dnsop W. Kumari
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Informational O. Gudmundsson
Expires: August 12, 2014 Shinkuro Inc.
G. Barwood
February 8, 2014
Automating DNSSEC delegation trust maintenance
draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-03
Abstract
This document describes a method to allow DNS operators to more
easily update DNSSEC Key Signing Keys using DNS as communication
channel. This document does not address the initial configuration of
trust anchors for a domain. The technique described is aimed at
delegations in which it is currently hard to move information from
the child to parent.
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
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 12, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. DNS delegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Relationship between Parent and Child DNS operator . . . 5
2.2.1. Solution Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2. DNSSEC key change process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. CDS / CDNSKEY (Child DS/ Child DNSKEY) record definitions . . 7
3.1. CDS Resource Record Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. CDNSKEY Resource Record Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Automating DS maintainance with CDS/CDNSKEY records . . . . . 8
4.1. CDS / CDNSKEY processing rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Child's CDS / CDNSKEY Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Parent side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Detecting a changed CDS / CDNSKEY . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.1. CDS / CDNSKEY Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1.2. Other mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Using the new CDS / CDNSKEY records . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.1. Parent calculates DS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. RRR background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
When a DNS operator first signs their zone, they need to communicate
their DS record(s) (or DNSKEY(s)) to their parent through some out-
of-band method to complete the chain of trust.
Each time the child changes/rolls the key that is represented in the
parent, the new and/or deleted key information has to be communicated
to the parent and published there. How this information is sent to
the parent depends on the relationship the child has with the parent.
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
In many cases this is a manual process, and not an easy one. For
each key roll, there may be two interactions with the parent. Any
manual process is susceptible to mistakes and/or errors. In
addition, due to the annoyance factor of the process, operators may
avoid performing key rollovers or skip needed steps to publish the
new DS at the parent.
DNSSEC provides data integrity to information published in DNS; thus
DNS publication can be used to automate maintenance of delegation
information. This document describes a method to automate
publication of subsequent DS records, after the initial one has been
published.
Readers are expected to be familiar with DNSSEC, including [RFC4033],
[RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC5011] and [RFC6781].
This document is a compilation of two earlier drafts: draft-barwood-
dnsop-ds-publish[I-D.ds-publish] and draft-wkumari-dnsop-ezkeyroll.
This document outlines a technique in which the parent periodically
(or upon request) polls its signed children and automatically publish
new DS records. To a large extent, the procedures this document
follows are as described in [RFC6781] section 4.1.2.
This technique is in some ways similar to [RFC5011] style rollovers,
but for sub-domains DS records, instead of trust anchors.
This technique is designed to be friendly both to fully automated
tools and humans. Fully automated tools can perform all the actions
needed without human intervention, and thus can monitor when it is
safe to move to the next step.
The solution described in this document only allows transferring
information about DNSSEC keys (DS and DNSKEY) from the child to the
parental agent. It lists exactly what the parent should publish, and
allows for publication of stand-by keys. A different protocol,
[I-D.csync], can be used to maintain other important delegation
information, such as NS and glue. These two protocols have been kept
as separate solutions because the problems are fundamentally
different, and a combined solution is overly complex.
This document describes a method for automating maintanance of the
delegation trust information, and proposes a polled / periodic
trigger for simplicity. Some users may prefer a different trigger,
such as a button on a webpage, a REST interface, DNS NOTIFY, etc.
These alternate / additional triggers are not discussed in this
document.
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
1.1. Terminology
The terminology we use is defined in this section
Highlighted roles
o Child: "The entity on record that has the delegation of the domain
from the parent"
o Parent: "The domain in which the child is registered"
o Child DNS operator: "The entity that maintains and publishes the
zone information for the child DNS"
o Parent DNS operator: "The entity that maintains and publishes the
zone information for the parent DNS"
o Parental Agent: "The entity that the child has relationship with,
to change its delegation information"
o Provisioning system: "A system that the operator of the master DNS
server operates to maintain the information published in the DNS.
This includes the systems that sign the DNS data"
RRR is our shorthand for Registry/Registrar/Registrant model of
parent child relationship see Appendix A for more.
1.2. Requirements notation
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 [RFC2119].
2. Background
2.1. DNS delegations
DNS operation consists of delegations of authority. For each
delegation there are (most of the time) two parties: the parent and
the child.
The parent publishes information about the delegations to the child;
for the name-servers it publishes an NS [RFC1035] RRset that lists a
hint for name-servers that are authoritative for the child. The
child also publishes a NS RRset, and this set is the authoritative
list of name-servers to the child zone.
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
The second RRset the parent sometimes publishes is the DS [RFC4034]
set. The DS RRset provides information about the DNSKEY(s) that the
child has told the parent it will use to sign its DNSKEY RRset. In
DNSSEC trust relationship between zones is provided by the following
chain:
parent DNSKEY --> DS --> child DNSKEY.
A prior proposal [I-D.auto-cpsync] suggested that the child send an
"update" to the parent via a mechanism similar to Dynamic Update.
The main issue became: How does the child find the actual parental
agent/server to send the update to? While that could have been
solved via technical means, the proposal died. There is also a
similar proposal in [I-D.parent-zones]
As the DS record can only be present at the parent (RFC4034
[RFC4034]), some other record/method is needed to automate which
DNSKEYs are picked to be represented in the parent zone's DS records.
One possibility is to use flags in the DNSKEY record. If the SEP bit
is set, this indicates that the DNSKEY is intended for use as a
secure entry point. This DNSKEY signs the DNSKEY RRset, and the
Parental Agent can calculate DS records based on that. But this
fails to meet some operating needs, including the child having no
influence what DS digest algorithms are used and DS records can only
be published for keys that are in the DNSKEY RRset.
2.2. Relationship between Parent and Child DNS operator
In practical application, there are many different relationships
between the parent and child DNS operators. The type of relationship
affects how the Child DNS Operator communicates with the parent.
This section will highlight some of the different situations, but is
by no means a complete list.
Different communication paths:
o Direct/API: The child can change the delegation information via
automated/scripted means EPP[RFC5730] used by many TLDs is an
example of this. Another example is the web service's
programmatic interfaces that Registrars make available to their
Resellers.
o User Interface: The Child uses a (web) site set up by the Parental
Agent for updating delegation information.
o Indirect: The communication has to be transmitted via out-of-band
between two parties, such as email, telephone etc.. This is common
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
when the Child's DNS operator is neither the child itself nor the
Registrar for the domain but a third party.
o Multi-step Combinations: The information flows through an
intermediary. It is possible, but unlikely, that all the steps
are automated via API's and there are no humans are involved.
A domain name holder (Child) may operate its own DNS servers or
outsource the operation. While we use the word parent as a singular,
parent can consist of single entity or a composite of many discrete
parts that have rules and roles. We refer to the entity that the
child corresponds with as the Parent.
In another common case an enterprise may delegate parts of its name-
space to be operated by a group that is not the same as that which
operates the enterprise's DNS servers. In this case the flow of
information is frequently handled in either an ad hoc manner or via
some corporate mechanism; this can range from email to fully-
automated operation. The word enterprise above covers all
organizations in which the domains are not sold on the open market
and there is some relationship between the entities.
2.2.1. Solution Space
This document is aimed at the cases in which there is an
organizational separation of the child and parent.
A further complication is when the Child DNS operator is not the
Child. There are two common cases of this,
a) The Parental Agent (e.g. registrar) handles the DNS operation
b) A third party takes care of the DNS operation.
If the Parental Agent is the DNS operator, life is much easier; the
Parental Agent can inject any delegation changes directly into the
Parent's Provisioning system. The techniques described below are not
needed in the case when Parental Agent is the DNS operator.
In the case of a third party DNS operator, the Child either needs to
relay changes in DNS delegation or give the Child DNS Operator access
to its delegation/registration account.
Some parents want the child to express their DNSKEYS in the form of
DS records, while others want to receive the DNSKEY records and
calculate the DS records themselves. There is no consensus on which
method is better; both have good reasons to exist. The proposal
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
below can operate with both models, but the child needs to be aware
of the parental policies.
2.2.2. DNSSEC key change process
After a Child DNS operator first signs the zone, there is a need to
interact with the Parent, for example via the delegation account
interface, to "upload / paste-in the zone's DS information". The
action of logging in through the delegation account user interface
authenticates that the user is authorized to change delegation
information for the child published in the parent zone. In the case
where the "Child DNS Operator" does not have access to the
registration account, the Child needs to perform the action.
At a later date, the Child DNS Operator may want to publish a new DS
record in the parent, either because they are rolling keys, or
because they want to publish a stand-by key. This involves
performing the same process as before. Furthermore when this is a
manual process with cut and paste, operational mistakes will happen
-- or worse, the update action is not performed at all.
3. CDS / CDNSKEY (Child DS/ Child DNSKEY) record definitions
This document specifies two new DNS RRtypes (CDS and CDNSKEY) that
indicates what the Child wants the parent's DS RRset to contain. It
allows the Child to present DS records and / or DNSKEY records (for
those parents who would rather generate the DS records for their
children).
The CDS / CDNSKEY records are published in the child zone and gives
the child control of what is published for it in the parental zone.
The CDS / CDNSKEY RRset expresses what the child would like the DS
RRset to look like after the change; it is a "replace" operation, and
it is up to the consumer of the records to translate that into the
appropriate add/delete operations in the registration systems (and in
the case of CDNSKEY, to generate the DS from the DNSKEY). If no CDS
/ CDNSKEY RRset is present in child, this means that no change is
needed.
[[RFC Editor: Please remove this paragraph before publication]
Version -04 of the ID that became this working group document (http:/
/tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kumari-ogud-dnsop-cds-04.txt) defined a new
record (CTA) that could hold either a DS or a DNSKEY record (with a
selector to differentiate between them). In a shocking development,
there was almost full consensus that this was horrid :-) ]
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
3.1. CDS Resource Record Format
The wire and presentation format of the CDS ("Child DS") record is
identical to the DS record [RFC4034]. IANA has allocated RR code 59
for the CDS record via expert review [I-D.ds-publish]. CDS uses the
same registries as DS for its fields
No special processing is performed by authoritative servers or by
revolvers, when serving or resolving. For all practical purposes CDS
is a regular RR type.
3.2. CDNSKEY Resource Record Format
The wire and presentation format of the CDNSKEY ("Child DNSKEY")
record is identical to the DNSKEY record. CDNSKEY uses the same
registries as DNSKEY for its fields.
No special processing is performed by authoritative servers or by
revolvers, when serving or resolving. For all practical purposes
CDNSKEY is a regular RR type.
4. Automating DS maintainance with CDS/CDNSKEY records
CDS/CDNSKEY records are intended to be "consumed" by delegation trust
maintainers. The use of CDS/CDNSKEY is optional.
Some parents prefer to accept DNSSEC key information in DS format,
some parents prefer to accept it in DNSKEY format, and calculate the
DS record on the child's behalf. Each method has pros and cons, both
technical and policy. This solution is DS vs DNSKEY agnostic, and
allows operation with either.
If the child knows what the parent prefers, they can publish the
parent's preferred record type. If the child does not know (or
simply chooses to), they can publish both CDS and CDNSKEY. If the
child publishes both, the two RRsets they SHOULD match in content.
The parent should use whichever one they choose, but SHOULD NOT query
for both and perform consistency checks between the CDS and CDNSKEY
records.
[Editor note: It is not an error for a child to have published CDS
records and not have CDNSKEYs that hash to those records, nor for
there to be CDNSKEY records without matching DS records. This is
because a child might have been publishing CDS records and then the
parent's policy changes to require CDNSKEY records. The child might
forget to remove the CDS, etc. This avoids all sorts of error
conditions / complexity, etc.]
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
4.1. CDS / CDNSKEY processing rules
If there are no CDS / CDNSKEY resource records in the child, this
signals that no change should be made to the current DS set. This
means that, once the child and parent are in sync, the child DNS
operator MAY remove all CDS records from the zone.
Following acceptance rules are placed on the CDS / CDNSKEY records as
follows:
o Location: "the CDS / CDNSKEY record MUST be at the child zone
apex".
o Signer: "MUST be signed with a key that is represented in both the
current DNSKEY and DS RRset's."
o Continuity: "SHOULD NOT break the current delegation if applied to
DS RRset"
If any these conditions fail the CDS / CDNSKEY record MUST be
ignored.
5. Child's CDS / CDNSKEY Publication
Child DNS Operator SHOULD only publish a CDS or CDNSKEY RRset when it
wants to make a change to the DS RRset in the Parent. The CDS /
CDNSKEY RRset SHOULD be compliant with the rules in Section 4.1.
When the Parent DS is "in-sync" with the CDS / CDNSKEY, the Child DNS
Operator MAY delete the CDS / CDNSKEY RRset(s). Note that if the
child has published a DNSKEY RR in the CDS, it will have to calculate
the DS (using the requested digest algorithm) to do the comparison.
A child MAY publish both CDS and CDNSKEY. If a child chooses to
publish both, it SHOULD attempt to maintain consistency (a matching
CDS for each CDNSKEY)
6. Parent side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption
The CDS / CDNSKEY RRset MAY be used by the Parental Agent to update
the DS RRset in the parent zone. The Parental Agent for this uses a
tool that understands the CDS / CDNSKEY signing rules from
Section 4.1 so it may not be able to use a standard validator.
Parent SHOULD treat the Continuity rule as "MUST".
The parent MUST choose to accept either CDS or CDNSKEY records, and
MUST NOT expect there to be both. A parent SHOULD NOT perform a
consistency check between CDS and CDNSKEY (other than for
informational / debugging use).
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
6.1. Detecting a changed CDS / CDNSKEY
How the Parental Agent gets the CDS / CDNSKEY record may differ,
below are two examples as how this can take place.
Polling The Parental Agent operates a tool that periodically checks
each of the children that has a DS record to see if there is a
CDS or CDNSKEY record.
Pushing The delegation user interface has a button {Fetch DS} when
pushed preforms the CDS / CDNSKEY processing. If the Parent
zone does not contain DS for this delegation then the "push"
MUST be ignored.
In either case the Parental Agent MAY apply additional rules that
defer the acceptance of a CDS / CDNSKEY change, these rules may
include a condition that the CDS / CDNSKEY remains in place and valid
for some time period before it is accepted. It may be appropriate in
the "Pushing" case to assume that the Child is ready and thus accept
changes without delay.
6.1.1. CDS / CDNSKEY Polling
This is the only defined use of CDS / CDNSKEY in this document.
There are limits to the saleability of polling techniques, thus some
other mechanism is likely to be specified later that addresses CDS /
CDNSKEY usage in the situation where polling does not scale to.
Having said that Polling will work in many important cases like
enterprises, universities, small TLDs etc. In many regulatory
environments the registry is prohibited from talking to the
registrant. In most of these cases the registrant has a business
relationship with the registrar, and so the registrar can offer this
as a service.
If the CDS / CDNSKEY RRset does not exist, the Parental Agent MUST
take no action. Specifically it MUST NOT delete or alter the
existing DS RRset.
6.1.2. Other mechanisms
It is assumed that other mechanisms will be implemented to trigger
the parent to look for an updated CDS / CDNSKEY record. As the CDS /
CDNSKEY records are validated with DNSSEC, these mechanisms can be
unauthenticated (for example, a child could telephone its parent and
request that they process the new CDS or CDNSKEY record, an
unauthenticated POST could be made to a webserver (with rate-
limiting), etc.)
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
Other documents can specify the trigger conditions.
6.2. Using the new CDS / CDNSKEY records
Regardless of how the Parental Agent detected changes to a CDS /
CDNSKEY RR, the Parental Agent MUST use a DNSSEC validator to obtain
a validated CDS / CDNSKEY RRset from the Child zone. It would be a
good idea if the Parental Agent checked all NS RRs listed at the
delegation.
The Parental Agent MUST ensure that old versions of the CDS / CDNSKEY
RRset do not overwrite newer versions. This MAY be accomplished by
checking that the signature inception in the RRSIG for CDS / CDNSKEY
is newer and/or the serial number on the child's SOA is greater.
This may require the Parental Agent to maintain some state
information.
The Parental Agent MAY take extra security measures. For example, to
mitigate the possibility that a Child's key signing key has been
compromised, the Parental Agent may, for example, inform (by email or
other methods ) the Child DNS operator of the change. However the
precise out-of-band measures that a parent zone SHOULD take are
outside the scope of this document.
Once the Parental Agent has obtained a valid CDS / CDNSKEY it MAY
double check the publication rules from section 4.1. In particular
the Parental Agent MUST double check the Continuity rule and do its
best not to invalidate the Child zone. Once checked and if the CDS /
CDNSKEY and DS "differ" it may apply the changes to the parent zone.
If the parent consumes CDNSKEY, the parent should calculate the DS
before doing this comparison.
6.2.1. Parent calculates DS
There are cases where the Parent wants to calculate the DS record due
to policy reasons. In this case, the Child publishes CDNSKEY records
containing DNSKEYs.
The parent calculates the DS records on behalf of the children. The
DNS Parent needs to publish guidelines for the children as to what
digest algorithms are acceptable in the CDS record.
When a Parent operates in "calculate DS" mode it can operate in one
of two sub-modes
full i.e. it only publishes DS records it calculates from DNSKEY
records,
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
augment i.e. it will make sure there are DS records for the digest
algorithm(s) it requires(s).
Implications on Parental Agent are that the CDNSKEY and DS are not
exactly the same after update thus it needs to take that into
consideration when checking CDNSKEY records. Same goes for the Child
DNS Operator, it needs to be able to detect that the new DS RRset is
"equivalent" to the current CDNSKEY RRset, thus it can remove the
CDNSKEY RRset.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned RR Type code 59 for CDS. This was done for an
earlier version of this document[I-D.ds-publish] This document is to
become the reference for CDS RRtype.
IANA is requested to assign another RR Type for the CDNSKEY.
8. Privacy Considerations
All of the information handled / transmitted by this protocol is
public information published in the DNS.
9. Security Considerations
This work is for the normal case; when things go wrong there is only
so much that automation can fix.
If child breaks DNSSEC validation by removing all the DNSKEYs that
are represented in the DS set its only repair actions are to contact
the parent or restore the DNSKEYs in the DS set.
In the event of a compromise of the server or system generating
signatures for a zone, an attacker might be able to generate and
publish new CDS records. The modified CDS records will be picked up
by this technique and so may allow the attacker to extend the
effective time of his attack. If there a delay in accepting changes
to DS, as in [RFC5011], then the attacker needs to hope his activity
is not detected before the DS in parent is changed. If this type of
change takes place, the child needs to contact the parent (possibly
via a registrar web interface) and remove any compromised DS keys.
A compromise of the account with the parent (e.g. registrar) will not
be mitigated by this technique, as the "new registrant" can delete/
modify the DS records at will.
While it may be tempting, this SHOULD NOT be used for initial
enrollment of keys since there is no way to ensure that the initial
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
key is the correct one. If is used, strict rules for inclusion of
keys like hold down times, challenge data inclusion etc., ought to be
used, along with some kind of challenge mechanism. A child cannot
use this mechanism to go from signed to unsigned (publishing an empty
CDS / CDNSKEY RRset means no-change should be made in the parent).
The CDS RR type should allow for enhanced security by simplifying
process. Since rollover is automated, updating a DS RRset by other
means may be regarded as unusual and subject to extra security
checks.
If there is a failure in applying changes in child zone to all DNS
servers listed in either parent or child NS set it is possible that
the Parental agent may get confused either not perform action because
it gets different answers on different checks or CDS validation
fails. In the worst case, Parental Agent performs an action
reversing a prior action but after the child signing system decides
to take the next step in rollover, resulting in a broken delegation.
DNS is a loosely coherent distributed database with local caching;
therefore, it is important to allow old information to expire from
caches before deleting DS or DNSKEY records. Similarly, it is
important to allow new records to propagate through the DNS before
use, see [RFC6781] and [I-D.key-time]
It is common practice for users to outsource their DNS hosting to a
3rd party DNS provider. In order for that provider to be able to
maintain the DNSSEC information some users give the provider their
registrar login credentials (which obviously has negative security
implications). Deploying the solution described in this document
allows the 3rd party DNS provider to maintain the DNSSEC information
without giving them the registrar credentials, thereby improving
security.
By automating the maintenance of the DNSSEC key information (and
removing humans from the process) we expect to decrease the number of
DNSSEC related outages, which should increase DNSSEC deployment.
10. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank a large number of folk, including: Mark
Andrews, Joe Abley, Jaap Akkerhuis, Roy Arends, Doug Barton, Brian
Dickinson, Paul Ebersman, Tony Finch, Patrik Faltsrom, Jim Galvin,
Paul Hoffman, Samir Hussain, Tatuya Jinmei, Olaf Kolkman, Cricket
Liu, Stephan Lagerholm, Matt Larson, Marco Sanz, Antoin Verschuren,
Suzanne Woolf, Paul Wouters, Matthijs Meeking, John Dickinson,
Timothe Litt and Edward Lewis.
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
Special thanks to Wes Hardaker for contributing significant text and
creating the complementary (CSYNC) solution, and to Paul Hoffman and
Mukund Sivaraman for text and review.
There were a number of other folk with whom we discussed this,
apologies for not remembering everyone.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
4033, March 2005.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC5011] StJohns, M., "Automated Updates of DNS Security (DNSSEC)
Trust Anchors", STD 74, RFC 5011, September 2007.
[RFC6781] Kolkman, O., Mekking, W., and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC
Operational Practices, Version 2", RFC 6781, December
2012.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.auto-cpsync]
Mekking, W., "Automated (DNSSEC) Child Parent
Synchronization using DNS UPDATE", draft-mekking-dnsop-
auto-cpsync-01 (work in progress), December 2010.
[I-D.csync]
Hardaker, W., "Child To Parent Synchronization in DNS",
draft-hardaker-dnsop-csync-02 (work in progress), July
2013.
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
[I-D.ds-publish]
Barwood, G., "DNS Transport", draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-
publish-02 (work in progress), June 2011.
[I-D.key-time]
Mekking, W., "DNSSEC Key Timing Considerations", draft-
ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-03 (work in progress), July
2012.
[I-D.parent-zones]
Andrews, M., "Updating Parent Zones", November 2013.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, August 2009.
[RFC5910] Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)
Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910, May 2010.
Appendix A. RRR background
In the RRR world, the different parties are frequently from different
organizations. In the single enterprise world there are also
organizational/geographical/cultural separations that affect how
information flows from a Child to the parent.
Due to the complexity of the different roles and interconnections,
automation of delegation information has been punted in the past.
There have been some proposals to automate this, in order to improve
the reliability of the DNS. These proposals have not gained enough
traction to become standards.
For example in many of the TLD cases there is the RRR model
(Registry, Registrar and Registrant). The Registry operates DNS for
the TLD, the Registrars accept registrations and place information
into the Registries database. The Registrant only communicates with
the Registrar; frequently the Registry is not allowed to communicate
with the Registrant. In that case as far as the registrant is
concerned the Registrar == Parent.
In many RRR cases the Registrar and Registry communicate via
EPP[RFC5730] and use the EPP DNSSEC extension [RFC5910]. In a number
of ccTLDs there are other mechanisms in use as well as EPP, but in
general there seems to be a movement towards EPP usage when DNSSEC is
enabled in the TLD.
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
Appendix B. Changes / Author Notes.
[RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ]
WG-02 to WG-03
o Fixed some references to RFC 5011 - from Samir Hussain.
o Fixed some spelling / typos - from Samir Hussain.
o A number of clarifiations on the meaning on an empty / non-
existant CDS RRset - thanks to JINMEI, Tatuya
o Be consistent in mentioning both CDS and CDNSKEY throughout the
document.
WG-01 to WG-02
o Many nits and suggestions from Mukund.
o Matthijs: " I still think that it is too strong that the Child DNS
Operator SHOULD/MUST delete the CDS RRset when the Parent DS is
"in-sync". This should be a MAY"
WG-00 to WG-01
o Addressed Vancouver: "Paul Hoffmann: NOT ready for WGLC. None of
the 2 documents explain why there is a split between the two
strategies." Thanks to Paul for providing text.
From -05 to WG-00:
o Nothing rchanged, resubmit under new name.
From 04 to 05
o Renamed the record back to CDS.
From 03 to 04.
o Added text explaining that CDS and CSYNC complement each other,
not replace or compete.
o Changed format of record to be <selector> <data> to allow the
publication of DS **or** DNSKEY.
o Bunch of text changed to cover the above.
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
o Added a bit more text on the polling scaling stuff, expectation
that other triggers will be documented.
From 02 to 03
o Applied comments by Matthijs Mekking
o Incorporated suggestions from Edward Lewis about structure
o Reworked structure to be easier for implementors to follow
o Applied many suggestions from a wonderful thorough review by John
Dickinson
o Removed the going Unsigned option
From 01 to 02
o Major restructuring to facilitate easier discussion
o Lots of comments from DNSOP mailing list incorporated, including
making draft DNSKEY/DS neutral, explain different relationships
that exists,
o added more people to acks.
o added description of enterprise situations
o Unified on using Parental Agent over Parental Representative
o Removed redundant text when possible
o Added text to explain what can go wrong if not all child DNS
servers are in sync.
o Reference prior work by Matthijs Mekking
o Added text when parent calculates DS from DNSKEY
From - to -1.
o Removed from section .1: "If a child zone has gone unsigned, i.e.
no DNSKEY and no RRSIG in the zone, the parental representative
MAY treat that as intent to go unsigned. (NEEDS DISCUSSION)."
Added new text at end. -- suggestion by Scott Rose 20/Feb/13.
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Automating Delegation Trust Maint February 2014
o Added some background on the different DNS Delegation operating
situations and how they affect interaction of parties. This moved
some blocks of text from later sections into here.
o Number of textual improvements from Stephan Lagerholm
o Added motivation why CDS is needed in CDS definition section
o Unified terminology in the document.
o Much more background
Authors' Addresses
Warren Kumari
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Email: warren@kumari.net
Olafur Gudmundsson
Shinkuro Inc.
4922 Fairmont Av, Suite 250
Bethesda, MD 20814
USA
Email: ogud@ogud.com
George Barwood
33 Sandpiper Close
Gloucester GL2 4LZ
United Kingdom
Email: george.barwood@blueyonder.co.uk
Kumari, et al. Expires August 12, 2014 [Page 18]