Third Party DNS operator to Registrars/Registries Protocol
draft-ietf-regext-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (regext WG)
Last updated 2017-03-12
Replaces draft-latour-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document (wg milestone: Jun 2017 - Submit for publicati... )
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
regext                                                         J. Latour
Internet-Draft                                                      CIRA
Intended status: Standards Track                          O. Gudmundsson
Expires: September 13, 2017                             Cloudflare, Inc.
                                                              P. Wouters
                                                                 Red Hat
                                                             M. Pounsett
                                                   Rightside Group, Ltd.
                                                          March 12, 2017

       Third Party DNS operator to Registrars/Registries Protocol
          draft-ietf-regext-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol-03.txt

Abstract

   There are several problems that arise in the standard
   Registrant/Registrar/Registry model when the operator of a zone is
   neither the Registrant nor the Registrar for the delegation.
   Historically the issues have been minor, and limited to difficulty
   guiding the Registrant through the initial changes to the NS records
   for the delegation.  As this is usually a one time activity when the
   operator first takes charge of the zone it has not been treated as a
   serious issue.

   When the domain uses DNSSEC it necessary to make regular (sometimes
   annual) changes to the delegation, updating DS record(s) in order to
   track KSK rollover.  Under the current model this is prone to delays
   and errors, as the Registrant must participate in updates to DS
   records.

   This document describes a simple protocol that allows a third party
   DNS operator to update DS records for a delegation, in a trusted
   manner, without involving the Registrant for each operation.  This
   same protocol can be used by Registrants.

Status of This Memo

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

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

Latour, et al.         Expires September 13, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  3-DNS-RRR                     March 2017

   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 September 13, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Notional Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  RFC2119 Keywords  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Process Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Identifying the Registrar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Establishing a Chain of Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Maintaining the Chain of Trust  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.4.  Other Delegation Maintenance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.5.  Acceptance Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  API Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Authentication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  RESTful Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  CDS resource  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.2.  Token resource  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Customized Error Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Actions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
Show full document text