DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-13

[Ballot comment]
I have not read this draft, but from the reviews of my IESG colleagues, it is clear that I would have no objection to it's publication.

[Ballot comment]
This was a pleasure to read - nicely done.

One shameless plug for security considerations of MD5 and SHA-1: RFC 6151 (MD5 Security Considerations) and RFC 6194 (SHA-1 security considerations).

[Ballot comment]

Excellent document, thanks.

I found the diff from RFC 4641 to be too big to be much use
(with the time available for review) so feel free to tell me
where to go if I make a comment on existing 4641 text and
you don't wanna think about the comment.

- 3.4.1 - I think its fair to say now that rsa-sha256 is
widely supported in libraries at least. I've no idea about
how well its supported in validators, but the lack of sha256
in libraries was previously the cause of delay elsewhere.

- 3.4.4 - Maybe worth a reference to the Lenstra paper [1]
as a warning to use good RNGs. They found a non-negligible
percentage of keys that were badly generated due
(presumably) to a lack of good randomness when e.g. devices
were first powered on.

  [1] http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/064

- 4.4.1 - "to be a fraction of your signature validity
period" is unclear. 1/100000 is a fraction as is 9/10 but so
is 100000/1. In another reading of that text you might also
be asking that the signature validity period be a multiple
of the TTL. I think that needs to be made more clear.

- 4.4.2.2 - Is "Inception time" well (enough) defined? It is
mentioned in 1.2 but I'd forgotten that by the time I got
here and 1.2 doesn't have a reference. Might be no harm to
say a bit more about what that is in both places. (In
particular since here, you also have the inception offset
which is not defined in this doc.) Maybe do that in
appendix A?

typos:

- p8, last sentence of 3rd para has a typo, maybe
s/are based/that are based/

- p10, typo, s/it's not much point/there's not much
point/

[Ballot comment]
I have no problems with the publication of this document, but I do have one suggestion...

The change information in Appendix E is quite useful, but it currently says it should be deleted prior to publication.  I would suggest keeping the appendix, maybe in a more condensed format, to identify the key changes made from RFC 4641.

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-12, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document:
- 'DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-24. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes a set of practices for operating the DNS with
  security extensions (DNSSEC).  The target audience is zone
  administrators deploying DNSSEC.

  The document discusses operational aspects of using keys and
  signatures in the DNS.  It discusses issues of key generation, key
  storage, signature generation, key rollover, and related policies.

  This document obsoletes RFC 4641 as it covers more operational ground
  and gives more up-to-date requirements with respect to key sizes and
  the DNSSEC operations.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis/ballot/


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

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

This draft, , aims
at "Informational" status and obsoletes RFC 4641, which has
the same status.  The WG discussed BCP status but it was felt
that there is too little experience beyond root and TLD
operations to justofy "best".  For the same reason, the
document tries to discuss practices and their tradeoffs
rather than giving strong recommendations. This is also
explained in the Introduction.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document describes a set of practices for operating the DNS with
  security extensions (DNSSEC).  The target audience is DNS zone
  administrators deploying DNSSEC.

  The document discusses operational aspects of using keys and
  signatures in the DNS.  It elaborates on issues of key generation,
  key storage, signature generation, key rollover, and related tasks.


Working Group Summary

  The draft started as an updated version of RFC 4641 in 2009
  and and was updated through WG contributions up to
  version -06 that got WGLC'ed in April 2011.  Multiple
  comments received during the WGLC as well as after this
  were taken into account with the consent of the WG,
  leading to version -12 as of today.  No part of the document
  was particluarly contentious, as the draft primarily discusses
  tradeoffs in favor of making recommendations.  That means
  reasonable dissenting views could be and are reflected
  in the document.

Document Quality

  This draft is a definitive improvement over RFC 4641, which
  it strives to replace.  Various TLD and other zones'
  DNSSEC practices are in line with, or within the boundaries
  of this draft, that therefore reflects the collective wisdom
  of those active operators who chose to contribute.  The draft
  received significant review within the WG as well as
  attention outside the IETF.

Personnel

  Peter Koch is the document shepherd, Ron Bonica is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The document shepherd reviewed this latest -12 version as well as previous
  versions.  NITS level review was applied and addressed in -12.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

  The document has received widespread attention within the DNSOP WG
  as well as outside the IETF. There are no concerns regarding the
  depth or breadth of the review.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  As the draft talks about cryptographic parameters, such as DNSSEC
  key sizes and algorithms, the input of experienced IETF attendees
  with security and cryptographic background is highly appreciated.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  N/A

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  There is no IPR field against this draft as per
 

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The WG consensus behind the document is strong.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  N/A

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  The draft passes the IETF ID nits checker
 
  with two relevant warnings:  RFC 2119 language is used only where the
  draft quotes other RFCs, therefore the 2119 boilerplate was not used.
  This is already addressed in the introduction.
  The draft uses the boilerplate for pre-5378 work, because it is an
  extended update of RFC 4641.  Not all contributors to that RFC (as
  per the extensive acknowledgement section) have been asked for permission.

  Both WG chairs, including the shepherd, did independent nits reviews
  for consistency, language and, well, nits. These have been addressed
  in -08 and subsequent versions of the draft.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  All core DNS and DNSSEC RFCs are considered Normative. Other
  RFCs, DNS or otherwise, as well as non-IETF documents are considered
  Informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  N/A

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the
Last Call procedure.

  N/A

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  This draft intends to obsolete RFC 4641 while maintaining Informational
  status.  This is refelected in the header as well as in the abstract
  and introduction.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  This document does neither request registrations nor define a IANA
  registry.  This is rightfully addressed in section 7 of the draft.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  There is no such formal language.  All DNS examples have been inspected
  as appropriate and to the extent possible (DNSSEC signatures are
  intentionally shortened) during the review process.  State diagrams
  in figures 1 through 15 have been reviewed manually.