Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-05

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (dnsop WG)
Author Paul Hoffman 
Last updated 2021-10-12 (latest revision 2021-10-07)
Replaces draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Tim Wicinski
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2021-10-03)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Warren Kumari
Send notices to tjw.ietf@gmail.com
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
RFC Editor RFC Editor state EDIT
Details
Network Working Group                                         P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft                                                     ICANN
Updates: 5155, 6014, 8624 (if approved)                   7 October 2021
Intended status: Standards Track                                        
Expires: 10 April 2022

                 Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC
                  draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-05

Abstract

   This document changes the review requirements needed to get DNSSEC
   algorithms and resource records added to IANA registries.  It updates
   RFC 6014 to include hash algorithms for DS (Delegation Signer)
   records and NSEC3 (Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence)
   parameters.  It also updates RFC 5155 and RFC 6014, which have
   requirements for DNSSEC algorithms, and updates RFC 8624 to say that
   algorithms that are described in RFCs that are not on standards track
   are only at the "MAY" level of implementation recommendation.  The
   rationale for these changes is to bring the requirements for DS
   records and for the hash algorithms used in NSEC3 in line with the
   requirements for all other DNSSEC algorithms.

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/.

   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 10 April 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Hoffman                   Expires 10 April 2022                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          IANA revisions for DNSSEC           October 2021

   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 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Update to RFC 6014  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Update to RFC 8624  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   DNSSEC is primarily described in [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035].
   DNSSEC commonly uses another resource record beyond those defined in
   RFC 4034: NSEC3 [RFC5155].  DS resrouce records were originally
   defined in [RFC3658], and that definition was obsoleted by RFC 4034.

   [RFC6014] updated the requirements for how DNSSEC cryptographic
   algorithm identifiers in the IANA registries are assigned, reducing
   the requirements from being "Standards Action" to "RFC Required".
   However, the IANA registry requirements for hash algorithms for DS
   records [RFC3658] and for the hash algorithms used in NSEC3 records
   [RFC5155] are still "Standards Action".  This document updates those
   IANA registry requirements.  (For reference on how IANA registries
   can be updated in general, see [RFC8126].)

   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.

Hoffman                   Expires 10 April 2022                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          IANA revisions for DNSSEC           October 2021

2.  Update to RFC 6014

   Section 4 updates RFC 6014 to bring the requirements for DS records
   and NSEC3 hash algorithms in line with the rest of the DNSSEC
   cryptographic algorithms by allowing any DS hash algorithms, NSEC3
   hash algorithms, NSEC3 parameters, and NSEC3 flags that are fully
   described in an RFC to have identifiers assigned in the IANA
   registries.  This is an addition to the IANA considerations in RFC
   6014.

3.  Update to RFC 8624

   This document updates [RFC8624] for all DNSKEY and DS algorithms that
   are not on standards track.

   The second paragraph of Section 1.2 of RFC 8624 currently says:

      This document only provides recommendations with respect to
      mandatory-to-implement algorithms or algorithms so weak that they
      cannot be recommended.  Any algorithm listed in the [DNSKEY-IANA]
      and [DS-IANA] registries that are not mentioned in this document
      MAY be implemented.  For clarification and consistency, an
      algorithm will be specified as MAY in this document only when it
      has been downgraded from a MUST or a RECOMMENDED to a MAY.

   That paragraph is now replaced with the following:

      This document provides recommendations with respect to
      mandatory-to-implement algorithms, algorithms so weak that they
      cannot be recommended, and algorithms that are defined in RFCs
      that are not on standards track. Any algorithm listed in the
      [DNSKEY-IANA] and [DS-IANA] registries that are not mentioned in
      this document MAY be implemented. For clarification and
      consistency, an algorithm will be specified as MAY in this
      document only when it has been downgraded from a MUST or a
      RECOMMENDED to a MAY.

   This update is also reflected in the IANA considerations in
   Section 4.

4.  IANA Considerations

   In the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) NextSECure3 (NSEC3)
   Parameters" registry, the registration procedure for "DNSSEC NSEC3
   Flags", "DNSSEC NSEC3 Hash Algorithms", and "DNSSEC NSEC3PARAM Flags"
   are changed from "Standards Action" to "RFC Required".

Hoffman                   Expires 10 April 2022                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft          IANA revisions for DNSSEC           October 2021

   In the "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest
   Algorithms" registry, the registration procedure for "Digest
   Algorithms" is changed from "Standards Action" to "RFC Required".

5.  Security Considerations

   Changing the requirements for getting security algorithms added to
   IANA registries as described in this document will make it easier to
   get good algorithms added to the registries, and will make it easier
   to get bad algorithms added to the registries.  It is impossible to
   weigh the security impact of those two changes.

   Administrators of DNSSEC-signed zones, and of validating resolvers,
   may have been making security decisions based on the contents of the
   IANA registries.  This was a bad idea in the past, and now is an even
   worse idea because there will be more algorithms in those registries
   that may not have gone through IETF review.  Security decisions about
   which algorithms are safe and not safe should be made by reading the
   security literature, not by looking in IANA registries.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [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/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.

   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.

   [RFC5155]  Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
              Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
              Existence", RFC 5155, DOI 10.17487/RFC5155, March 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5155>.

Hoffman                   Expires 10 April 2022                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft          IANA revisions for DNSSEC           October 2021

   [RFC6014]  Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier
              Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, DOI 10.17487/RFC6014,
              November 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6014>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [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/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8624]  Wouters, P. and O. Sury, "Algorithm Implementation
              Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC", RFC 8624,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8624, June 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8624>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3658]  Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record
              (RR)", RFC 3658, DOI 10.17487/RFC3658, December 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3658>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   Donald Eastlake, Murray Kucherawy, Dan Harkins, Martin Duke, and
   Benjamin Kaduk contributed to this document.

Author's Address

   Paul Hoffman
   ICANN

   Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org

Hoffman                   Expires 10 April 2022                 [Page 5]