REFER: A New Referral Mechanism for the DNS
draft-jabley-dnsop-refer-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Joe Abley 
Last updated 2021-02-12
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                           J. Abley
Internet-Draft                                  Public Interest Registry
Intended status: Experimental                          February 12, 2021
Expires: August 16, 2021

              REFER: A New Referral Mechanism for the DNS
                      draft-jabley-dnsop-refer-00

Abstract

   The Domain Name System (DNS) incorporates a namespace that is
   comprised, in practice, of multiple so-called zones.  Each zone is,
   in principal, a finite tree structure which can be administered
   autonomously, and is connected to exactly one parent zone and zero or
   more child zones.  These connection points are known as zone cuts; a
   parent zone contains information that allows the servers responsible
   for the child zone to be found.

   The current DNS specification encodes that information about child
   zones using an "NS" resource record set in the parent zone, and a
   corresponding "NS" resource record set in the child zone.  These two
   resource record sets have identical owner names, class, and resource
   record type but can differ in other respects such as the time-to-live
   (TTL) attribute, the resource record data associated with each set
   and the availability of cryptographic signatures.  This property of
   being similar, related but potentially different has led to
   operational complexity.

   This document proposes a change to how zone cuts are encoded in the
   parent zone, allowing the resource records in the parent and the
   child zone to be more clearly distinguished and protected separately
   using cryptographic signatures.

   It is not at all clear that this is a good idea.  To restate in
   stronger terms, the goal of the experiment described in this document
   is to determine just how bad an idea this is.

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/.

Abley                    Expires August 16, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft REFER: A New Referral Mechanism for the DNS February 2021

   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 August 16, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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 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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  An Assortment of Problem Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Ambiguity Across a Zone Cut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Masking of Parental RRSets by Children  . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  The REFER Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  The REFER Resource Record Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  The REFER OK EDNS(0) Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  DNS Protocol Modifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.4.1.  Changes to Deployed Zone Data . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.4.2.  Changes to DNS Server Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         4.4.2.1.  Authoritative Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         4.4.2.2.  Recursive Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
         4.4.2.3.  Other DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.5.  Backwards Compatibility and Incremental Deployment  . . .   9
     4.6.  Transport Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Goals of Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  Gauging the Desperation of the Camel  . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.3.  Incremental Deployment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
Show full document text