730 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
730 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|
|
Network Working Group M. StJohns
|
|
Internet-Draft Nominum, Inc.
|
|
Expires: April 14, 2005 October 14, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Automated Updates of DNSSEC Trust Anchors
|
|
draft-ietf-dnsext-trustupdate-timers-00
|
|
|
|
Status of this Memo
|
|
|
|
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
|
|
of section 3 of RFC 3667. 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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
|
|
RFC 3668.
|
|
|
|
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 April 14, 2005.
|
|
|
|
Copyright Notice
|
|
|
|
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
This document describes a means for automated, authenticated and
|
|
authorized updating of DNSSEC "trust anchors". The method provides
|
|
protection against single key compromise of a key in the trust point
|
|
key set. Based on the trust established by the presence of a current
|
|
anchor, other anchors may be added at the same place in the
|
|
hierarchy, and, ultimately, supplant the existing anchor.
|
|
|
|
This mechanism, if adopted, will require changes to resolver
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 1]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
management behavior (but not resolver resolution behavior), and the
|
|
addition of a single flag bit to the DNSKEY record.
|
|
|
|
Table of Contents
|
|
|
|
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
|
|
1.1 Compliance Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
|
|
1.2 Changes since -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
|
|
2. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
|
|
2.1 Revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
|
|
2.2 Add Hold-Down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
|
|
2.3 Remove Hold-down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
|
|
2.4 Active Refresh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
|
|
2.5 Resolver Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
|
|
2.5.1 Add Hold-Down Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
|
|
2.5.2 Remove Hold-Down Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
|
|
2.5.3 Minimum Trust Anchors per Trust Point . . . . . . . . 6
|
|
3. Changes to DNSKEY RDATA Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
|
|
4. State Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
|
|
4.1 Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
|
|
4.2 States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
|
|
5. Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
|
|
5.1 Adding A Trust Anchor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
|
|
5.2 Deleting a Trust Anchor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
|
|
5.3 Key Roll-Over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
|
|
5.4 Active Key Compromised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
|
|
5.5 Stand-by Key Compromised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
|
|
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
|
|
6.1 Key Ownership vs Acceptance Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
|
|
6.2 Multiple Key Compromise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
|
|
6.3 Dynamic Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
|
|
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
|
|
Editorial Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
|
|
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
|
|
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 2]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Introduction
|
|
|
|
As part of the reality of fielding DNSSEC (Domain Name System
|
|
Security Extensions) [RFC2535][DSINTRO][DSPROT][DSREC], the community
|
|
has come to the realization that there will not be one signed name
|
|
space, but rather islands of signed name space each originating from
|
|
specific points (i.e. 'trust points') in the DNS tree. Each of
|
|
those islands will be identified by the trust point name, and
|
|
validated by at least one associated public key. For the purpose of
|
|
this document we'll call the association of that name and a
|
|
particular key a 'trust anchor'. A particular trust point can have
|
|
more than one key designated as a trust anchor.
|
|
|
|
For a DNSSEC-aware resolver to validate information in a DNSSEC
|
|
protected branch of the hierarchy, it must have knowledge of a trust
|
|
anchor applicable to that branch. It may also have more than one
|
|
trust anchor for any given trust point. Under current rules, a chain
|
|
of trust for DNSSEC-protected data that chains its way back to ANY
|
|
known trust anchor is considered 'secure'.
|
|
|
|
Because of the probable balkanization of the DNSSEC tree due to
|
|
signing voids at key locations, a resolver may need to know literally
|
|
thousands of trust anchors to perform its duties. (e.g. Consider an
|
|
unsigned ".COM".) Requiring the owner of the resolver to manually
|
|
manage this many relationships is problematic. It's even more
|
|
problematic when considering the eventual requirement for key
|
|
replacement/update for a given trust anchor. The mechanism described
|
|
herein won't help with the initial configuration of the trust anchors
|
|
in the resolvers, but should make trust point key
|
|
replacement/rollover more viable.
|
|
|
|
As mentioned above, this document describes a mechanism whereby a
|
|
resolver can update the trust anchors for a given trust point, mainly
|
|
without human intervention at the resolver. There are some corner
|
|
cases discussed (e.g. multiple key compromise) that may require
|
|
manual intervention, but they should be few and far between. This
|
|
document DOES NOT discuss the general problem of the initial
|
|
configuration of trust anchors for the resolver.
|
|
|
|
1.1 Compliance Nomenclature
|
|
|
|
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 BCP 14, [RFC2119].
|
|
|
|
1.2 Changes since -00
|
|
|
|
Resubmitted draft-stjohns-dnssec-trustupdate as a working group
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 3]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
draft.
|
|
|
|
Added the concept of timer triggered resolver queries to refresh the
|
|
resolvers view of the trust anchor key RRSet.
|
|
|
|
2. Theory of Operation
|
|
|
|
The general concept of this mechanism is that existing trust anchors
|
|
can be used to authenticate new trust anchors at the same point in
|
|
the DNS hierarchy. When a new SEP key is added to a trust point
|
|
DNSKEY RRSet, and when that RRSet is validated by an existing trust
|
|
anchor, then the new key can be added to the set of trust anchors.
|
|
|
|
There are some issues with this approach which need to be mitigated.
|
|
For example, a compromise of one of the existing keys could allow an
|
|
attacker to add their own 'valid' data. This implies a need for a
|
|
method to revoke an existing key regardless of whether or not that
|
|
key is compromised. As another example assuming a single key
|
|
compromise, an attacker could add a new key and revoke all the other
|
|
old keys.
|
|
|
|
2.1 Revocation
|
|
|
|
Assume two trust anchor keys A and B. Assume that B has been
|
|
compromised. Without a specific revocation bit, B could invalidate A
|
|
simply by sending out a signed trust point key set which didn't
|
|
contain A. To fix this, we add a mechanism which requires knowledge
|
|
of the private key of a DNSKEY to revoke that DNSKEY.
|
|
|
|
A key is considered revoked when the resolver sees the key in a
|
|
self-signed RRSet and the key has the REVOKE bit set to '1'. Once
|
|
the resolver sees the REVOKE bit, it MUST NOT use this key as a trust
|
|
anchor or for any other purposes except validating the RRSIG over the
|
|
DNSKEY RRSet specifically for the purpose of validating the
|
|
revocation. Unlike the 'Add' operation below, revocation is
|
|
immediate and permanent upon receipt of a valid revocation at the
|
|
resolver.
|
|
|
|
N.B. A DNSKEY with the REVOKE bit set has a different fingerprint
|
|
than one without the bit set. This affects the matching of a DNSKEY
|
|
to DS records in the parent, or the fingerprint stored at a resolver
|
|
used to configure a trust point. [msj3]
|
|
|
|
In the given example, the attacker could revoke B because it has
|
|
knowledge of B's private key, but could not revoke A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 4]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.2 Add Hold-Down
|
|
|
|
Assume two trust point keys A and B. Assume that B has been
|
|
compromised. An attacker could generate and add a new trust anchor
|
|
key - C (by adding C to the DNSKEY RRSet and signing it with B), and
|
|
then invalidate the compromised key. This would result in the both
|
|
the attacker and owner being able to sign data in the zone and have
|
|
it accepted as valid by resolvers.
|
|
|
|
To mitigate, but not completely solve, this problem, we add a
|
|
hold-down time to the addition of the trust anchor. When the
|
|
resolver sees a new SEP key in a validated trust point DNSKEY RRSet,
|
|
the resolver starts an acceptance timer, and remembers all the keys
|
|
that validated the RRSet. If the resolver ever sees the DNSKEY RRSet
|
|
without the new key but validly signed, it stops the acceptance
|
|
process and resets the acceptance timer. If all of the keys which
|
|
were originally used to validate this key are revoked prior to the
|
|
timer expiring, the resolver stops the acceptance process and resets
|
|
the timer.
|
|
|
|
Once the timer expires, the new key will be added as a trust anchor
|
|
the next time the validated RRSet with the new key is seen at the
|
|
resolver. The resolver MUST NOT treat the new key as a trust anchor
|
|
until the hold down time expires AND it has retrieved and validated a
|
|
DNSKEY RRSet after the hold down time which contains the new key.
|
|
|
|
N.B.: Once the resolver has accepted a key as a trust anchor, the key
|
|
MUST be considered a valid trust anchor by that resolver until
|
|
explictly revoked as described above.
|
|
|
|
In the given example, the zone owner can recover from a compromise by
|
|
revoking B and adding a new key D and signing the DNSKEY RRSet with
|
|
both A and B.
|
|
|
|
The reason this does not completely solve the problem has to do with
|
|
the distributed nature of DNS. The resolver only knows what it sees.
|
|
A determined attacker who holds one compromised key could keep a
|
|
single resolver from realizing that key had been compromised by
|
|
intercepting 'real' data from the originating zone and substituting
|
|
their own (e.g. using the example, signed only by B). This is no
|
|
worse than the current situation assuming a compromised key.
|
|
|
|
2.3 Remove Hold-down
|
|
|
|
A new key which has been seen by the resolver, but hasn't reached
|
|
it's add hold-down time, MAY be removed from the DNSKEY RRSet by the
|
|
zone owner. If the resolver sees a validated DNSKEY RRSet without
|
|
this key, it waits for the remove hold-down time and then, if the key
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 5]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
hasn't reappeared, SHOULD discard any information about the key.
|
|
|
|
2.4 Active Refresh
|
|
|
|
A resolver which has been configured for automatic update of keys
|
|
from a particular trust point MUST query that trust point (e.g. do a
|
|
lookup for the DNSKEY RRSet and related RRSIG records) no less often
|
|
than the lesser of 15 days or half the original TTL for the DNSKEY
|
|
RRSet or half the RRSIG expiration interval. The expiration interval
|
|
is the amount of time from when the RRSIG was last retrieved until
|
|
the expiration time in the RRSIG.
|
|
|
|
If the query fails, the resolver MUST repeat the query until
|
|
satisfied no more often than once an hour and no less often than the
|
|
lesser of 1 day or 10% of the original TTL or 10% of the original
|
|
expiration interval.
|
|
|
|
2.5 Resolver Parameters
|
|
|
|
2.5.1 Add Hold-Down Time
|
|
|
|
The add hold-down time is 30 days or the expiration time of the TTL
|
|
of the first trust point DNSKEY RRSet which contained the key,
|
|
whichever is greater. This ensures that at least two validated
|
|
DNSKEY RRSets which contain the new key MUST be seen by the resolver
|
|
prior to the key's acceptance.
|
|
|
|
2.5.2 Remove Hold-Down Time
|
|
|
|
The remove hold-down time is 30 days.
|
|
|
|
2.5.3 Minimum Trust Anchors per Trust Point
|
|
|
|
A compliant resolver MUST be able to manage at least five SEP keys
|
|
per trust point.
|
|
|
|
3. Changes to DNSKEY RDATA Wire Format
|
|
|
|
Bit n [msj2] of the DNSKEY Flags field is designated as the 'REVOKE'
|
|
flag. If this bit is set to '1', AND the resolver sees an
|
|
RRSIG(DNSKEY) signed by the associated key, then the resolver MUST
|
|
consider this key permanently invalid for all purposes except for
|
|
validing the revocation.
|
|
|
|
4. State Table
|
|
|
|
The most important thing to understand is the resolver's view of any
|
|
key at a trust point. The following state table describes that view
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 6]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
at various points in the key's lifetime. The table is a normative
|
|
part of this specification. The initial state of the key is 'Start'.
|
|
The resolver's view of the state of the key changes as various events
|
|
occur.
|
|
|
|
[msj1] This is the state of a trust point key as seen from the
|
|
resolver. The column on the left indicates the current state. The
|
|
header at the top shows the next state. The intersection of the two
|
|
shows the event that will cause the state to transition from the
|
|
current state to the next.
|
|
|
|
NEXT STATE
|
|
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
FROM |Start |AddPend |Valid |Missing|Revoked|Removed|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Start | |NewKey | | | | |
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
AddPend |KeyRem | |AddTime| | |
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Valid | | | |KeyRem |Revbit | |
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Missing | | |KeyPres| |Revbit | |
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Revoked | | | | | |RemTime|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Removed | | | | | | |
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1 Events
|
|
NewKey The resolver sees a valid DNSKEY RRSet with a new SEP key.
|
|
That key will become a new trust anchor for the named trust point
|
|
after its been present in the RRSet for at least 'add time'.
|
|
KeyPres The key has returned to the valid DNSKEY RRSet.
|
|
KeyRem The resolver sees a valid DNSKEY RRSet that does not contain
|
|
this key.
|
|
AddTime The key has been in every valid DNSKEY RRSet seen for at
|
|
least the 'add time'.
|
|
RemTime A revoked key has been missing from the trust point DNSKEY
|
|
RRSet for sufficient time to be removed from the trust set.
|
|
RevBit The key has appeared in the trust anchor DNSKEY RRSet with its
|
|
"REVOKED" bit set, and there is an RRSig over the DNSKEY RRSet
|
|
signed by this key.
|
|
|
|
4.2 States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 7]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Start The key doesn't yet exist as a trust anchor at the resolver.
|
|
It may or may not exist at the zone server, but hasn't yet been
|
|
seen at the resolver.
|
|
AddPend The key has been seen at the resolver, has its 'SEP' bit set,
|
|
and has been included in a validated DNSKEY RRSet. There is a
|
|
hold-down time for the key before it can be used as a trust
|
|
anchor.
|
|
Valid The key has been seen at the resolver and has been included in
|
|
all validated DNSKEY RRSets from the time it was first seen up
|
|
through the hold-down time. It is now valid for verifying RRSets
|
|
that arrive after the hold down time. Clarification: The DNSKEY
|
|
RRSet does not need to be continuously present at the resolver
|
|
(e.g. its TTL might expire). If the RRSet is seen, and is
|
|
validated (i.e. verifies against an existing trust anchor), this
|
|
key MUST be in the RRSet otherwise a 'KeyRem' event is triggered.
|
|
Missing This is an abnormal state. The key remains as a valid trust
|
|
point key, but was not seen at the resolver in the last validated
|
|
DNSKEY RRSet. This is an abnormal state because the zone operator
|
|
should be using the REVOKE bit prior to removal. [Discussion
|
|
item: Should a missing key be considered revoked after some
|
|
period of time?]
|
|
Revoked This is the state a key moves to once the resolver sees an
|
|
RRSIG(DNSKEY) signed by this key where that DNSKEY RRSet contains
|
|
this key with its REVOKE bit set to '1'. Once in this state, this
|
|
key MUST permanently be considered invalid as a trust anchor.
|
|
Removed After a fairly long hold-down time, information about this
|
|
key may be purged from the resolver. A key in the removed state
|
|
MUST NOT be considered a valid trust anchor.
|
|
|
|
5. Scenarios
|
|
|
|
The suggested model for operation is to have one active key and one
|
|
stand-by key at each trust point. The active key will be used to
|
|
sign the DNSKEY RRSet. The stand-by key will not normally sign this
|
|
RRSet, but the resolver will accept it as a trust anchor if/when it
|
|
sees the signature on the trust point DNSKEY RRSet.
|
|
|
|
Since the stand-by key is not in active signing use, the associated
|
|
private key may (and SHOULD) be provided with additional protections
|
|
not normally available to a key that must be used frequently. E.g.
|
|
locked in a safe, split among many parties, etc. Notionally, the
|
|
stand-by key should be less subject to compromise than an active key,
|
|
but that will be dependent on operational concerns not addressed
|
|
here.
|
|
|
|
5.1 Adding A Trust Anchor
|
|
|
|
Assume an existing trust anchor key 'A'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 8]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Generate a new key pair.
|
|
2. Create a DNSKEY record from the key pair and set the SEP and Zone
|
|
Key bits.
|
|
3. Add the DNSKEY to the RRSet.
|
|
4. Sign the DNSKEY RRSet ONLY with the existing trust anchor key -
|
|
'A'.
|
|
5. Wait a while.
|
|
|
|
5.2 Deleting a Trust Anchor
|
|
|
|
Assume existing trust anchors 'A' and 'B' and that you want to revoke
|
|
and delete 'A'.
|
|
1. Set the revolcation bit on key 'A'.
|
|
2. Sign the DNSKEY RRSet with both 'A' and 'B'.
|
|
'A' is now revoked. The operator SHOULD include the revoked 'A' in
|
|
the RRSet for at least the remove hold-down time, but then may remove
|
|
it from the DNSKEY RRSet.
|
|
|
|
5.3 Key Roll-Over
|
|
|
|
Assume existing keys A and B. 'A' is actively in use (i.e. has been
|
|
signing the DNSKEY RRSet.) 'B' was the stand-by key. (i.e. has
|
|
been in the DNSKEY RRSet and is a valid trust anchor, but wasn't
|
|
being used to sign the RRSet.)
|
|
1. Generate a new key pair 'C'.
|
|
2. Add 'C' to the DNSKEY RRSet.
|
|
3. Set the revocation bit on key 'A'.
|
|
4. Sign the RRSet with 'A' and 'B'.
|
|
'A' is now revoked, 'B' is now the active key, and 'C' will be the
|
|
stand-by key once the hold-down expires. The operator SHOULD include
|
|
the revoked 'A' in the RRSet for at least the remove hold-down time,
|
|
but may then remove it from the DNSKEY RRSet.
|
|
|
|
5.4 Active Key Compromised
|
|
|
|
This is the same as the mechanism for Key Roll-Over (Section 5.3)
|
|
above assuming 'A' is the active key.
|
|
|
|
5.5 Stand-by Key Compromised
|
|
|
|
Using the same assumptions and naming conventions as Key Roll-Over
|
|
(Section 5.3) above:
|
|
1. Generate a new key pair 'C'.
|
|
2. Add 'C' to the DNSKEY RRSet.
|
|
3. Set the revocation bit on key 'B'.
|
|
4. Sign the RRSet with 'A' and 'B'.
|
|
'B' is now revoked, 'A' remains the active key, and 'C' will be the
|
|
stand-by key once the hold-down expires. 'B' SHOULD continue to be
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 9]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
included in the RRSet for the remove hold-down time.
|
|
|
|
6. Security Considerations
|
|
|
|
6.1 Key Ownership vs Acceptance Policy
|
|
|
|
The reader should note that, while the zone owner is responsible
|
|
creating and distributing keys, it's wholly the decision of the
|
|
resolver owner as to whether to accept such keys for the
|
|
authentication of the zone information. This implies the decision
|
|
update trust anchor keys based on trust for a current trust anchor
|
|
key is also the resolver owner's decision.
|
|
|
|
The resolver owner (and resolver implementers) MAY choose to permit
|
|
or prevent key status updates based on this mechanism for specific
|
|
trust points. If they choose to prevent the automated updates, they
|
|
will need to establish a mechanism for manual or other out-of-band
|
|
updates outside the scope of this document.
|
|
|
|
6.2 Multiple Key Compromise
|
|
|
|
This scheme permits recovery as long as at least one valid trust
|
|
anchor key remains uncompromised. E.g. if there are three keys, you
|
|
can recover if two of them are compromised. The zone owner should
|
|
determine their own level of comfort with respect to the number of
|
|
active valid trust anchors in a zone and should be prepared to
|
|
implement recovery procedures once they detect a compromise. A
|
|
manual or other out-of-band update of all resolvers will be required
|
|
if all trust anchor keys at a trust point are compromised.
|
|
|
|
6.3 Dynamic Updates
|
|
|
|
Allowing a resolver to update its trust anchor set based in-band key
|
|
information is potentially less secure than a manual process.
|
|
However, given the nature of the DNS, the number of resolvers that
|
|
would require update if a trust anchor key were compromised, and the
|
|
lack of a standard management framework for DNS, this approach is no
|
|
worse than the existing situation.
|
|
|
|
7 Normative References
|
|
|
|
[DSINTRO] Arends, R., "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
|
|
ID draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-09.txt, October 2004,
|
|
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns
|
|
sec-intro-13.txt>.
|
|
|
|
[DSPROT] Arends, R., "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
|
|
Extensions", ID draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-05.txt,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 10]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 2004,
|
|
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns
|
|
sec-protocol-09.txt>.
|
|
|
|
[DSREC] Arends, R., "Resource Records for the DNS Security
|
|
Extensions", ID draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-07.txt,
|
|
October 2004,
|
|
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-dns
|
|
sec-records-11.txt>.
|
|
|
|
[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.
|
|
|
|
Editorial Comments
|
|
|
|
[msj1] msj: N.B. This table is preliminary and will be revised to
|
|
match implementation experience. For example, should there
|
|
be a state for "Add hold-down expired, but haven't seen the
|
|
new RRSet"?
|
|
|
|
[msj2] msj: To be assigned.
|
|
|
|
[msj3] msj: For discussion: What's the implementation guidance for
|
|
resolvers currently with respect to the non-assigned flag
|
|
bits? If they consider the flag bit when doing key matching
|
|
at the trust anchor, they won't be able to match.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author's Address
|
|
|
|
Michael StJohns
|
|
Nominum, Inc.
|
|
2385 Bay Road
|
|
Redwood City, CA 94063
|
|
USA
|
|
|
|
Phone: +1-301-528-4729
|
|
EMail: Mike.StJohns@nominum.com
|
|
URI: www.nominum.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 11]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intellectual Property Statement
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
|
|
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this
|
|
document. For more information consult the online list of claimed
|
|
rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer of Validity
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 12]
|
|
|
|
Internet-Draft trustanchor-update October 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acknowledgment
|
|
|
|
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
|
|
Internet Society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
StJohns Expires April 14, 2005 [Page 13]
|
|
|
|
|