Commit b92161ee authored by Ondřej Surý's avatar Ondřej Surý
Browse files

chg: dev: Remove hard copies of RFCs and I-Ds from the BIND repository

Merge branch 'remove-rfcs-and-drafts' into 'master'

See merge request !34
parents 643c8c27 6336ef1e
Pipeline #240 failed with stage
in 66 minutes and 29 seconds
This diff is collapsed.
DNS Extensions Working Group S. Rose
Internet-Draft NIST
Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, May 26, 2011
5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 27, 2011
Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA
Registry
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08
Abstract
The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of
cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over
DNS data. There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms
that is incomplete in that it lacks the implementation status of each
algorithm. This document provides an applicability statement on
algorithm implementation compliance status for DNSSEC
implementations. This status is to measure compliance to this RFC
only. This document replaces that registry table with a new IANA
registry table for Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm
Numbers that lists (or assigns) each algorithm's status based on the
current reference.
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 November 27, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Rose Expires November 27, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IANA Registry Fixes May 2011
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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The DNS Security Algorithm Number Sub-registry . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Updates and Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Domain Name System (DNS) Security Algorithm Number
Registry Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of
Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Rose Expires November 27, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IANA Registry Fixes May 2011
1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033],
[RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC4509], [RFC5155], and [RFC5702] uses
digital signatures over DNS data to provide source authentication and
integrity protection. DNSSEC uses an IANA registry to list codes for
digital signature algorithms (consisting of a cryptographic algorithm
and one-way hash function).
The original list of algorithm status is found in [RFC4034]. Other
DNSSEC RFC's have added new algorithms or changed the status of
algorithms in the registry. However, implementers must read through
all the documents in order to discover which algorithms are
considered wise to implement, which are not, and which algorithms may
become widely used in the future. This document replaces the
original list with a new table that includes the current compliance
status for certain algorithms.
This compliance status indication is only to be considered for
implementation, not deployment or operations. Operators are free to
deploy any digital signature algorithm available in implementations
or algorithms chosen by local security policies. This status is to
measure compliance to this RFC only.
This document replaces the current IANA registry for Domain Name
System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers with a newly defined
registry table. This new table (Section 2.2 below) contains a column
that will list the current compliance status of each digital
signature algorithm in the registry at the time of writing and
assigns status for some algorithms used with DNSSEC that did not have
an identified status in their specification. This document updates
the following: [RFC2536], [RFC2539], [RFC3110], [RFC4034], [RFC4398],
[RFC5155], [RFC5702], and [RFC5933].
1.1. Requirements Language
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. The DNS Security Algorithm Number Sub-registry
The DNS Security Algorithm Number sub-registry (part of the Domain
Name System (DNS) Security Number registry) will be replaced with the
table below. This table is based on the existing DNS Security
Algorithm Number sub-registry and adds a column that contains the
current implementation status of the given algorithm.
Rose Expires November 27, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IANA Registry Fixes May 2011
There are additional differences to entries that are described in
sub-section 2.1. The overall new registry table is in sub-section
2.2. The values for the compliance status were obtained from
[RFC4034] with updates for algorithms specified after the original
DNSSEC specification. If no status was listed in the original
specification, this document assigns one.
2.1. Updates and Additions
This document updates three entries in the Domain Name System
Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Registry. They are:
The description for assignment number 4 is changed to "Reserved until
2020".
The description for assignment number 9 is changed to "Reserved until
2020".
The description for assignment number 11 is changed to "Reserved
until 2020".
Registry entries 13-251 remains Unassigned.
The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT.
This is due to the fact that RSA/SHA-1 is a MUST IMPLEMENT. The
status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/SHA-512 are also set to RECOMMENDED TO
IMPLEMENT as it is believed that these algorithms will replace an
older algorithm (e.g. RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness in
its hash algorithm (SHA-1).
Rose Expires November 27, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IANA Registry Fixes May 2011
2.2. Domain Name System (DNS) Security Algorithm Number Registry Table
The Domain Name System (DNS) Security Algorithm Number registry is
hereby specified as follows below. The new column is titled
"Compliance to RFC TBD" (where TBD will change when published) as the
IANA Registry table is not normative. The IANA registry table is
only a reflection of the RFC, which is normative.
Trans-
Zone action Compliance to
Number Description Mnemonic Sign Sign RFC TBD1 Reference
------ ----------- ------ ---- ----- ------------ ---------
0 Reserved [RFC4398]
1 RSA/MD5 RSAMD5 N Y MUST NOT [RFC2537]
IMPLEMENT
2 Diffie-Hellman DH N Y [RFC2539]
3 DSA/SHA-1 DSASHA1 Y Y [RFC2536]
4 Reserved until
2020
5 RSA/SHA-1 RSASHA1 Y Y MUST [RFC3110]
IMPLEMENT
6 DSA-NSEC3-SHA1 DSA-NSEC3 Y Y [RFC5155]
-SHA1
7 RSASHA1-NSEC3 RSASHA1- Y Y RECOMMENDED [RFC5155]
-SHA1 NSEC3- TO IMPLEMENT
SHA1
8 RSA/SHA-256 RSASHA256 Y * RECOMMENDED [RFC5702]
TO IMPLEMENT
9 Reserved until
2020
10 RSA/SHA-512 RSASHA512 Y * RECOMMENDED [RFC5702]
TO IMPLEMENT
11 Reserved until
2020
12 GOST R GOST-ECC Y * [RFC5933]
34.10-2001
13-251 Unassigned
252 Reserved for INDIRECT N N [RFC4034]
Indirect keys
253 private PRIVATE Y Y [RFC4034]
algorithm
254 private PRIVATEOID Y Y [RFC4034]
algorithm OID
255 Reserved
Table rows where the compliance column is not filled in are left to
the discretion of implementers. Their implementation (or lack
thereof) therefore cannot be included when judging compliance to this
Rose Expires November 27, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IANA Registry Fixes May 2011
document.
2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of Existing Entries
[RFC6014] establishes a parallel procedure for adding a registry
entry for a new algorithm other than a standards track document.
Algorithms entered into the registry using that procedure do not have
a listed compliance status. Specifications that follow this path do
not need to obsolete or update this document.
Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with a compliance
status SHALL entail obsolescing this document and replacing the
registry table (with the new algorithm entry). Altering the status
column value of any existing algorithm in the registry SHALL entail
obsoleting this document and replacing the registry table.
This document cannot be updated, only made obsolete and replaced by a
successor document.
3. IANA Considerations
This document replaces the Domain Name System (DNS) Security
Algorithm Numbers registry. The new registry table is in Section
2.2. In the column "Compliance to RFC TBD", "RFC TBD" should be
changed to the official RFC when published.
The original Domain Name System (DNS) Security Algorithm Number
registry is available at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers.
4. Security Considerations
This document replaces the Domain Name System (DNS) Security
Algorithm Numbers registry. It is not meant to be a discussion on
algorithm superiority. No new security considerations are raised in
this document.
5. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System
(DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999.
[RFC2537] Eastlake, D., "RSA/MD5 KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name
System (DNS)", RFC 2537, March 1999.
Rose Expires November 27, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IANA Registry Fixes May 2011
[RFC2539] Eastlake, D., "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the
Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999.
[RFC3110] Eastlake, D., "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain
Name System (DNS)", RFC 3110, May 2001.
[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.
[RFC4398] Josefsson, S., "Storing Certificates in the Domain Name
System (DNS)", RFC 4398, March 2006.
[RFC4509] Hardaker, W., "Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer
(DS) Resource Records (RRs)", RFC 4509, May 2006.
[RFC5155] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
Existence", RFC 5155, March 2008.
[RFC5702] Jansen, J., "Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY
and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702,
October 2009.
[RFC5933] Dolmatov, V., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of GOST
Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records
for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, July 2010.
[RFC6014] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier
Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, November 2010.
Rose Expires November 27, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IANA Registry Fixes May 2011
Author's Address
Scott Rose
NIST
100 Bureau Dr.
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
USA
Phone: +1-301-975-8439
EMail: scottr.nist@gmail.com
Rose Expires November 27, 2011 [Page 8]
This diff is collapsed.
DNS Extensions Working Group J. Schlyter
Internet-Draft May 19, 2005
Expires: November 20, 2005
RFC 3597 Interoperability Report
draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This memo documents the result from the RFC 3597 (Handling of Unknown
DNS Resource Record Types) interoperability testing.
Schlyter Expires November 20, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report May 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 Authoritative Primary Name Server . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 Authoritative Secondary Name Server . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3 Full Recursive Resolver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4 Stub Resolver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.5 DNSSEC Signer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Problems found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. Test zone data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 6
Schlyter Expires November 20, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report May 2005
1. Introduction
This memo documents the result from the RFC 3597 (Handling of Unknown
DNS Resource Record Types) interoperability testing. The test was
performed during June and July 2004 by request of the IETF DNS
Extensions Working Group.
2. Implementations
The following is a list, in alphabetic order, of implementations
tested for compliance with RFC 3597:
DNSJava 1.6.4
ISC BIND 8.4.5
ISC BIND 9.3.0
NSD 2.1.1
Net::DNS 0.47 patchlevel 1
Nominum ANS 2.2.1.0.d
These implementations covers the following functions (number of
implementations tested for each function in paranthesis):
Authoritative Name Servers (4)
Full Recursive Resolver (2)
Stub Resolver (4)
DNSSEC Zone Signers (2)
All listed implementations are genetically different.
3. Tests
The following tests was been performed to validate compliance with
RFC 3597 section 3 ("Transparency"), 4 ("Domain Name Compression")
and 5 ("Text Representation").
3.1 Authoritative Primary Name Server
The test zone data (Appendix A) was loaded into the name server
implementation and the server was queried for the loaded information.
3.2 Authoritative Secondary Name Server
The test zone data (Appendix A) was transferred using AXFR from
another name server implementation and the server was queried for the
transferred information.
Schlyter Expires November 20, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 3597 Interoperability Report May 2005
3.3 Full Recursive Resolver