security contexts are maintained: [amp-0rtt] goes
   into more detail on what needs to be done when those are resumed from
   a new endpoint.

   When using unencrypted CoAP (see Section 6), setting the ID of a DNS
   message to 0 as specified in Section 4.2.2 opens the DNS cache of a
   DoC client to cache poisoning attacks via response spoofing.  This
   document requires an unpredictable CoAP token in each DoC query from
   the client when CoAP is not secured to mitigate such an attack over
   DoC (see Section 6).

   For encrypted usage with DTLS or OSCORE the impact of a fixed ID on
   security is limited, as both harden against injecting spoofed
   responses.  Consequently, it is of little concern to leverage the
   benefits of CoAP caching by setting the ID to 0.

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  New "application/dns-message" Content-Format

   IANA is requested to assign CoAP Content-Format ID for the DNS
   message media type in the "CoAP Content-Formats" sub-registry, within
   the "CoRE Parameters" registry [RFC7252], corresponding to the
   "application/dns-message" media type from the "Media Types" registry
   (see [RFC8484])

   Content Type: application/dns-message

   Content Coding: -

   Id: 553 (suggested)

   Reference: [RFC8484][TBD-this-spec, Section 4.1]

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

9.2.  New "docpath" SVCB Service Parameter

   This document adds the following entry to the Service Parameter Keys
   (SvcParamKeys) registry in the DNS Service Bindings (SVCB) registry
   group.  The definition of this parameter can be found in Section 3.

       +===============+=========+===============+=================+
       | Number        | Name    | Meaning       | Reference       |
       +===============+=========+===============+=================+
       | 9 (suggested) | docpath | DNS over CoAP | [TBD-this-spec, |
       |               |         | resource path | Section 3]      |
       +---------------+---------+---------------+-----------------+

                                  Table 1

9.3.  New "core.dns" Resource Type

   IANA is requested to assign a new Resource Type (rt=) Link Target
   Attribute, "core.dns" in the "Resource Type (rt=) Link Target
   Attribute Values" sub-registry, within the "CoRE Parameters" register
   [RFC6690].

   Attribute Value: core.dns

   Description: DNS over CoAP resource.

   Reference: [TBD-this-spec, Section 3]

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-core-coap-dtls-alpn]
              Lenders, M. S., Amsüss, C., Schmidt, T. C., and M.
              Wählisch, "ALPN ID Specification for CoAP over DTLS", Work
              in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-coap-dtls-
              alpn-00, 5 September 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
              coap-dtls-alpn-00>.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1035>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
              January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6347>.

   [RFC7228]  Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
              Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7228>.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7252>.

   [RFC7641]  Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7641>.

   [RFC7959]  Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7959>.

   [RFC8132]  van der Stok, P., Bormann, C., and A. Sehgal, "PATCH and
              FETCH Methods for the Constrained Application Protocol
              (CoAP)", RFC 8132, DOI 10.17487/RFC8132, April 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8132>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8613]  Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
              (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8613>.

   [RFC8949]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949>.

   [RFC9147]  Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
              Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
              1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9147>.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

10.2.  Informative References

   [amp-0rtt] "PR #40 "Amplification and 0-RTT" on "CoAP: Corrections
              and Clarifications"", 25 September 2024,
              <https://github.com/core-wg/corrclar/pull/40>.  Note: It
              is expected that that PR will be merged way ahead of this
              document's publication; at the next revision, this
              reference will be replaced with a reference to what will
              by then most likely be I-D.ietf- core-corr-clar-00 (now
              bormann-core-clar-05).

   [DoC-paper]
              Lenders, M., Amsüss, C., Gündogan, C., Nawrocki, M.,
              Schmidt, T., and M. Wählisch, "Securing Name Resolution in
              the IoT: DNS over CoAP", Association for Computing
              Machinery (ACM), Proceedings of the ACM on Networking vol.
              1, no. CoNEXT2, pp. 1-25, DOI 10.1145/3609423, September
              2023, <https://doi.org/10.1145/3609423>.

   [I-D.amsuess-core-cachable-oscore]
              Amsüss, C. and M. Tiloca, "Cacheable OSCORE", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-amsuess-core-cachable-
              oscore-09, 8 July 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-amsuess-core-
              cachable-oscore-09>.

   [I-D.ietf-core-href]
              Bormann, C. and H. Birkholz, "Constrained Resource
              Identifiers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-core-href-16, 24 July 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
              href-16>.

   [I-D.ietf-core-transport-indication]
              Amsüss, C. and M. S. Lenders, "CoAP Transport Indication",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-
              transport-indication-06, 8 July 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
              transport-indication-06>.

   [I-D.lenders-core-dnr]
              Lenders, M. S., Amsüss, C., Schmidt, T. C., and M.
              Wählisch, "Discovery of Network-designated OSCORE-based
              Resolvers: Problem Statement", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-lenders-core-dnr-03, 8 July 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-core-
              dnr-03>.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986>.

   [RFC6690]  Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
              Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6690>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942>.

   [RFC8094]  Reddy, T., Wing, D., and P. Patil, "DNS over Datagram
              Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 8094,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8094, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8094>.

   [RFC8484]  Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
              (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8484>.

   [RFC8499]  Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
              Terminology", RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, January
              2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8499>.

   [RFC8765]  Pusateri, T. and S. Cheshire, "DNS Push Notifications",
              RFC 8765, DOI 10.17487/RFC8765, June 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8765>.

   [RFC9176]  Amsüss, C., Ed., Shelby, Z., Koster, M., Bormann, C., and
              P. van der Stok, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
              Resource Directory", RFC 9176, DOI 10.17487/RFC9176, April
              2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9176>.

   [RFC9250]  Huitema, C., Dickinson, S., and A. Mankin, "DNS over
              Dedicated QUIC Connections", RFC 9250,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9250, May 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9250>.

   [RFC9460]  Schwartz, B., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Service Binding
              and Parameter Specification via the DNS (SVCB and HTTPS
              Resource Records)", RFC 9460, DOI 10.17487/RFC9460,
              November 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9460>.

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

   [RFC9461]  Schwartz, B., "Service Binding Mapping for DNS Servers",
              RFC 9461, DOI 10.17487/RFC9461, November 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9461>.

   [RFC9462]  Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., Wood, C. A., McManus, P., and T.
              Jensen, "Discovery of Designated Resolvers", RFC 9462,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9462, November 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9462>.

   [RFC9463]  Boucadair, M., Ed., Reddy.K, T., Ed., Wing, D., Cook, N.,
              and T. Jensen, "DHCP and Router Advertisement Options for
              the Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers (DNR)",
              RFC 9463, DOI 10.17487/RFC9463, November 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9463>.

Appendix A.  Evaluation

   The authors of this document presented the design, implementation,
   and analysis of DoC in their paper "Securing Name Resolution in the
   IoT: DNS over CoAP" [DoC-paper].

Appendix B.  Change Log

B.1.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-07
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-
      coap-07)

   *  Address IANA early review #1368678

   *  Update normative reference to CoAP over DTLS alpn SvcParam

   *  Add missing DTLSv1.2 reference

   *  Security considerations: Point into corr-clar-future

   *  Implementation Status: Update to current version

B.2.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-06
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-
      coap-06)

   *  Add "docpath" SVCB ParamKey definition

   *  IANA fixes

      -  Use new column names (see Errata 4954)

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

      -  Add reference to RFC 8484 for application/dns-message Media
         Type

      -  IANA: unify self references

B.3.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-05
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-
      coap-05)

   *  Add references to relevant SVCB/DNR RFCs and drafts

B.4.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-04
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-
      coap-04)

   *  Add note on cachable OSCORE

   *  Address early IANA review

B.5.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-03
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-
      coap-03)

   *  Amended Introduction with short contextualization of constrained
      environments

   *  Add Appendix A on evaluation

B.6.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-02
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-
      coap-02)

   *  Move implementation details to Implementation Status (in
      accordance with [RFC7942])

   *  Recommend root path to keep the CoAP options small

   *  Set Content-Format for application/dns-message to 553

   *  SVCB/DNR: Move to Server Selection Section but leave TBD based on
      DNSOP discussion for now

   *  Clarify that DoC and DoC are disjunct

   *  Clarify mapping between DoC and DoH

   *  Update considerations on unencrypted use

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

   *  Don't call OSCORE end-to-end encrypted

B.7.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-01
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-
      coap-01)

   *  Specify DoC server role in terms of DNS terminology

   *  Clarify communication of DoC to DNS infrastructure is agnostic of
      the transport

   *  Add subsection on how to implement DNS Push in DoC

   *  Add appendix on reference implementation

B.8.  Since draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-00
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-
      coap-00)

   *  SVGify ASCII art

   *  Move section on "DoC Server Considerations" (was Section 5.1) to
      its own draft (draft-lenders-dns-cns
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lenders-dns-cns/))

   *  Replace layer violating statement for CON with statement of fact

   *  Add security considerations on ID=0

B.9.  Since draft-lenders-dns-over-coap-04
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lenders-dns-over-
      coap-04)

   *  Removed change log of draft-lenders-dns-over-coap

Acknowledgments

   The authors of this document want to thank Carsten Bormann, Ben
   Schwartz, Marco Tiloca, and Tim Wicinski for their feedback and
   comments.

Authors' Addresses

   Martine Sophie Lenders
   TUD Dresden University of Technology
   Helmholtzstr. 10
   D-01069 Dresden
   Germany

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft                     DoC                    September 2024

   Email: martine.lenders@tu-dresden.de

   Christian Amsüss
   Email: christian@amsuess.com

   Cenk Gündoğan
   Huawei Technologies
   Riesstrasse 25
   D-80992 Munich
   Germany
   Email: cenk.gundogan@huawei.com

   Thomas C. Schmidt
   HAW Hamburg
   Berliner Tor 7
   D-20099 Hamburg
   Germany
   Email: t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de

   Matthias Wählisch
   TUD Dresden University of Technology & Barkhausen Institut
   Helmholtzstr. 10
   D-01069 Dresden
   Germany
   Email: m.waehlisch@tu-dresden.de

Lenders, et al.           Expires 30 March 2025                [Page 21]