Signaling Cryptographic Algorithm Understanding in DNSSEC
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-signal-00

Abstract

The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) were developed to provide origin authentication and integrity protection for DNS data by using digital signatures. These digital signatures can be generated using different algorithms. This draft sets out to specify a way for validating end-system resolvers to signal to a server which cryptographic algorithms they support.

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 RFC 2119 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [RFC2119].

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 May 14, 2011.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2010 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 (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

2.  Signaling Algorithm Understood (AU) Using EDNS

3.  Client Considerations
    3.1.  Stub Resolvers
    3.2.  Validating Stub Resolvers
    3.3.  Non-Validating Stub Resolvers
    3.4.  Recursive Resolvers
        3.4.1.  Validating Recursive Resolvers
        3.4.2.  Non-validating Recursive Resolvers

4.  Intermediate Middlebox Considerations

5.  Server Considerations

6.  Traffic Analysis Considerations

7.  IANA Considerations

8.  Security Considerations

9.  Normative References

1.  Introduction

The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033] (Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, “DNS Security Introduction and Requirements,” March 2005.), [RFC4034] (Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, “Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions,” March 2005.) and [RFC4035] (Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, “Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions,” March 2005.) were developed to provide origin authentication and integrity protection for DNS data by using digital signatures. Each digital signature RR (RRSIG) contains an algorithm code number. These algorithm codes tells validators which cryptographic algorithm was used to generate the digital signature. Authentication across delegation boundries is maintained by storing a hash of a subzone's key in the parent zone stored in a Delegation Signer (DS) RR. These DS RR's contain a second code number to identify the hash algorithm used to contruct the DS RR.

This draft sets out to specify a way for validating end-system resolvers to tell a server which cryptographic and/or hash algorithms they support in a DNS query. This is done using the EDNS attribute values in the OPT meta-RR [RFC2671] (Vixie, P., “Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0),” August 1999.).

This proposed EDNS option serves to measure the acceptance and use of new digital signing and hash algorithms. This algorithm signaling option can be used by zone administrators as a gauge to measure the successful deployment of code that implements a newly deployed digital signature or hash algorithm used with DNSSEC. A zone administrator may be able to determine when to stop serving the old algorithm when the server sees that all or almost all of its clients signal that they are able to accept the new algorithm.

This draft does not seek to include another process for including new algorithms for use with DNSSEC (see . It also does not address the question of which algorithms are to be included in any official list of mandatory or recommended cryptographic algorithms for use with DNSSEC. Rather, this document specifies a means by which a client query can signal a set of algorithms it implements.

2.  Signaling Algorithm Understood (AU) Using EDNS

The ENDS0 specification outlined in [RFC2671] (Vixie, P., “Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0),” August 1999.) defines a way to include new options using a standardized mechanism. These options are contained in the RDATA of the OPT meta-RR. This document defines a new EDNS0 option for a client to signal which algorithms the client supports.

The figure below shows how the signally attribute is defined in the RDATA of the OPT RR specified in [RFC2671] (Vixie, P., “Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0),” August 1999.):

    0                       8                      16
    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    |                 OPTION-CODE (TBD)             |
    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    |             DIGITAL-SIG-LIST-LENGTH           |
    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    |       ALG-CODE        |        ...            \
    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    |              DS-HASH-LIST-LENGTH              |
    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
    |       HASH-CODE       |        ...            \
    +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

OPTION-CODE is the code for the Algorithm Understood (AU) option. Its value is fixed at TBD.

DIGITAL-SIG-LIST-LENGTH is the length of the list of digital signature algorithms in octets. DNSSEC algorithm codes are 1 octet long so this value is the number of octets.

ALG-CODE is the list of assigned values of DNSSEC zone signing algorithms that the client indicates as understood. The values SHOULD be in descending order of preference, with the most preferred algorithm first. For example, if a validating client implements RSA/SHA-1, RSA/SHA-256 and prefers the latter, the value of ALG-CODE would be: 8 (RSA/SHA-256), 5 (RSA/SHA-1).

DS-HASH-LIST-LENGTH is the length of the list of hash algorithms in octets. DNSSEC DS hash codes are 1 octet long so this value is the number of octets.

HASH-CODE is the list of assigned values of DNSSEC DS hash algorithms that the client indicates as understood. Like the ALG-CODE above, the values SHOULD be in descending order of preference, with the most preferred algorithm first.

3.  Client Considerations

A validating end-system resolver sets the AU option in the OPT meta-RR when sending a query. The validating end-system resolver sets the value(s) in the order of preference, with the most preferred algorithm(s) first as described in section 2. The end-system resolver MUST also set the DNSSEC-OK bit [RFC4035] (Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, “Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions,” March 2005.) to indicate that it wishes to receive DNSSEC RRs in the response.

Note that when including the PRIVATEDNS (253) and/or the PRIVATEOID (254) codes, the client only indicates that it understands one or more private algorithms but does not indicate which algorithms.

3.1.  Stub Resolvers

Typically, stub resolvers rely on an upstream recursive server (or cache) to provide a response; any algorithm support on the stub resolver's side could be overruled by the upstream recursive server.

3.2.  Validating Stub Resolvers

A validating stub resolver MUST set the DO bit [RFC4035] (Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, “Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions,” March 2005.) to indicate that it wishes to receive DNSSEC RRs in the response. Such validating resolvers MAY include the AU option in the OPT RR when sending a query. The validating resolver that way indicates which cryptographic algorithm(s) in supports by setting the values(s) in the order of preference, with the most preferred algorithm(s) first as described in Section 2.

3.3.  Non-Validating Stub Resolvers

The AU EDNS option is NOT RECOMMENDED for non-validating stub resolvers.

3.4.  Recursive Resolvers

3.4.1.  Validating Recursive Resolvers

A validating recursive resolver MUST set the DO bit [RFC4035] (Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, “Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions,” March 2005.) to indicate that is wishes to receive DNSSEC RRs in the response. If the client the recursive resolver did not include the DO bit in the query the recursive resolver MAY include the AU option according to its own local policy.

If the client did include the DO and CD bits, but did not include the AU option in the query, the validating recursive resolver SHOULD NOT include the AU option to avoid conflicts.

If the client did set the DO bit and the AU option in the query, the validating recursive resolver MAY include the AU option based on its own local policy if it does validation. If not, the recursive resolver SHOULD copy the value of the AU option in the client query.

3.4.2.  Non-validating Recursive Resolvers

Recursive resolvers that do not do validation or caching SHOULD copy the AU option seen in received queries as they represent the wishes of the validating downstream resolver that issued the original query.

4.  Intermediate Middlebox Considerations

Intermediate middleboxes SHOULD behave like a comperable recursive resolver when dealing with the AU option.

5.  Server Considerations

When an authoritative server sees the AU option in the OPT meta-RR in a request the normal algorithm for servicing requests is followed.

If the AU option is present but the DNSSEC-OK bit is not set, then the authoritative server ignores the ALG-CODE list and does not include any additional DNSSEC RRs in the response.

6.  Traffic Analysis Considerations

Zone administrators that are planning or are in the process of a cryptographic algorithm rollover operation should monitor DNS query traffic and record the values of the AU option in queries. This monitoring can measure the deployment of client code that implements (and signals) certain algorithms. Exactly how to capture DNS traffic and measure new algorithm adoption is beyond the scope of this document.

Zone administrators can use this data to set plans for starting an algorithm rollover and when older algorithms can be phased out without disrupting the majority of clients. In order to keep this disruption to a minimum, zone administrators should wait to complete an algorithm rollover until a large majority of clients signal that they understand the new algorithm. Note that clients that do not implement the AU option may be older implementations which would also not implement any newly deployed algorithm.

7.  IANA Considerations

The algorithm codes used to identify DNSSEC algorithms has already been established by IANA. This document does not seek to alter that registry in any way.

This draft seeks to update the "DNS EDNS0 Options" registry by adding the AU option and referencing this document. The code for the option should be TBD.

8.  Security Considerations

This document specifies a way for a client to signal its digital signature algorithm preference to a cache or server. It is not meant to be a discussion on algorithm superiority. The signal is an optional code contained in the OPT meta-RR used with EDNS0. The goal of this option is to signal new algorithm uptake in client code to allow zone administrators to know when it is possible to complete an algorithm rollover in a DNSSEC signed zone.

9. Normative References

Authors' Addresses