GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3755

Network Working Group S. Weiler Request for Comments: 3755 SPARTA, Inc. Updates: 3658, 2535 May 2004 Category: Standards Track

      Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation Signer (DS)

Status of this Memo

 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
 and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 As the DNS Security (DNSSEC) specifications have evolved, the syntax
 and semantics of the DNSSEC resource records (RRs) have changed.
 Many deployed nameservers understand variants of these semantics.
 Dangerous interactions can occur when a resolver that understands an
 earlier version of these semantics queries an authoritative server
 that understands the new delegation signer semantics, including at
 least one failure scenario that will cause an unsecured zone to be
 unresolvable.  This document changes the type codes and mnemonics of
 the DNSSEC RRs (SIG, KEY, and NXT) to avoid those interactions.

1. Introduction

 The DNSSEC protocol has been through many iterations whose syntax and
 semantics are not completely compatible.  This has occurred as part
 of the ordinary process of proposing a protocol, implementing it,
 testing it in the increasingly complex and diverse environment of the
 Internet, and refining the definitions of the initial Proposed
 Standard.  In the case of DNSSEC, the process has been complicated by
 DNS's criticality and wide deployment and the need to add security
 while minimizing daily operational complexity.
 A weak area for previous DNS specifications has been lack of detail
 in specifying resolver behavior, leaving implementors largely on
 their own to determine many details of resolver function.  This,
 combined with the number of iterations the DNSSEC specifications have
 been through, has resulted in fielded code with a wide variety of

Weiler Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 3755 Legacy Resolver Compatibility for DS May 2004

 behaviors.  This variety makes it difficult to predict how a protocol
 change will be handled by all deployed resolvers.  The risk that a
 change will cause unacceptable or even catastrophic failures makes it
 difficult to design and deploy a protocol change.  One strategy for
 managing that risk is to structure protocol changes so that existing
 resolvers can completely ignore input that might confuse them or
 trigger undesirable failure modes.
 This document addresses a specific problem caused by Delegation
 Signer's (DS) [RFC3658] introduction of new semantics for the NXT RR
 that are incompatible with the semantics in [RFC2535].  Answers
 provided by DS-aware servers can trigger an unacceptable failure mode
 in some resolvers that implement RFC 2535, which provides a great
 disincentive to sign zones with DS.  The changes defined in this
 document allow for the incremental deployment of DS.

1.1. Terminology

 In this document, the term "unsecure delegation" means any delegation
 for which no DS record appears at the parent.  An "unsecure referral"
 is an answer from the parent containing an NS RRset and a proof that
 no DS record exists for that name.
 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].

1.2. The Problem

 Delegation Signer (DS) introduces new semantics for the NXT RR that
 are incompatible with the semantics in RFC 2535.  In RFC 2535, NXT
 records were only required to be returned as part of a non-existence
 proof.  With DS, an unsecure referral returns, in addition to the NS,
 a proof of non-existence of a DS RR in the form of an NXT and
 SIG(NXT).  RFC 2535 didn't specify how a resolver was to interpret a
 response with RCODE=0, AA=0, and both an NS and an NXT in the
 authority section.  Some widely deployed 2535-aware resolvers
 interpret any answer with an NXT as a proof of non-existence of the
 requested record.  This results in unsecure delegations being
 invisible to 2535-aware resolvers and violates the basic
 architectural principle that DNSSEC must do no harm -- the signing of
 zones must not prevent the resolution of unsecured delegations.

2. Possible Solutions

 This section presents several solutions that were considered.
 Section 3 describes the one selected.

Weiler Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 3755 Legacy Resolver Compatibility for DS May 2004

2.1. Change SIG, KEY, and NXT type codes

 To avoid the problem described above, legacy (RFC2535-aware)
 resolvers need to be kept from seeing unsecure referrals that include
 NXT records in the authority section.  The simplest way to do that is
 to change the type codes for SIG, KEY, and NXT.
 The obvious drawback to this is that new resolvers will not be able
 to validate zones signed with the old RRs.  This problem already
 exists, however, because of the changes made by DS, and resolvers
 that understand the old RRs (and have compatibility issues with DS)
 are far more prevalent than 2535-signed zones.

2.2. Change a subset of type codes

 The observed problem with unsecure referrals could be addressed by
 changing only the NXT type code or another subset of the type codes
 that includes NXT.  This has the virtue of apparent simplicity, but
 it risks introducing new problems or not going far enough.  It's
 quite possible that more incompatibilities exist between DS and
 earlier semantics.  Legacy resolvers may also be confused by seeing
 records they recognize (SIG and KEY) while being unable to find NXTs.
 Although it may seem unnecessary to fix that which is not obviously
 broken, it's far cleaner to change all of the type codes at once.
 This will leave legacy resolvers and tools completely blinded to
 DNSSEC -- they will see only unknown RRs.

2.3. Replace the DO bit

 Another way to keep legacy resolvers from ever seeing DNSSEC records
 with DS semantics is to have authoritative servers only send that
 data to DS-aware resolvers.  It's been proposed that assigning a new
 EDNS0 flag bit to signal DS-awareness (tentatively called "DA"), and
 having authoritative servers send DNSSEC data only in response to
 queries with the DA bit set, would accomplish this.  This bit would
 presumably supplant the DO bit described in [RFC3225].
 This solution is sufficient only if all 2535-aware resolvers zero out
 EDNS0 flags that they don't understand.  If one passed through the DA
 bit unchanged, it would still see the new semantics, and it would
 probably fail to see unsecure delegations.  Since it's impractical to
 know how every DNS implementation handles unknown EDNS0 flags, this
 is not a universal solution.  It could, though, be considered in
 addition to changing the RR type codes.

Weiler Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 3755 Legacy Resolver Compatibility for DS May 2004

2.4. Increment the EDNS version

 Another possible solution is to increment the EDNS version number as
 defined in [RFC2671], on the assumption that all existing
 implementations will reject higher versions than they support, and
 retain the DO bit as the signal for DNSSEC awareness.  This approach
 has not been tested.

2.5. Do nothing

 There is a large deployed base of DNS resolvers that understand
 DNSSEC as defined by the standards track RFC 2535 and [RFC2065] and,
 due to under specification in those documents, interpret any answer
 with an NXT as a non-existence proof.  So long as that is the case,
 zone owners will have a strong incentive to not sign any zones that
 contain unsecure delegations, lest those delegations be invisible to
 such a large installed base.  This will dramatically slow DNSSEC
 adoption.
 Unfortunately, without signed zones there's no clear incentive for
 operators of resolvers to upgrade their software to support the new
 version of DNSSEC, as defined in RFC 3658.  Historical data suggests
 that resolvers are rarely upgraded, and that old nameserver code
 never dies.
 Rather than wait years for resolvers to be upgraded through natural
 processes before signing zones with unsecure delegations, addressing
 this problem with a protocol change will immediately remove the
 disincentive for signing zones and allow widespread deployment of
 DNSSEC.

3. Protocol changes

 This document changes the type codes of SIG, KEY, and NXT.  This
 approach is the cleanest and safest of those discussed above, largely
 because the behavior of resolvers that receive unknown type codes is
 well understood.  This approach has also received the most testing.
 To avoid operational confusion, it's also necessary to change the
 mnemonics for these RRs.  DNSKEY will be the replacement for KEY,
 with the mnemonic indicating that these keys are not for application
 use, per [RFC3445].  RRSIG (Resource Record SIGnature) will replace
 SIG, and NSEC (Next SECure) will replace NXT.  These new types
 completely replace the old types, except that SIG(0) [RFC2931] and
 TKEY [RFC2930] will continue to use SIG and KEY.

Weiler Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 3755 Legacy Resolver Compatibility for DS May 2004

 The new types will have exactly the same syntax and semantics as
 specified for SIG, KEY, and NXT in RFC 2535 and RFC 3658 except for
 the following:
 1) Consistent with [RFC3597], domain names embedded in RRSIG and NSEC
    RRs MUST NOT be compressed,
 2) Embedded domain names in RRSIG and NSEC RRs are not downcased for
    purposes of DNSSEC canonical form and ordering nor for equality
    comparison, and
 3) An RRSIG with a type-covered field of zero has undefined
    semantics.  The meaning of such a resource record may only be
    defined by IETF Standards Action.
 If a resolver receives the old types, it SHOULD treat them as unknown
 RRs and SHOULD NOT assign any special meaning to them or give them
 any special treatment.  It MUST NOT use them for DNSSEC validations
 or other DNS operational decision making.  For example, a resolver
 MUST NOT use DNSKEYs to validate SIGs or use KEYs to validate RRSIGs.
 If SIG, KEY, or NXT RRs are included in a zone, they MUST NOT receive
 special treatment.  As an example, if a SIG is included in a signed
 zone, there MUST be an RRSIG for it.  Authoritative servers may wish
 to give error messages when loading zones containing SIG or NXT
 records (KEY records may be included for SIG(0) or TKEY).
 As a clarification to previous documents, some positive responses,
 particularly wildcard proofs and unsecure referrals, will contain
 NSEC RRs.  Resolvers MUST NOT treat answers with NSEC RRs as negative
 answers merely because they contain an NSEC.

4. IANA Considerations

4.1. DNS Resource Record Types

 This document updates the IANA registry for DNS Resource Record Types
 by assigning types 46, 47, and 48 to the RRSIG, NSEC, and DNSKEY RRs,
 respectively.
 Types 24 and 25 (SIG and KEY) are retained for SIG(0) [RFC2931] and
 TKEY [RFC2930] use only.
 Type 30 (NXT) should be marked as Obsolete.

Weiler Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 3755 Legacy Resolver Compatibility for DS May 2004

4.2. DNS Security Algorithm Numbers

 To allow zone signing (DNSSEC) and transaction security mechanisms
 (SIG(0) and TKEY) to use different sets of algorithms, the existing
 "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry is modified to include the
 applicability of each algorithm.  Specifically, two new columns are
 added to the registry, showing whether each algorithm may be used for
 zone signing, transaction security mechanisms, or both.  Only
 algorithms usable for zone signing may be used in DNSKEY, RRSIG, and
 DS RRs.  Only algorithms usable for SIG(0) and/or TSIG may be used in
 SIG and KEY RRs.
 All currently defined algorithms except for Indirect (algorithm 252)
 remain usable for transaction security mechanisms.  Only RSA/SHA-1
 [RFC3110], DSA/SHA-1 [RFC2536], and private algorithms (types 253 and
 254) may be used for zone signing.  Note that the registry does not
 contain the requirement level of each algorithm, only whether or not
 an algorithm may be used for the given purposes.  For example,
 RSA/MD5, while allowed for transaction security mechanisms, is NOT
 RECOMMENDED, per [RFC3110].
 Additionally, the presentation format algorithm mnemonics from
 [RFC2535] Section 7 are added to the registry.  This document assigns
 RSA/SHA-1 the mnemonic RSASHA1.
 As before, assignment of new algorithms in this registry requires
 IETF Standards Action.  Additionally, modification of algorithm
 mnemonics or applicability requires IETF Standards Action.  Documents
 defining a new algorithm must address the applicability of the
 algorithm and should assign a presentation mnemonic to the algorithm.

4.3. DNSKEY Flags

 Like the KEY resource record, DNSKEY contains a 16-bit flags field.
 This document creates a new registry for the DNSKEY flags field.
 Initially, this registry only contains an assignment for bit 7 (the
 ZONE bit).  Bits 0-6 and 8-15 are available for assignment by IETF
 Standards Action.

4.4. DNSKEY Protocol Octet

 Like the KEY resource record, DNSKEY contains an eight bit protocol
 field.  The only defined value for this field is 3 (DNSSEC).  No
 other values are allowed, hence no IANA registry is needed for this
 field.

Weiler Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 3755 Legacy Resolver Compatibility for DS May 2004

5. Security Considerations

 The changes introduced here do not materially affect security.  The
 implications of trying to use both new and legacy types together are
 not well understood, and attempts to do so would probably lead to
 unintended and dangerous results.
 Changing type codes will leave code paths in legacy resolvers that
 are never exercised.  Unexercised code paths are a frequent source of
 security holes, largely because those code paths do not get frequent
 scrutiny.
 Doing nothing, as described in section 2.5, will slow DNSSEC
 deployment.  While this does not decrease security, it also fails to
 increase it.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
           2535, March 1999.
 [RFC2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System
           (DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999.
 [RFC2930] Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)",
           RFC 2930, September 2000.
 [RFC2931] Eastlake, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
           (SIG(0)s)", RFC 2931, September 2000.
 [RFC3110] Eastlake, D., "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain
           Name System (DNS)", RFC 3110, May 2001.
 [RFC3658] Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record
           (RR)", RFC 3658, December 2003.

Weiler Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 3755 Legacy Resolver Compatibility for DS May 2004

6.2. Informative References

 [RFC2065] Eastlake, 3rd, D. and C. Kaufman, "Domain Name System
           Security Extensions", RFC 2065, January 1997.
 [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC
           2671, August 1999.
 [RFC3225] Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC", RFC
           3225, December 2001.
 [RFC3445] Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Limiting the Scope of the KEY
           Resource Record (RR)", RFC 3445, December 2002.
 [RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
           (RR) Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.

7. Acknowledgments

 The changes introduced here and the analysis of alternatives had many
 contributors.  With apologies to anyone overlooked, those include:
 Michael Graff, Johan Ihren, Olaf Kolkman, Mark Kosters, Ed Lewis,
 Bill Manning, Paul Vixie, and Suzanne Woolf.
 Thanks to Jakob Schlyter and Mark Andrews for identifying the
 incompatibility described in section 1.2.
 In addition to the above, the author would like to thank Scott Rose,
 Olafur Gudmundsson, and Sandra Murphy for their substantive comments.

8. Author's Address

 Samuel Weiler
 SPARTA, Inc.
 7075 Samuel Morse Drive
 Columbia, MD 21046
 USA
 EMail: weiler@tislabs.com

Weiler Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 3755 Legacy Resolver Compatibility for DS May 2004

9. Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
 ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Weiler Standards Track [Page 9]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3755.txt · Last modified: 2004/05/25 15:29 (external edit)