dnsop R. Arends
Internet-Draft M. Larson
Intended status: Standards Track ICANN
Expires: May 13, 2022 November 09, 2021
DNS Error Reporting
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-error-reporting-01
Abstract
DNS Error Reporting is a lightweight error reporting mechanism that
provides the operator of an authoritative server with reports on DNS
resource records that fail to resolve or validate, that a Domain
Owner or DNS Hosting organization can use to improve domain hosting.
The reports are based on Extended DNS Errors [RFC8914].
When a domain name fails to resolve or validate due to a
misconfiguration or an attack, the operator of the authoritative
server may be unaware of this. To mitigate this lack of feedback,
this document describes a method for a validating recursive resolver
to automatically signal an error to an agent specified by the
authoritative server. DNS Error Reporting uses the DNS to report
errors.
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 May 13, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Arends & Larson Expires May 13, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNS-ER November 2021
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Managing Caching Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. EDNS0 Option Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. DNS Error Reporting Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Reporting Resolver Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1.1. Constructing the Reporting Query . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Authoritative Server Specification . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Reporting Agent Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.4. Choosing a Reporting Agent Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
When an authoritative server serves a stale DNSSEC signed zone, the
cryptographic signatures over the resource record sets (RRsets) may
have lapsed. A validating recursive resolver will fail to validate
these resource records.
Similarly, when there is a mismatch between the DS records at a
parent zone and the key signing key at the child zone, a validating
recursive resolver will fail to authenticate records in the child
zone.
These are two of several failure scenarios that may go unnoticed for
some time by the operator of a zone.
There is no direct relationship between operators of validating
recursive resolvers and authoritative servers. Outages are often
Arends & Larson Expires May 13, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNS-ER November 2021
noticed indirectly, by end users, and reported via social media, if
reported at all.
When records fail to validate there is no facility to report this
failure in an automated way. If there is any indication that an
error or warning has happened, it is buried in log files of the
validating resolver, if these errors are logged at all.
This document describes a facility that can be used by validating
recursive resolvers to report errors in an automated way.
It allows an authoritative server to signal a reporting agent where
the validating recursive resolver can report issues if it is
configured to do so.
The burden of reporting a failure falls on the validating recursive
resolver. It is important that the effort needed to report failure
is low, with minimal impact to its main functions. To accomplish
this goal, the DNS itself is utilized to report the error.
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].
3. Terminology
Reporting Resolver: In the context of this document, the term
reporting resolver is used as a shorthand for a validating recursive
resolver that supports DNS Error Reporting.
Reporting Query: The DNS query used to report an error is called a
reporting query. A reporting query is for DNS resource record type
NULL. The details of the error report are encoded in the QNAME of
the reporting query.
Reporting Agent: A facility responsible for receiving error reports
on behalf of authoritative servers. This facility is indicated by a
domain name.
Reporting Agent Domain: a domain name which the reporting resolver
includes in the QNAME of the reporting query.
Arends & Larson Expires May 13, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS-ER November 2021
4. Overview
An authoritative server indicates support for DNS Error Reporting by
including an EDNS0 option with OPTION-CODE [TBD] [RFC Editor: change
TBD to the proper code when assigned by IANA.] and the REPORTING
AGENT DOMAIN in DNS wireformat in the option's payload. The
authoritative server MUST NOT include this option in the response if
the configured reporting agent domain is empty or the null label (the
root).
When a reporting resolver sends a reporting query to report an error,
it MUST NOT include the EDNS0 Error Reporting option in the reporting
query. This avoids additional compounding error reporting when there
is an issue with the reporting agent domain.
To report an error, the reporting resolver encodes the error report
in the QNAME of the reporting query. The reporting resolver builds
this QNAME by concatenating the _er label, the extended error code
[RFC8914], the QTYPE and the QNAME that resulted in failure, the
label "_er" again, and the reporting agent domain. See the example
in section 4.2. Note that a regular RCODE is not included, as the
RCODE is not relevant to the extended error code.
The resulting concatenated domain name is sent as a standard DNS
query for DNS resource record type NULL by the reporting resolver.
This query MUST NOT have the EDNS0 option code [TBD] set to avoid
compounding error notifications.
The query will ultimately arrive at the authoritative server for the
reporting agent domain. A NODATA negative response is returned by
the authoritative server of the reporting agent domain, which in turn
can be cached by the reporting resolver.
This caching is essential. It ensures that the number of reports
sent by a reporting resolver for the same problem is dampened, i.e.
once per TTL, however, certain optimizations such as [RFC8020] and
[RFC8198] may reduce the number of error reporting queries as well.
4.1. Managing Caching Optimizations
The reporting resolver may utilize various caching optimizations that
inhibit subsequent error reporting to the same reporting agent
domain.
If the authoritative server for the reporting agent domain were to
respond with NXDOMAIN (name error), [RFC8020] rules state that any
name at or below that domain should be considered unreachable, and
negative caching would prohibit subsequent queries for anything at or
Arends & Larson Expires May 13, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS-ER November 2021
below that domain for a period of time, depending on the negative TTL
[RFC2308].
Since the authoritative server for an agent domain may not know the
contents of all the zones it acts as an agent for, it is essential
that the authoritative server does not respond with NXDOMAIN, as that
may inhibit subsequent queries. The use of a wildcard domain name
[RFC4592] in the zone for the agent domain will ensure the RCODE is
consistently NOERROR.
Considering the Resource Record type for this wildcard record, type
NULL is prohibited in master zone files [RFC1035]. However, any type
that is not special according to [RFC4592] section 4 will do, such as
a TXT record with an email address for the reporting agent in the
RDATA.
Wildcard expansion occurs, even if the QTYPE is not for the type
owned by the wildcard domain name. The response is a "no error, but
no data" response ([RFC4592], section 2.2.1.) that contains a NOERROR
RCODE and empty answer section. Note that reporting resolvers are
not expected to query for this TXT record, since reporting queries
use type NULL. This record is solely present to ensure a NODATA
response is returned in response to reporting queries.
When the zone for the reporting agent domain is signed, a resolver
may utilize aggressive negative caching, discussed in [RFC8198].
This optimization makes use of NSEC and NSEC3 (without opt-out)
records and allows the resolver to do the wildcard synthesis. When
this happens, the resolver may not send subsequent queries as it will
be able to synthesize a response from previously cached material.
A solution is to avoid DNSSEC for the reporting agent domain.
Signing the agent domain will incur an additional burden on the
reporting resolver, as it has to validate the response. However,
this response has no utility to the reporting resolver.
4.2. Example
The domain broken.test is hosted on a set of authoritative servers.
One of these serves a stale version. This authoritative server has a
reporting agent configured: a01.reporting-agent.example.
The reporting resolver is unable to validate the broken.test RRSet
for type A, due to an RRSIG record with an expired signature.
The reporting resolver constructs the QNAME
_er.7.1.broken.test._er.a01.reporting-agent.example and resolves it.
Arends & Larson Expires May 13, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNS-ER November 2021
This QNAME indicates extended DNS error 7 occurred while trying to
validate broken.test type 1 (A) record.
After this query is received at one of the authoritative servers for
the reporting agent domain (a01.reporting-agent.example), the
reporting agent (the operators of the authoritative server for
a01.reporting-agent.example) determines that the authoritative server
for the broken.test zone suffers from an expired signature record
(extended error 7) for type A for the domain name broken.test. The
reporting agent can contact the operators of broken.test to fix the
issue.
5. EDNS0 Option Specification
This method uses an EDNS0 [RFC6891] option to indicate support for
sending DNS error reports and responding with the Reporting Agent
Domain in DNS messages. The option is structured as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION-CODE = TBD | OPTION-LENGTH |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
/ REPORTING AGENT DOMAIN /
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Field definition details:
o OPTION-CODE, 2-octets/16-bits (defined in [RFC6891]), for
indicating error reporting support is TBD. [RFC Editor: change
TBD to the proper code when assigned by IANA.]
o OPTION-LENGTH, 2-octets/16-bits ((defined in [RFC6891]) contains
the length of the REPORTING AGENT DOMAIN field in octets.
o REPORTING AGENT DOMAIN, a Domain name [RFC8499] in the DNS wire
format prescribed by [RFC1035].
6. DNS Error Reporting Specification
The various errors that a reporting resolver may encounter are listed
in [RFC8914]. Note that not all listed errors may be supported by
the reporting resolver. This document does not specify what is an
error and what is not.
The DNS class is not specified in the error report.
Arends & Larson Expires May 13, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNS-ER November 2021
6.1. Reporting Resolver Specification
Reporting Resolvers may have a configuration that allows the
following:
The reporting resolver MUST NOT use DNS error reporting to report a
failure in resolving the reporting query.
The reporting resolver MUST NOT use DNS error reporting if the
authoritative server has an empty Reporting Agent Domain field in the
EDNS Error Reporting option.
6.1.1. Constructing the Reporting Query
The QNAME for the reporting query is constructed by concatenating the
following elements, appending each successive element in the list to
the right-hand side of the QNAME:
o A label containing the string "_er".
o The Extended DNS error, presented as a decimal value, in a single
DNS label.
o The QTYPE that was used in the query that resulted in the extended
DNS error, presented as a decimal value, in a single DNS label.
o The QNAME that was used in the query that resulted in the extended
DNS error. The QNAME may consist of multiple labels and is
concatenated as is, i.e. in DNS wire format.
o A label containing the string "_er".
o The reporting agent domain. The reporting agent domain consists
of multiple labels and is concatenated exactly as received in the
EDNS option sent by the authoritative server.
If the resulting reporting query QNAME would exceed 255 octets, it
MUST NOT be sent.
The "_er" labels allow the reporting agent to quickly differentiate
between the agent domain and the faulty query name. When the
specified agent domain is empty, or a NULL label (despite being not
allowed in this specification), the reporting query will have "_er"
as a top-level domain as a result and not the original query.
Lastly, the purpose of the first "_er" label is to indicate that a
complete reporting query has been received, instead of a shorter
reporting query due to query minimization.
Arends & Larson Expires May 13, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNS-ER November 2021
6.2. Authoritative Server Specification
The Authoritative Server SHOULD NOT have multiple reporting agent
domains configured for a single zone. To support multiple reporting
agents, a single agent can act as a syndicate to subsequently inform
additional agents.
An authoritative server for a zone with DNS error reporting enabled
SHOULD NOT also be authoritative for that zone's reporting agent
domain's zone.
6.3. Reporting Agent Specification
It is RECOMMENDED that the reporting agent zone uses a wildcard DNS
record of type TXT with an arbitrary string in the RDATA and a TTL of
at least one hour.
6.4. Choosing a Reporting Agent Domain
It is RECOMMENDED that the reporting agent domain be kept relatively
short to allow for a longer QNAME in the reporting query.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign the following DNS EDNS0 option code
registry:
Value Name Status Reference
----- ---------------- -------- ---------------
TBD DNS ERROR REPORT Standard [this document]
[RFC Editor: change TBD to the proper code when assigned by IANA.]
IANA is requested to assign the following Underscored and Globally
Scoped DNS Node Name registry:
RR Type _NODE NAME Reference
----- ---------- ---------
TXT _er [this document]
8. Security Considerations
Use of DNS Error Reporting may expose local configuration mistakes in
the reporting resolver, such as stale DNSSEC trust anchors to the
reporting agent.
DNS Error reporting SHOULD be done using DNS Query Name Minimization
[RFC7816] to improve privacy.
Arends & Larson Expires May 13, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNS-ER November 2021
DNS Error Reporting is done without any authentication between the
reporting resolver and the authoritative server of the agent domain.
Authentication significantly increases the burden on the reporting
resolver without any benefit to the reporting agent, authoritative
server or reporting resolver.
The method described in this document will cause additional queries
by the reporting resolver to authoritative servers in order to
resolve the reporting query.
This method can be abused by deploying broken zones with agent
domains that are delegated to servers operated by the intended victim
in combination with open resolvers [RFC8499].
9. Acknowledgements
This document is based on an idea by Roy Arends and David Conrad.
The authors would like to thank Peter van Dijk, Vladimir Cunat, Paul
Hoffman, Libor Peltan, Matthijs Mekking, Willem Toorop, Tom Carpay,
xDick Franks, Benno Overeinder and Petr Spacek for their
contributions.
10. Informative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[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/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS
NCACHE)", RFC 2308, DOI 10.17487/RFC2308, March 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2308>.
[RFC4592] Lewis, E., "The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name
System", RFC 4592, DOI 10.17487/RFC4592, July 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4592>.
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
Arends & Larson Expires May 13, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNS-ER November 2021
[RFC7816] Bortzmeyer, S., "DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve
Privacy", RFC 7816, DOI 10.17487/RFC7816, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7816>.
[RFC8020] Bortzmeyer, S. and S. Huque, "NXDOMAIN: There Really Is
Nothing Underneath", RFC 8020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8020,
November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8020>.
[RFC8198] Fujiwara, K., Kato, A., and W. Kumari, "Aggressive Use of
DNSSEC-Validated Cache", RFC 8198, DOI 10.17487/RFC8198,
July 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8198>.
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
[RFC8914] Kumari, W., Hunt, E., Arends, R., Hardaker, W., and D.
Lawrence, "Extended DNS Errors", RFC 8914,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8914, October 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8914>.
Authors' Addresses
Roy Arends
ICANN
Email: roy.arends@icann.org
Matt Larson
ICANN
Email: matt.larson@icann.org
Arends & Larson Expires May 13, 2022 [Page 10]