TLD Zone Pipeline: Requirements And Design Principles
draft-johani-tld-zone-pipeline-00
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Johan Stenstam , Jakob Schlyter | ||
| Last updated | 2023-03-13 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources |
GitHub Repository
|
||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-johani-tld-zone-pipeline-00
DNSOP Working Group J. Stenstam
Internet-Draft The Swedish Internet Foundation
Intended status: Standards Track J. Schlyter
Expires: 14 September 2023 Kirei AB
13 March 2023
TLD Zone Pipeline: Requirements And Design Principles
draft-johani-tld-zone-pipeline-00
Abstract
Today most TLD registries publish DNSSEC signed zones. The sequence
of steps from generating the unsigned zone, via DNSSEC signing and
various types of verification is referred to as the "zone pipeline".
The robustness and correctness of the zone pipeline is of crucial
importance and the zone pipeline is one of the most critical parts of
the operations of a TLD registry.
After a serious incident in 2022, the .SE Registry decided to re-
evaluate the requirements on the zone pipeline. This has led to
several new design choices and a decision to create a more robust
implementation from scratch.
The goal of this document is to describe the requirements that the
.SE Registry choose in preparation for the implementation of the new
zone pipeline. The document also describes some of the design
consequences that follow from the requirements. Hence this document
is intended to work as a guide for understanding the actual
implementation, which is planned to be released as open source.
TO BE REMOVED: This document is being collaborated on in Github at:
https://github.com/johanix/draft-johani-tld-zone-pipeline
(https://github.com/johanix/draft-johani-tld-zone-pipeline). The
most recent working version of the document, open issues, etc. should
all be available there. The authors (gratefully) accept pull
requests.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/johanix/draft-johani-tld-zone-pipeline.
Stenstam & Schlyter Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TLD Zone Pipeline Requirements March 2023
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 14 September 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Basic Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Interface to the Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Local Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Ingress Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Requirements on ingress verification . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Examples of ingress verification checks: . . . . . . . . 6
8. Signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Key management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Zone signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Egress Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Requirements on egress verification . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Stenstam & Schlyter Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TLD Zone Pipeline Requirements March 2023
10. Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Resulting Design Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Change History (to be removed before publication) . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Today most TLD registries publish DNSSEC signed zones. This
typically leads to a zone production "pipeline" that consists of
several steps, including generation of the unsigned zone, signing of
the zone and various types of verifications that the zone is correct
before publication on the Internet.
In some cases, including the .SE Registry, the zone pipeline was not
the result of a clear requirements process, nor was it the result of
a concious design and implementation. Rather, it was the result of
combining various tools in a mostly ad-hoc way that achieved the goal
of moving the zone via signing and verifications towards publication.
When a critical part of the operation of a TLD registry is the result
of an ad-hoc process there are likely to be hidden risks. That was
the case for the .SE registry, which had a serious incident in
February 2022. Because of that incident, .SE decided to re-evaluate
the requirements on the zone pipeline and then create a more robust
implementation from scratch.
This document aims to describe the requirements for zone production
(also known as "zone pipeline") that the .SE Registry choose in
preparation for the implementation of the new zone pipeline. It is
developed for the needs of the .SE and .NU TLD Registries, but the
conclusions are intended to be generally applicable.
1.1. 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. Purpose
A TLD Registry has a total responsibility towards society and the
Internet community to ensure, at any given time, public access to
correct versions of the DNS zones under their management. In order
to meet this commitment, three components are essentially required:
Stenstam & Schlyter Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TLD Zone Pipeline Requirements March 2023
* Generation of unsigned zones from the Registry System.
* Quality control and signing of the zones.
* Publication of resulting signed zones.
The first step is handled by the Registry System. The third step is
handled by a combination of external providers of authoritative DNS
handledservice and in-house DNS service. Both of these steps are
out-of-scope for this document
The sole purpose of this document is to provide a correct set of
requirements for the second step, between zone generation in the
Registry System and zone publication on the public Internet.
3. Terminology
Well lit Software or other system that is successfully used in
production, similar to our needs, in a large number of other
places around the world.
Upstream Further up in the zone pipeline, i.e. in the direction of
the Registry System.
Downstream Further down the zone pipeline, i.e. towards the public
Internet.
4. Basic Design Principles
A number of fundamental principles are defined for the design of the
system. The intention of these principles is to minimize the risk
that the zone data (as generated by the Registry System) can somehow
change at any stage through the zone pipeline.
* Critical path for zone data must be via proven and well-reviewed
standard software. This critical path is called the "zone
pipeline".
Rationale: Using well-established software used by others in the
industry reduces development needs for the Registry. By not being
critically dependent on self-developed software, the dependence on
individuals is reduced.
* Standardized protocols shall be used as far as possible.
Rationale: Individual components must be replaceable as easily as
possible.
Stenstam & Schlyter Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TLD Zone Pipeline Requirements March 2023
* Consequences of inaccuracies in custom software must be limited as
far as possible and must never affect published zone data.
Rationale: Obvious opportunities for risk minimization of a
critical system within the business.
* Verification, signing and publication of the zone must be able to
take place independently and without dependence on infrastructure
outside the operating facility.
Rationale: The ability to always maintain and publish an updated
zone is the most important responsibility of the Registry. To
ensure the ability to always maintain this ability the zone
production must be self-contained.
5. Interface to the Registry
Interface to the Registry System must be done according to
standardized protocols. This requirement has the following
consequences:
* Zone data must be retrieved from the Registry System using AXFR
and IXFR [RFC5936].
* The request for publication of new zone data must be notified with
DNS NOTIFY [RFC1995].
* Zone data published by the Registry System must contain a checksum
in the form of ZONEMD [RFC8976].
6. Local Updates
During normal operation, no changes to the zone data retrieved from
the Registry may take place. However, there may be situations where
the Registry is not reachable (nor is it expected to be reachable
within a reasonable time) and where local updates of zone data must
be able to be carried out. This can for example,. be redirection of
socially important infrastructure.
In a crisis situation (emergency operation), zone updates must be
able to take place locally. Updates that take place in this way are
introduced into regular systems as soon as possible. Return to
normal operation may only take place after all changes made during
emergency operation have been introduced into the regular system.
Local updates must be applied using a strict and traceable method.
It must be clear at all times whether local updates have been
applied, what these are and who requested them.
Stenstam & Schlyter Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TLD Zone Pipeline Requirements March 2023
In cases where local updates have taken place, ZONEMD must be
updated.
N.B. Local updates are an extraordinary measure and must not be used
except in emergency situations. Procedures for who may request these
are decided by the Internet foundation's crisis management.
7. Ingress Verification
Before signing, a number of checks must be performed on the zone
contents. The reason why checking must take place before signing is
to ensure that the zone being signed is always correct and can thus
continue to be re-signed in the event of problems upstream. The
exact checks to be carried out are set out in a separate
specification and are subject to local policy.
7.1. Requirements on ingress verification
* The ingress verification must prevent an updated incorrect zone
from being signed. An already approved previous version of the
zone must continue to be signed until a new zone is approved.
* New zone controls must be able to be added without the component
for ingress verification of zone data needing to be redesigned
* The interface from the zone pipeline to the ingress verification
function must be DNS AXFR. This means that all controls must
logically sit to the side and not be part of the critical path.
I.e. the verification code is not part of the zone pipeline.
* All zone controls, self-developed or imported, must have local
ownership within the organization.
7.2. Examples of ingress verification checks:
* Check that the zone data is complete.
* Check that delegation information for the zone itself is correct.
* Check that the delta (i.e. the difference) between the current
zone and the previous version is within approved limits.
* Check that certain crucial records are present and correct (the
zone's SOA record is one example).
Stenstam & Schlyter Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TLD Zone Pipeline Requirements March 2023
8. Signing
The task of the signing step is to keep an approved and received zone
signed for an arbitrary length of time until a new zone is received
from upstream (i.e. from Registry via Ingress Verification).
8.1. Key management
The following requirements apply to the management of cryptographic
keys for signing zone data:
* The key material must be stored and used in an HSM that meets the
security requirements set by the CISO.
* The interface for accessing the key material shall be PKCS#11.
* All keys must, to facilitate replication between different signing
entities, be generated in advance.In order to facilitate
replication between different signing entities, all keys must be
generated in advance.
* Exchange of KSK can be initiated automatically or manually, and is
automatically terminated when the DS record in the parent zone is
updated (after according to an appropriate safety margin).
* Changing the KSK may only be completed if the DS record in the
parent zone is updated.
* Replacement of ZSK must be done automatically.
8.2. Zone signing
The following requirements apply to signing zone data:
* Signing must be done using key material via PKCS#11.
* The signing function must support algorithm rollover, e.g,. from
RSA/SHA-256 to ECC/P-256/SHA-256.
* Signing must be done with either NSEC or NSEC3 semantics.
* If NSEC3 salt is used, the salt must be periodically changed
automatically.
* Change of DNSSEC signing semantics from NSEC to NSEC3 and vice
versa must be possible automatically.
Stenstam & Schlyter Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TLD Zone Pipeline Requirements March 2023
* Previous signatures that are valid within a configurable time
window shall be reused when re-signing, in order to reduce the
rate of change on the zone.
* The signing function shall recreate the ZONEMD RR per [RFC8976]
after the zone has been signed.
9. Egress Verification
After signing, several checks must be performed on the zone contents.
Apart from the obvious validation of generated DNSSEC signatures it
is also important to ensure that the signing step only added DNSSEC-
information without in any way modifying the unsigned data.
9.1. Requirements on egress verification
* All generated DNSSEC signatures (RRSIG records) must be validated.
* The NSEC (or NSEC3) chain must be verified to be complete.
* The non-DNSSEC content of the signed zone must be provably
identical to the corresponding unsigned zone that entered the
signing step.
10. Distribution
The following requirements apply to distribution of the signed zone:
* The signed zone must be retrieved from signing and egress
verification to the distribution points with AXFR (not IXFR).
* The signed zone shall be distributed to the designated
authoritative name server services using AXFR/IXFR.
* To reduce convergence time towards the public Internet, the signed
zone must be distributed with IXFR as far as possible.
* At least two complete zone publishing chains must be operational
and always active.
* Choice of zone publishing chain is an active configuration choice
in each distribution point and must always be the same for all
distribution points.
* The signed zone from the selected zone publishing chain must be
retrieved by all distribution points in all operating facilities.
Stenstam & Schlyter Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TLD Zone Pipeline Requirements March 2023
11. Resulting Design Consequences
* The requirement on being able to prove that no unsigned data has
been modified during signing is most efficiently fullfilled by
computing the ZONEMD checksum on the unsigned data after signing
(i.e. the signed zone modulo the DNSSEC related records DNSKEY,
RRSIG. NSEC, NSEC3, NSEC3PARAM, apex CDS and CDNSKEY) and
comparing that to the ZONEMD checksum for the corresponding
unsigned zone.
* The ZONEMD checksums need to be stored outside the zone pipeline,
indexed by the unsigned zone that each checksum corresponds to.
* The signed zone may (and will) change the SOA Serial independently
of the unsigned zone. For this reason the ZONEMD checksums can
not be stored using the SOA Serial as the index. Therefore a
separate, unique, identifier is attached to each new version of
the zone as a TXT record. A UUID is used as the identifier.
* Each unsigned zone MUST have a ZONEMD and a UUID index to store it
under. Therefore changes to the unsigned zone via the local
update facility must update the UUID in addition to any other
change that is executed.
* The Registry runs multiple, parallel zone pipelines for the same
zone with the requirement to be able to switch which pipeline is
"active" at any time. As the local update facility is responsible
for updating the UUID if a local change is needed, the same UUID
will identify the exact same zone in all pipelines.
* The requirement that the zone pipeline only consists of proven and
widely used software forces all local and custom software
(including various tests and verification modules) to be located
outside the zone pipeline. This cause a need for a component
inside the zone pipeline with the ability to call an external
"verifier" for verifications. At present only one such component
is known (the authoritative nameserver NSD with its "verify:"
attribute), but we hope that there will be more alternatives in
the future.
12. Acknowledgements
13. Normative References
[RFC1995] Ohta, M., "Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS", RFC 1995,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1995, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1995>.
Stenstam & Schlyter Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TLD Zone Pipeline Requirements March 2023
[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>.
[RFC5936] Lewis, E. and A. Hoenes, Ed., "DNS Zone Transfer Protocol
(AXFR)", RFC 5936, DOI 10.17487/RFC5936, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5936>.
[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>.
[RFC8976] Wessels, D., Barber, P., Weinberg, M., Kumari, W., and W.
Hardaker, "Message Digest for DNS Zones", RFC 8976,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8976, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8976>.
Appendix A. Change History (to be removed before publication)
* draft-johani-tld-zone-pipeline-00
Initial public draft.
Authors' Addresses
Johan Stenstam
The Swedish Internet Foundation
Email: johan.stenstam@internetstiftelsen.se
Jakob Schlyter
Kirei AB
Email: jakob@kirei.se
Stenstam & Schlyter Expires 14 September 2023 [Page 10]