Generalized DNS Notifications
draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-03

DNSOP Working Group                                          J. Stenstam
Internet-Draft                           The Swedish Internet Foundation
Intended status: Standards Track                            P. Thomassen
Expires: 24 April 2025                 deSEC, Secure Systems Engineering
                                                               J. Levine
                                                           Standcore LLC
                                                         21 October 2024

                     Generalized DNS Notifications
                 draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-03

Abstract

   This document extends the use of DNS NOTIFY [RFC1996] beyond
   conventional zone transfer hints, bringing the benefits of ad-hoc
   notifications to DNS delegation maintenance in general.  Use cases
   include DNSSEC bootstrapping and key rollovers hints, and quicker
   changes to a delegation's NS record set.

   To enable this functionality, a method for discovering the receiver
   endpoint for such notification message is introduced, via the new
   DSYNC record type.

   TO BE REMOVED: This document is being collaborated on in Github at:
   https://github.com/peterthomassen/draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify
   (https://github.com/peterthomassen/draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-
   notify).  The most recent working version of the document, open
   issues, etc. should all be available there.  The authors (gratefully)
   accept pull requests.

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 24 April 2025.

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

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
     1.1.  Design Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  DSYNC RR Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Publication of Notification Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Wildcard Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Child-specific Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Delegation Maintenance: CDS/CDNSKEY and CSYNC
           Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Endpoint Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Sending Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  Timeouts and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.2.  Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Processing of NOTIFY Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  DSYNC RR Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.2.  DSYNC Scheme Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix A.  Efficiency and Convergence Issues in DNS Scanning  .  14
     A.1.  Original NOTIFY for Zone Transfer Nudging . . . . . . . .  14
     A.2.  Similar Issues for DS Maintenance and Beyond  . . . . . .  15
   Appendix B.  Change History (to be removed before publication)  .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

1.  Introduction

   Traditional DNS notifications [RFC1996], which are here referred to
   as "NOTIFY(SOA)", are sent from a primary server to a secondary
   server to minimize the latter's convergence time to a new version of
   the zone.  This mechanism successfully addresses a significant
   inefficiency in the original protocol.

   Today similar inefficiencies occur in new use cases, in particular
   delegation maintenance (DS and NS record updates).  Just as in the
   NOTIFY(SOA) case, a new set of notification types will have a major
   positive benefit by allowing the DNS infrastructure to completely
   sidestep these inefficiencies.  For additional context, see
   Appendix A.

   No DNS protocol changes are introduced by this document.  The
   mechanism instead makes use of a wider range of DNS messages allowed
   by the protocol.  Future extension for further use cases (such as
   multi-signer key exchange) is possible.

   Readers are expected to be familiar with DNSSEC, including [RFC4033],
   [RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC6781], [RFC7344], [RFC7477], [RFC7583],
   [RFC8078], [RFC8901], and [RFC9615].

1.1.  Design Requirements

   When the parent is interested in notifications for delegation
   maintenance (such as for DS or NS hints), a service will need to be
   made available for accepting these notifications.  Depending on the
   context, this service may be run by the parent zone operator
   themselves, or by a designated entity who is in charge of handling
   the domain's delegation data (such as a domain registrar).

   It seems desirable to minimize the number of steps that the
   notification sender needs to figure out where to send the NOTIFY.
   This suggests that the lookup process be ignorant of the details of
   the parent-side relationships (e.g., whether there is a registrar or
   not).  This is addressed by parameterizing the lookup with the name
   of the child.  The parent may then (optionally) announce the
   notification endpoint in a delegation-specific way, that is, at a
   child-specific name.  (A catch-all endpoint may be indicated by
   wildcarding.)

   The solution proposed here is thus for the parent to publish the
   address where it listens for notifications, in a child-specific way
   (see Section 3).  Potential senders, knowing the name of the parent
   zone, can then simply look up that information (see Section 4.1).

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

1.2.  Requirements Notation

   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.

2.  DSYNC RR Type

2.1.  Wire Format

   The DSYNC RDATA wire format is encoded as follows:

                        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | RRtype                        | Scheme        | Port
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   | Target ...  /
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-/

   RRtype  The type of generalized NOTIFY that this DSYNC RR defines the
      desired target address for (see "Resource Record (RR) TYPEs" IANA
      registry).  For now, only CDS and CSYNC are supported values, with
      the former indicating an updated CDS or CDNSKEY record set.

   Scheme  The scheme indicates the mode used for locating the desired
      notification address.  This is an 8 bit unsigned integer.  Records
      with value 0 (null scheme) are ignored by consumers.  Value 1 is
      described in this document, and values 128-255 are reserved for
      private use.  All other values are currently unspecified.

   Port  The port on the target host of the notification service.  This
      is a 16 bit unsigned integer in network byte order.

   Target  The fully-qualified, uncompressed domain name of the target
      host providing the service of listening for generalized
      notifications of the specified type.  This name MUST resolve to
      one or more address records.

2.2.  Semantics

   For now, the only scheme defined is scheme=1 with the interpretation
   that when a new CDS/CDNSKEY (or CSYNC) RRset is published, a
   NOTIFY(CDS) (or NOTIFY(CSYNC)) should be sent to the address and port
   listed in the corresponding DSYNC record.

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

   Example (for the owner names of these records, see Section 3):

   IN DSYNC CDS   1 5359 cds-scanner.example.net.
   IN DSYNC CSYNC 1 5360 csync-scanner.example.net.

   Should a need for other mechanisms arise, other schemes may be
   defined to deal with such requirements using alternative logic.

3.  Publication of Notification Targets

   To use generalized notifications, it is necessary for the sender to
   know where to direct each NOTIFY message.  This section describes the
   procedure for discovering that notification target.

   Note that generalized NOTIFY messages are but one mechanism for
   improving the efficiency of automated delegation maintenance.  Other
   alternatives, such as contacting the parent via an API or DNS Update
   ([RFC2136]), may (or may not) be more suitable in individual cases.
   Like generalized notifications, they similarly require a means for
   discovering where to send the API or DNS Update requests.

   The scope for the publication mechanism is therefore wider than only
   to support generalized notifications, and a unified approach that
   works independently of the notification method is specified in this
   section.

   Parents participating in the discovery scheme for the purpose of
   delegation maintenance notifications MUST publish endpoint
   information using the record type defined in Section 2 under the
   _dsync domain as described in the following subsection.

   It is RECOMMENDED to secure the corresponding zone with DNSSEC.  A
   parent MUST NOT publish more than one DSYNC record for each
   combination of rrtype and scheme.

   For practical purposes, the parent MAY delegate the _dsync domain as
   a separate zone, and/or synthesize records under it.  If child-
   specificity is not needed, the parent can publish a wildcard DSYNC
   record.

3.1.  Wildcard Method

   If the parent itself performs CDS/CDNSKEY or CSYNC processing, or if
   the parent forwards the notifications internally to the designated
   party (such as a registrar), the following scheme is used:

   *._dsync.example.  IN DSYNC  CDS   scheme port target
   *._dsync.example.  IN DSYNC  CSYNC scheme port target

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

   To accommodate indirect delegation management models, the parent's
   designated notification target may relay notifications to a third
   party (such as the registrar, in ICANN's model).  The details of such
   arrangements are out of scope for this document.

   In case the parent does not need child-specificity, the wildcard
   label may be dropped from the DSYNC owner name (i.e., it may be
   published at the _dsync label instead).  While this practice enables
   zone structures without wildcards, it also requires an additional
   step during discovery (see Section 4.1), and is therefore NOT
   RECOMMENDED.

3.2.  Child-specific Method

   It is also possible to publish child-specific records, where the
   wildcard label is replaced by the child's FQDN with the parent zone's
   labels stripped.

   As an example, consider a registrar offering domains like
   child.example, delegated from example zone.  If the registrar
   provides the notification endpoint, e.g., rr-endpoint.example:5300,
   the parent may publish this information as follows:

   child._dsync.example.  IN DSYNC  CDS  1 5300 rr-endpoint.example.

4.  Delegation Maintenance: CDS/CDNSKEY and CSYNC Notifications

   Delegation maintenance notifications address the inefficiencies
   related to scanning child zones for CDS/CDNSKEY records
   [RFC7344][RFC8078][RFC9615].  (For an overview of the issues, see
   Appendix A.)

   NOTIFY messages for delegation maintenance MUST be formatted as
   described in [RFC1996], with the qtype field replaced as appropriate.

   To address the CDS/CDNSKEY dichotomy, the NOTIFY(CDS) message (with
   qtype=CDS) is defined to indicate any child-side changes pertaining
   to an upcoming update of DS records.  As the child DNS operator
   generally is unaware of whether the parent consumes CDS records or
   prefers CDNSKEY, or when that policy changes, it seems advisable to
   publish both types of records, preferably using automation features
   of common authoritative nameserver software for ensuring consistency.

   Upon receipt of NOTIFY(CDS), the recipient (the parent registry or a
   registrar) SHOULD initiate the same DNS lookups and verifications for
   DNSSEC bootstrapping [RFC9615] or DS maintenance [RFC7344][RFC8078]
   that would otherwise be triggered based on a timer.

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

   The CSYNC [RFC7477] inefficiency may be similarly treated, with the
   child sending a NOTIFY(CSYNC) message (with qtype=CSYNC) to an
   address where the parent (or a registrar) is listening to CSYNC
   notifications.

   In both cases the notification will speed up processing times by
   providing the recipient with a hint that a particular child zone has
   published new CDS, CDNSKEY and/or CSYNC records.

4.1.  Endpoint Discovery

   To locate the target for outgoing delegation maintenance
   notifications, the notification sender MUST perform the following
   procedure:

   1.  Construct the lookup name, by injecting the _dsync label after
       the first label of the delegation owner name.

   2.  Perform a lookup of type DSYNC for the lookup name, and validate
       the response if DNSSEC is enabled.  If a DSYNC RRset results,
       return it.

   3.  If the query resulted in a negative response:

       *  If the response's SOA record indicates that the parent is more
          than one label away from the _dsync label, construct a new
          lookup name by inserting the _dsync label into the delegation
          owner name just before the parent zone labels inferred from
          the negative response, and go to step 2.

          For example, city.ise.mie.jp is delegated from jp (and not
          from ise.mie.jp or mie.jp!).  The initial DSYNC query relating
          to it is thus directed at city._dsync.ise.mie.jp.  This is
          expected to result in a negative response from jp, and another
          query for city.ise.mie._dsync.jp is then required;

       *  Otherwise, if the lookup name has any labels in front of the
          _dsync label, remove them to construct a new lookup name (such
          as _dsync.jp), and go to step 2.  (This is to enable zone
          structures without wildcards.)

       *  Otherwise, return null (no notification target available).

4.2.  Sending Notifications

   When creating or changing a CDS/CDNSKEY/CSYNC RRset in the child
   zone, the DNS operator SHOULD send a suitable notification to one of
   the endpoints discovered as described in the previous section.

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

   A NOTIFY message can only carry information about changes concerning
   one child zone.  When there are changes to several child zones, the
   sender MUST send a separate notification for each one.

   When a primary name server publishes a new RRset in the child, there
   typically is a time delay until all publicly visible copies of the
   zone will have been updated.  If the primary sends a notification at
   the exact time of publication of the new zone, there is a potential
   for the parent to attempt CDS/CDNSKEY/CSYNC processing before the
   updated zone is visible.  In this case the parent may draw the wrong
   conclusion (“the CDS RRset has not been updated”).

   It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the child delays sending
   notifications to the recipient until a consistent public view of the
   pertinent records is ensured.

4.2.1.  Timeouts and Error Handling

   NOTIFY messages are expected to elicit a response from the recipient
   ([RFC1996] Section 4.7).  If no response is received, senders SHOULD
   employ the same logic as for SOA notifications ([RFC1996] Sections
   3.5 and 3.6).

   The parent's attempt to act upon the delegation update request may
   fail for a variety of reasons (e.g., due to violation of the
   continuity requirement set forth in [RFC7344] Section 4.1).  Such
   failures may occur asynchronously, even after the NOTIFY response has
   been sent.

   In order to learn about such failures, senders MAY include an
   [RFC9567] EDNS0 Report-Channel option in the NOTIFY message to
   request the receiving side to report any errors by making a report
   query with an appropriate extended DNS error code as described in
   [RFC8914].  When including this EDNS0 option, its agent domain MUST
   be subordinate or equal to one of the NS hostnames, as listed in the
   child's delegation in the parent zone.

4.2.2.  Roles

   While the CDS/CDNSKEY/CSYNC processing following the receipt of a
   NOTIFY will often be performed by the registry, the protocol
   anticipates that in some contexts (especially for ICANN gTLDs),
   registrars may take on the task.  In such cases, the parent may
   publish the current registrar notification endpoint, enabling
   notifications to be directed to the appropriate target.  The
   mechanics of how this is arranged between registry and registrar are
   out of scope for this document; the protocol only offers the
   possibility to arrange things such that from the child perspective,

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

   it is inconsequential how the parent-side parties are organized:
   notifications are simply sent to the published address.

   Because of the security model where a notification by itself never
   causes a change (it can only speed up the time until the next check
   for the same thing), the sender's identity is not crucial.  This
   opens up the possibility of having an arbitrary party (e.g., a side-
   car service) send the notifications, enabling this functionality even
   before the emergence of native support in nameserver software.

4.3.  Processing of NOTIFY Messages

   NOTIFY(CDS) messages carrying notification payloads (records) for
   several child zones MUST be discarded, as sending them is an error.

   Upon receipt of a (potentially forwarded) valid NOTIFY(CDS) message
   for a particular child zone at the published address for CDS
   notifications, the receiving side (parent registry or registrar) has
   two options:

   1.  Acknowledge receipt by sending a NOTIFY response as described in
       [RFC1996] Section 4.7 (identical to NOTIFY query, but with QR bit
       set) and schedule an immediate check of the CDS and CDNSKEY
       RRsets as published by that particular child zone.

       If the NOTIFY message contains an [RFC9567] EDNS0 Report-Channel
       option with an agent domain subordinate or equal to one of the NS
       hostnames listed in the delegation, the processing party SHOULD
       report any errors occuring during CDS/CDNSKEY processing by
       sending a report query with an appropriate extended DNS error
       code as described in [RFC8914].

       If the check finds that the CDS/CDNSKEY RRset is indeed new or
       has changed, the parent MAY reset the scanning timer for children
       for which NOTIFY(CDS) is received, or reduce the periodic
       scanning frequency accordingly (e.g. to every two weeks).  This
       will decrease the scanning effort for the parent.  If a CDS/
       CDNSKEY change is then detected (without having received a
       notification), the parent SHOULD clear that state and revert to
       the default scanning schedule.

       Parents introducing CDS/CDNSKEY scanning support at the same time
       as NOTIFY(CDS) support are not in danger of breaking children's
       scanning assumption, and MAY therefore use a low-frequency
       scanning schedule in default mode.

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

   2.  Do not act upon the notification.  To prevent retries, recipients
       SHOULD acknowledge the notification by sending a NOTIFY response
       even when otherwise ignoring the request, combined with a report
       query if feasible (see above).  One reason to do this may be a
       rate limit (see Section 5), in which case "Blocked" (15) may be a
       suitable extended DNS error code.

   If the parent implements the first option, the convergence time (time
   between publication of a new CDS/CDNSKEY record in the child and
   propagation of the resulting DS) will decrease significantly, thereby
   providing improved service to the child zone.

   If the parent, in addition to scheduling an immediate check for the
   child zone of the notification, also chooses to modify the scanning
   schedule (to be less frequent), the cost of providing the scanning
   service will be reduced.

   Upon receipt of a NOTIFY(CSYNC) to the published address for CSYNC
   notifications, the same options and considerations apply as for the
   NOTIFY(CDS).

5.  Security Considerations

   The original NOTIFY specification sidesteps most security issues by
   not relying on the information in the NOTIFY message in any way, and
   instead only using it to "enter the state it would if the zone's
   refresh timer had expired" (Section 4.7 of [RFC1996]).

   This security model is reused for generalized NOTIFY messages.  It
   therefore seems impossible to affect the behaviour of the recipient
   of the NOTIFY other than by hastening the timing for when different
   checks are initiated.

   The receipt of a notification message will, in general, cause the
   receiving party to perform one or more outbound queries for the
   records of interest (for example, NOTIFY(CDS) will cause CDS/CDNSKEY
   queries).  When done using standard DNS, the size of these queries is
   comparable to that of the NOTIFY messages themselves, rendering any
   amplification attempts futile.  The number of queries triggered per
   notification is also limited by the requirement that a NOTIFY message
   can refer to one child only.

   However, when the outgoing query occurs via encrypted transport, some
   amplification is possible, both with respect to bandwidth and
   computational burden.  In this case, the usual principle of bounding
   the work, even under unreasonable events, applies.

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

   Receivers therefore MUST implement rate limiting for notification
   processing.  It is RECOMMENDED to configure rate limiting
   independently for both the notification's source IP address and the
   name of the zone that is conveyed in the NOTIFY message.  Rate
   limiting also mitigates processing load from garbage notifications.

   Alternative solutions (such as signing notifications and validating
   their signatures) appear significantly more expensive without
   tangible benefit.

   In order to facilitate schemes that are authenticated outside of
   DNSSEC (such as via SIG(0)), zones containing DSYNC records are not
   required to be signed.  Spoofed DSYNC responses would prevent
   notifications from reaching their legitimate target, and a different
   party may receive unsolicited notifications; both effects, however,
   can also be achieved in the presence of DNSSEC.  The illegitimate
   target is also enabled to learn notification contents in real-time,
   which may be a privacy concern for the sender.  If so, the sender may
   choose to ignore unsigned DSYNC records.

6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  DSYNC RR Type

   IANA is requested to update the "Resource Record (RR) TYPEs" registry
   under the "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters" registry group as
   follows:

   Type  DSYNC

   Value  tbd (next available)

   Meaning  Endpoint discovery for delegation synchronization

   Reference  (this document)

6.2.  DSYNC Scheme Registration

   Per [RFC8552], IANA is requested to create a new registry on the
   "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters" IANA web page as follows:

   Name  DSYNC: Location of Synchronization Endpoints

   Assignment Policy  Expert Review

   Reference  (this document)

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

      +========+=========+========================+=================+
      | RRtype | Scheme  | Purpose                | Reference       |
      +========+=========+========================+=================+
      |        | 0       | Null scheme (no-op)    | (this document) |
      +--------+---------+------------------------+-----------------+
      | CDS    | 1       | Delegation management  | (this document) |
      +--------+---------+------------------------+-----------------+
      | CSYNC  | 1       | Delegation management  | (this document) |
      +--------+---------+------------------------+-----------------+
      |        | 2-127   | Unassigned             |                 |
      +--------+---------+------------------------+-----------------+
      |        | 128-255 | Reserved (private use) | (this document) |
      +--------+---------+------------------------+-----------------+

                                  Table 1

7.  Acknowledgements

   In order of first contribution: Joe Abley, Mark Andrews, Christian
   Elmerot, Ólafur Guðmundsson, Paul Wouters, Brian Dickson, Warren
   Kumari, Patrick Mevzek, Tim Wicinski

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1996]  Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
              Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, DOI 10.17487/RFC1996,
              August 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1996>.

   [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>.

   [RFC2136]  Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
              "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
              RFC 2136, DOI 10.17487/RFC2136, April 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2136>.

   [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/rfc/rfc4033>.

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

   [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/rfc/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/rfc/rfc4035>.

   [RFC7344]  Kumari, W., Gudmundsson, O., and G. Barwood, "Automating
              DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance", RFC 7344,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7344, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7344>.

   [RFC7477]  Hardaker, W., "Child-to-Parent Synchronization in DNS",
              RFC 7477, DOI 10.17487/RFC7477, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7477>.

   [RFC8078]  Gudmundsson, O. and P. Wouters, "Managing DS Records from
              the Parent via CDS/CDNSKEY", RFC 8078,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8078, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8078>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8552]  Crocker, D., "Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource
              Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute Leaves",
              BCP 222, RFC 8552, DOI 10.17487/RFC8552, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8552>.

   [RFC8914]  Kumari, W., Hunt, E., Arends, R., Hardaker, W., and D.
              Lawrence, "Extended DNS Errors", RFC 8914,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8914, October 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8914>.

   [RFC9567]  Arends, R. and M. Larson, "DNS Error Reporting", RFC 9567,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9567, April 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9567>.

   [RFC9615]  Thomassen, P. and N. Wisiol, "Automatic DNSSEC
              Bootstrapping Using Authenticated Signals from the Zone's
              Operator", RFC 9615, DOI 10.17487/RFC9615, July 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9615>.

8.2.  Informative References

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dnssec-automation]
              Wisser, U., Huque, S., and J. Stenstam, "DNSSEC
              automation", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              dnsop-dnssec-automation-03, 19 October 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-
              dnssec-automation-03>.

   [RFC6781]  Kolkman, O., Mekking, W., and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC
              Operational Practices, Version 2", RFC 6781,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6781, December 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6781>.

   [RFC7583]  Morris, S., Ihren, J., Dickinson, J., and W. Mekking,
              "DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations", RFC 7583,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7583, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7583>.

   [RFC8901]  Huque, S., Aras, P., Dickinson, J., Vcelak, J., and D.
              Blacka, "Multi-Signer DNSSEC Models", RFC 8901,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8901, September 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8901>.

Appendix A.  Efficiency and Convergence Issues in DNS Scanning

A.1.  Original NOTIFY for Zone Transfer Nudging

   [RFC1996] introduced the concept of a DNS Notify message which was
   used to improve the convergence time for secondary servers when a DNS
   zone had been updated in the primary.  The basic idea was to augment
   the traditional "pull" mechanism (a periodic SOA query) with a "push"
   mechanism (a Notify) for a common case that was otherwise very
   inefficient (due to either slow convergence or wasteful overly
   frequent scanning of the primary for changes).

   While it is possible to indicate how frequently checks should occur
   (via the SOA Refresh parameter), these checks did not allow catching
   zone changes that fall between checkpoints.  [RFC1996] addressed the
   optimization of the time-and-cost trade-off between a secondary
   checking frequently for new versions of a zone, and infrequent
   checking, by replacing scheduled scanning with the more efficient
   NOTIFY mechanism.

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

A.2.  Similar Issues for DS Maintenance and Beyond

   Today, we have similar issues with slow updates of DNS data in spite
   of the data having been published.  The two most obvious cases are
   CDS and CSYNC scanners deployed in a growing number of TLD
   registries.  Because of the large number of child delegations,
   scanning for CDS and CSYNC records is rather slow (as in infrequent).

   It is only a very small number of the delegations that will have
   updated CDS or CDNSKEY record in between two scanning runs.  However,
   frequent scanning for CDS and CDNSKEY records is costly, and
   infrequent scanning causes slower convergence (i.e., delay until the
   DS RRset is updated).

   Unlike in the original case, where the primary is able to suggest the
   scanning interval via the SOA Refresh parameter, an equivalent
   mechanism does not exist for DS-related scanning.

   All of this above also applies to parents that offer automated NS and
   glue record maintenance via CSYNC scanning [RFC7477].  Again, given
   that CSYNC records change only rarely, frequent scanning of a large
   number of delegations seems disproportionately costly, while
   infrequent scanning causes slower convergence (delay until the
   delegation is updated).

   While use of the NOTIFY mechanism for coordinating the key exchange
   in multi-signer setups [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dnssec-automation] is
   conceivable, the detailed specification is left for future work.

Appendix B.  Change History (to be removed before publication)

   *  draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-03

      Include DNSSEC bootstrapping use case

      Remove sections with approaches not pursued

      Editorial changes

   *  draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-02

      Nits by Tim Wicinski

      Dnsdir feedback

      Specify timeout and error handling

      Editorial nits

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

      Reserve scheme value 0

   *  draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-01

      Reserve scheme values 128-255

      Rename NOTIFY rrtype to DSYNC (to distinguish from NOTIFY message)

      Describe endpoint discovery

      Discussion on garbage notifications

      More discussion on amplification risks

      Clean-up, editorial changes

   *  draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-00

      Revision after adoption.

   *  draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify-02

      Add rationale for staying in band

      Add John as an author

   *  draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify-01

      Mention Ry-to-Rr forwarding to accommodate RRR model

      Add port number flexibility

      Add scheme parameter

      Drop SRV-based alternative in favour of new NOTIFY RR

      Editorial improvements

   *  draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify-00

      Initial public draft.

Authors' Addresses

   Johan Stenstam
   The Swedish Internet Foundation
   Email: johan.stenstam@internetstiftelsen.se

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft          Generalized Notifications           October 2024

   Peter Thomassen
   deSEC, Secure Systems Engineering
   Email: peter@desec.io

   John Levine
   Standcore LLC
   Email: standards@standcore.com

Stenstam, et al.          Expires 24 April 2025                [Page 17]