Internet DRAFT - draft-peetterr-dnsop-parent-side-auth-types
draft-peetterr-dnsop-parent-side-auth-types
dnsop P. van Dijk
Internet-Draft PowerDNS
Intended status: Standards Track P. Spacek
Expires: 28 March 2021 CZNIC
24 September 2020
Parent-side authoritative DNS records for enhanced delegation
draft-peetterr-dnsop-parent-side-auth-types-00
Abstract
A DNS RRtype numeric range that behaves like DS is reserved. This
means: being authoritative on the parent side of a delegation; being
signed by the parent; being provided along with delegations by the
parent. If this document had become an RFC five years ago, deploying
new types (along the lines of NS2/NS2T, DSPKI or various other
imagined things like DNS ('signed delegation NS')) would be easier to
deploy and experiment with today.
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 28 March 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
van Dijk & Spacek Expires 28 March 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft parent-side-auth-types September 2020
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. Document work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.1. Authoritative server changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.2. Validating resolver changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.3. Stub resolver changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.4. Zone validator changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.5. Domain registry changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Document history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
[RFC4035] defines the DS Resource Record, as a type with the special
property that it lives at the parent side of a delegation, unlike any
other record (if we can briefly ignore NSEC living on both sides of a
delegation as an extra special case). In various conversations and
posted drafts in DPRIVE and DNSOP, a need to publish other kinds of
data parent-side has been identified. Some drafts simply proposed a
new type, assuming that authoritative DNS servers and registry
operations would eventually follow along; other drafts have tried to
shoehorn new kinds of data into the DS record. If, when DS was
defined, or at any time since then, a range of RRtype numbers would
have been specified to have the same behaviour as DS, those drafts,
and the experiments that need to go with figuring out the exact
definition of a protocol, would have been much more feasible. This
document requests that IANA allocate such a range.
van Dijk & Spacek Expires 28 March 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft parent-side-auth-types September 2020
2. Document work
This document lives on GitHub (https://github.com/PowerDNS/draft-
dnsop-parent-side-auth-types); proposed text and editorial changes
are very much welcomed there, but any functional changes should
always first be discussed on the IETF DNSOP WG mailing list.
3. Conventions and Definitions
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.
4. Summary
A range of new types is allocated, but not assigned (FIXME:
wording?). This range of types is defined to be handled by DNS
software like the DS record is handled. Authoritative servers serve
the types from the parent side of a delegation. Resolvers know to
ask the parent side of a delegation.
No semantics are assigned to the numbers at this time. Having these
numbers reserved with these processing rules allows for future
extension of parent-side publication of data on behalf of a child,
without having to wait for implementations to catch up.
5. Implementation
The subsection titles in this section attempt to follow the
terminology from [RFC8499] in as far as it has suitable terms.
'Implementation' is understood to mean both 'code changes' and
'operational changes' here.
5.1. Authoritative server changes
This specification defines changes to query processing in
authoritative servers.
FIXME
5.2. Validating resolver changes
This specification defines changes to query processing in resolvers.
FIXME
van Dijk & Spacek Expires 28 March 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft parent-side-auth-types September 2020
5.3. Stub resolver changes
This specification defines no changes to query processing in
resolvers.
FIXME
5.4. Zone validator changes
This specification defines changes to zone validation in zone
validators.
FIXME
5.5. Domain registry changes
Domain registries MAY decide to allow children to publish records of
any type from the range defined in this document in the parent zone.
Alternatively, they MAY decide to only allow such publication for
types that actually get allocated a name and a semantic. Ideally,
domain registries would allow anything in the experimental subrange.
6. Security Considerations
7. Implementation Status
[RFC Editor: please remove this section before publication]
8. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to reserve a range of numbers in the Domain Name
System (DNS) Parameters Resource Record (RR) TYPEs, with this
document as the Reference. The numbers shall get no meaningful names
(but perhaps they would get some useful mnemonic, a weak proposal is
"PA00" through "PAXX" for 'parent authoritive').
IANA is also requested to mark a subset of that range as
'experimental'. The experimental numbers are expected to never be
hardcoded in published, released software, and no further allocation
or naming of the experimental numbers by an RFC or otherwise is
expected.
9. Acknowledgements
This idea was initially proposed by Petr Spacek. His contribution is
rewarded by listing him as an author so he can take equal parts
credit and blame.
van Dijk & Spacek Expires 28 March 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft parent-side-auth-types September 2020
10. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
11. Informative References
[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>.
[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>.
Appendix A. Document history
Authors' Addresses
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS
Den Haag
Netherlands
Email: peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com
Petr Spacek
CZNIC
Prague
Czech Republic
Email: petr.spacek@nic.cz
van Dijk & Spacek Expires 28 March 2021 [Page 5]
