Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status
RFC 8749
Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (March 2020; No errata) | |
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Matthijs Mekking , Dan Mahoney | ||
Last updated | 2020-03-27 | ||
Replaces | draft-mekking-dnsop-obsolete-dlv | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Formats | plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
Document shepherd | Tim Wicinski | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2019-09-03) | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 8749 (Proposed Standard) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Warren Kumari | ||
Send notices to | Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> | ||
IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
IANA expert review state | Expert Reviews OK | ||
IANA expert review comments | I have reviewed the document and it is fine, after the RFC is published the line should read DLV 32769 DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (OBSOLETE) [RFCXYZZ] [RFC4431] |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) W. Mekking Request for Comments: 8749 D. Mahoney Updates: 6698, 6840 ISC Category: Standards Track March 2020 ISSN: 2070-1721 Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status Abstract This document retires DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) and reclassifies RFCs 4431 and 5074 as Historic. Furthermore, this document updates RFC 6698 by excluding the DLV resource record from certificates and updates RFC 6840 by excluding the DLV registries from the trust anchor selection. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8749. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 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 2. Requirements Language 3. Discussion 4. Moving DLV to Historic Status 4.1. Documents That Reference the DLV RFCs 4.1.1. Documents That Reference RFC 4431 4.1.2. Documents That Reference RFC 5074 5. IANA Considerations 6. Security Considerations 7. Normative References Acknowledgements Authors' Addresses 1. Introduction DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) was introduced to assist with the adoption of DNSSEC [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035] in a time when the root zone and many top-level domains (TLDs) were unsigned. DLV allowed entities with signed zones under an unsigned parent zone or entities with registrars that did not accept DS records to publish trust anchors outside of the normal DNS delegation chain. The root zone was signed in July 2010, and as of May 2019, 1389 out of 1531 TLDs have a secure delegation from the root; thus, DLV has served its purpose and can now retire. 2. Requirements Language 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. 3. Discussion One could argue that DLV is still useful because there are still some unsigned TLDs and entities under those zones that will not benefit from signing their zone. However, keeping the DLV mechanism also has disadvantages: * It reduces the pressure to get the parent zone signed. * It reduces the pressure on registrars to accept DS records. * It complicates validation code. In addition, not every validator actually implemented DLV (only BIND 9 and Unbound), so even if an entity can use DLV to set up an alternate path to its trust anchor, its effect is limited. Furthermore, there was one well-known DLV registry (dlv.isc.org), which was deprecated (replaced with a signed empty zone) on September 30, 2017. With the absence of a well-known DLV registry service, it is unlikely that there is a real benefit for the protocol on the Internet nowadays. One other possible reason to keep DLV is to distribute trust anchors for private enterprises. There are no known uses of DLV for this. All things considered, it is probably not worth the effort of maintaining the DLV mechanism. 4. Moving DLV to Historic Status There are two RFCs that specify DLV: 1. RFC 4431 [RFC4431] specifies the DLV resource record. 2. RFC 5074 [RFC5074] specifies the DLV mechanism for publishing trust anchors outside the DNS delegation chain and how validators can use them to validate DNSSEC-signed data. This document moves both RFC 4431 [RFC4431] and RFC 5074 [RFC5074] to Historic status. This is a clear signal to implementers that the DLV resource record and the DLV mechanism SHOULD NOT be implemented orShow full document text