DNS Extensions Working Group J. Schlyter, Ed.
Internet-Draft May 10, 2004
Updates: RFC 2535, RFC TCR (if approved)
Expires: November 8, 2004
DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format
draft-ietf-dnsext-nsec-rdata-06.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 8, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document redefines the wire format of the "Type Bit Map" field
in the NSEC resource record RDATA format to cover the full RR type
space.
Schlyter Expires November 8, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format May 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The NSEC Resource Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 NSEC RDATA Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1 The Next Domain Name Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2 The List of Type Bit Map(s) Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.3 Inclusion of Wildcard Names in NSEC RDATA . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 The NSEC RR Presentation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 NSEC RR Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 8
Schlyter Expires November 8, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format May 2004
1. Introduction
The NSEC [5] Resource Record (RR) is used for authenticated proof of
the non-existence of DNS owner names and types. The NSEC RR is based
on the NXT RR as described in RFC 2535 [2], and is similar except for
the name and typecode. The RDATA format for the NXT RR has the
limitation in that the RDATA could only carry information about the
existence of the first 127 types. RFC 2535 did reserve a bit to
specify an extension mechanism, but the mechanism was never actually
defined.
In order to avoid the need to develop an extension mechanism into a
deployed base of DNSSEC aware servers and resolvers once the first
127 type codes are allocated, this document redefines the wire format
of the "Type Bit Map" field in the NSEC RDATA to cover the full RR
type space.
This document introduces a new format for the type bit map. The
properties of the type bit map format are that it can cover the full
possible range of typecodes, that it is relatively economical in the
amount of space it uses for the common case of a few types with an
owner name, that it can represent owner names with all possible types
present in packets of approximately 8.5 kilobytes and that the
representation is simple to implement. Efficient searching of the
type bitmap for the presence of certain types is not a requirement.
For convenience and completeness this document presents the syntax
and semantics for the NSEC RR based on the specification in RFC 2535
[2] and as updated by RFC TCR [5], thereby not introducing changes
except for the syntax of the type bit map.
This document updates RFC 2535 [2] and RFC TCR [5].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
2. The NSEC Resource Record
The NSEC resource record lists two separate things: the owner name of
the next RRset in the canonical ordering of the zone, and the set of
RR types present at the NSEC RR's owner name. The complete set of
NSEC RRs in a zone both indicate which RRsets exist in a zone and
also form a chain of owner names in the zone. This information is
used to provide authenticated denial of existence for DNS data, as
described in RFC 2535 [2].
The type value for the NSEC RR is 47.
Schlyter Expires November 8, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format May 2004
The NSEC RR RDATA format is class independent and defined for all
classes.
The NSEC RR SHOULD have the same TTL value as the SOA minimum TTL
field. This is in the spirit of negative caching [8].
2.1 NSEC RDATA Wire Format
The RDATA of the NSEC RR is as shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ Next Domain Name /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ List of Type Bit Map(s) /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.1.1 The Next Domain Name Field
The Next Domain Name field contains the owner name of the next RR in
the canonical ordering of the zone. The value of the Next Domain
Name field in the last NSEC record in the zone is the name of the
zone apex (the owner name of the zone's SOA RR).
A sender MUST NOT use DNS name compression on the Next Domain Name
field when transmitting an NSEC RR.
Owner names of RRsets not authoritative for the given zone (such as
glue records) MUST NOT be listed in the Next Domain Name unless at
least one authoritative RRset exists at the same owner name.
2.1.2 The List of Type Bit Map(s) Field
The RR type space is split into 256 window blocks, each representing
the low-order 8 bits of the 16-bit RR type space. Each block that has
at least one active RR type is encoded using a single octet window
number (from 0 to 255), a single octet bitmap length (from 1 to 32)
indicating the number of octets used for the window block's bitmap,
and up to 32 octets (256 bits) of bitmap.
Window blocks are present in the NSEC RR RDATA in increasing
numerical order.
"|" denotes concatenation
Type Bit Map(s) Field = ( Window Block # | Bitmap Length | Bitmap ) +
Schlyter Expires November 8, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format May 2004
Each bitmap encodes the low-order 8 bits of RR types within the
window block, in network bit order. The first bit is bit 0. For
window block 0, bit 1 corresponds to RR type 1 (A), bit 2 corresponds
to RR type 2 (NS), and so forth. For window block 1, bit 1
corresponds to RR type 257, bit 2 to RR type 258. If a bit is set to
1, it indicates that an RRset of that type is present for the NSEC
RR's owner name. If a bit is set to 0, it indicates that no RRset of
that type is present for the NSEC RR's owner name.
Since bit 0 in window block 0 refers to the non-existing RR type 0,
it MUST be set to 0. After verification, the validator MUST ignore
the value of bit 0 in window block 0.
Bits representing Meta-TYPEs or QTYPEs as specified in RFC 2929 [3]
(section 3.1) or within the range reserved for assignment only to
QTYPEs and Meta-TYPEs MUST be set to 0, since they do not appear in
zone data. If encountered, they must be ignored upon reading.
Blocks with no types present MUST NOT be included. Trailing zero
octets in the bitmap MUST be omitted. The length of each block's
bitmap is determined by the type code with the largest numerical
value, within that block, among the set of RR types present at the
NSEC RR's owner name. Trailing zero octets not specified MUST be
interpretted as zero octets.
2.1.3 Inclusion of Wildcard Names in NSEC RDATA
If a wildcard owner name appears in a zone, the wildcard label ("*")
is treated as a literal symbol and is treated the same as any other
owner name for purposes of generating NSEC RRs. Wildcard owner names
appear in the Next Domain Name field without any wildcard expansion.
RFC 2535 [2] describes the impact of wildcards on authenticated
denial of existence.
2.2 The NSEC RR Presentation Format
The presentation format of the RDATA portion is as follows:
The Next Domain Name field is represented as a domain name.
The List of Type Bit Map(s) Field is represented as a sequence of RR
type mnemonics. When the mnemonic is not known, the TYPE
representation as described in RFC 3597 [4] (section 5) MUST be used.
2.3 NSEC RR Example
The following NSEC RR identifies the RRsets associated with
alfa.example.com. and identifies the next authoritative name after
Schlyter Expires November 8, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format May 2004
alfa.example.com.
alfa.example.com. 86400 IN NSEC host.example.com. A MX RRSIG NSEC TYPE1234
The first four text fields specify the name, TTL, Class, and RR type
(NSEC). The entry host.example.com. is the next authoritative name
after alfa.example.com. in canonical order. The A, MX, RRSIG, NSEC
and TYPE1234 mnemonics indicate there are A, MX, RRSIG, NSEC and
TYPE1234 RRsets associated with the name alfa.example.com.
The RDATA section of the NSEC RR above would be encoded as:
0x04 'h' 'o' 's' 't'
0x07 'e' 'x' 'a' 'm' 'p' 'l' 'e'
0x03 'c' 'o' 'm' 0x00
0x00 0x06 0x40 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x03
0x04 0x1b 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x20
Assuming that the resolver can authenticate this NSEC record, it
could be used to prove that beta.example.com does not exist, or could
be used to prove there is no AAAA record associated with
alfa.example.com. Authenticated denial of existence is discussed in
RFC 2535 [2].
3. IANA Considerations
This document introduces no new IANA considerations, because all of
the protocol parameters used in this document have already been
assigned by RFC TCR [5].
4. Security Considerations
The update of the RDATA format and encoding does not affect the
security of the use of NSEC RRs.
Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
2535, March 1999.
[3] Eastlake, D., Brunner-Williams, E. and B. Manning, "Domain Name
System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929, September
Schlyter Expires November 8, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format May 2004
2000.
[4] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR)
Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.
[5] Weiler, S., "Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation
Signer", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-2535typecode-change-05 (work
in progress), October 2003.
Informational References
[6] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD
13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[7] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[8] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)", RFC
2308, March 1998.
Author's Address
Jakob Schlyter (editor)
Karl Gustavsgatan 15
Goteborg SE-411 25
Sweden
EMail: jakob@schlyter.se
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The encoding described in this document was initially proposed by
Mark Andrews. Other encodings where proposed by David Blacka and
Michael Graff.
Schlyter Expires November 8, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format May 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Schlyter Expires November 8, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format May 2004
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Schlyter Expires November 8, 2004 [Page 9]
