Skip to main content

Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC
RFC 9157

Document Type RFC - Proposed Standard (December 2021)
Author Paul E. Hoffman
Last updated 2022-08-02
Replaces draft-hoffman-dnssec-iana-cons
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Related Implementations
Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Tim Wicinski
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2021-10-03
IESG IESG state RFC 9157 (Proposed Standard)
Action Holders
(None)
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Warren "Ace" Kumari
Send notices to tjw.ietf@gmail.com
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
RFC 9157


Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        P. Hoffman
Request for Comments: 9157                                         ICANN
Updates: 5155, 6014, 8624                                  November 2021
Category: Standards Track                                               
ISSN: 2070-1721

                 Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC

Abstract

   This document changes the review requirements needed to get DNSSEC
   algorithms and resource records added to IANA registries.  It updates
   RFC 6014 to include hash algorithms for Delegation Signer (DS)
   records and NextSECure version 3 (NSEC3) parameters (for Hashed
   Authenticated Denial of Existence).  It also updates RFCs 5155 and
   6014, which have requirements for DNSSEC algorithms, and updates RFC
   8624 to clarify the implementation recommendation related to the
   algorithms described in RFCs that are not on the standards track.
   The rationale for these changes is to bring the requirements for DS
   records and hash algorithms used in NSEC3 in line with the
   requirements for all other DNSSEC algorithms.

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/rfc9157.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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
     1.1.  Requirements Language
   2.  Update to RFC 6014
   3.  Update to RFC 8624
   4.  IANA Considerations
   5.  Security Considerations
   6.  References
     6.1.  Normative References
     6.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Author's Address

1.  Introduction

   DNSSEC is primarily described in [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035].
   DNSSEC commonly uses another resource record beyond those defined in
   [RFC4034]: NSEC3 [RFC5155].  DS resource records were originally
   defined in [RFC3658], and that definition was obsoleted by [RFC4034].

   [RFC6014] updates the requirements for how DNSSEC cryptographic
   algorithm identifiers in the IANA registries are assigned, reducing
   the requirements from "Standards Action" to "RFC Required".  However,
   the IANA registry requirements for hash algorithms for DS records
   [RFC3658] and for the hash algorithms used in NSEC3 records [RFC5155]
   are still "Standards Action".  This document updates those IANA
   registry requirements.  (For a reference on how IANA registries can
   be updated in general, see [RFC8126].)

1.1.  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.

2.  Update to RFC 6014

   Section 4 updates [RFC6014] to bring the requirements for DS records
   and NSEC3 hash algorithms in line with the rest of the DNSSEC
   cryptographic algorithms by allowing any DS hash algorithms, NSEC3
   hash algorithms, NSEC3 parameters, and NSEC3 flags that are fully
   described in an RFC to have identifiers assigned in the IANA
   registries.  This is an addition to the IANA considerations in
   [RFC6014].

3.  Update to RFC 8624

   This document updates [RFC8624] for all DNSKEY and DS algorithms that
   are not on the standards track.

   The second paragraph of Section 1.2 of [RFC8624] currently says:

   |  This document only provides recommendations with respect to
   |  mandatory-to-implement algorithms or algorithms so weak that they
   |  cannot be recommended.  Any algorithm listed in the [DNSKEY-IANA]
   |  and [DS-IANA] registries that are not mentioned in this document
   |  MAY be implemented.  For clarification and consistency, an
   |  algorithm will be specified as MAY in this document only when it
   |  has been downgraded from a MUST or a RECOMMENDED to a MAY.

   That paragraph is now replaced with the following:

   |  This document provides recommendations with respect to mandatory-
   |  to-implement algorithms, algorithms so weak that they cannot be
   |  recommended, and algorithms defined in RFCs that are not on the
   |  standards track.  Any algorithm listed in the [DNSKEY-IANA] and
   |  [DS-IANA] registries that are not mentioned in this document MAY
   |  be implemented.  For clarification and consistency, an algorithm
   |  will be specified as MAY in this document only when it has been
   |  downgraded from a MUST or a RECOMMENDED to a MAY.

   This update is also reflected in the IANA considerations in
   Section 4.

4.  IANA Considerations

   In the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) NextSECure3 (NSEC3)
   Parameters" registry, the registration procedure for "DNSSEC NSEC3
   Flags", "DNSSEC NSEC3 Hash Algorithms", and "DNSSEC NSEC3PARAM Flags"
   has been changed from "Standards Action" to "RFC Required", and this
   document has been added as a reference.

   In the "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type
   Digest Algorithms" registry, the registration procedure for "Digest
   Algorithms" has been changed from "Standards Action" to "RFC
   Required", and this document has been added as a reference.

5.  Security Considerations

   Changing the requirements for adding security algorithms to IANA
   registries as described in this document will make it easier to add
   both good and bad algorithms to the registries.  It is impossible to
   weigh the security impact of those two changes.

   Administrators of DNSSEC-signed zones and validating resolvers may
   have been making security decisions based on the contents of the IANA
   registries.  This was a bad idea in the past, and now it is an even
   worse idea because there will be more algorithms in those registries
   that may not have gone through IETF review.  Security decisions about
   which algorithms are safe and not safe should be made by reading the
   security literature, not by looking in IANA registries.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.

   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.

   [RFC5155]  Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
              Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
              Existence", RFC 5155, DOI 10.17487/RFC5155, March 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5155>.

   [RFC6014]  Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier
              Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, DOI 10.17487/RFC6014,
              November 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6014>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [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/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8624]  Wouters, P. and O. Sury, "Algorithm Implementation
              Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC", RFC 8624,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8624, June 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8624>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3658]  Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record
              (RR)", RFC 3658, DOI 10.17487/RFC3658, December 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3658>.

Acknowledgements

   Donald Eastlake, Murray Kucherawy, Dan Harkins, Martin Duke, and
   Benjamin Kaduk contributed to this document.

Author's Address

   Paul Hoffman
   ICANN

   Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org