ComputerSurge/bind9
3
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests 1 Activity
Files
v9.6-ESV-R4
bind9/doc/rfc/rfc4956.txt
T
Mark Andrews f7e3edb15a cleanup
2009-11-19 05:03:52 +00:00

956 lines
31 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

Network Working Group R. Arends
Request for Comments: 4956 Nominet
Category: Experimental M. Kosters
D. Blacka
VeriSign, Inc.
July 2007
DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In
Status of This Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
In the DNS security (DNSSEC) extensions, delegations to unsigned
subzones are cryptographically secured. Maintaining this
cryptography is not always practical or necessary. This document
describes an experimental "Opt-In" model that allows administrators
to omit this cryptography and manage the cost of adopting DNSSEC with
large zones.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
Table of Contents
1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definitions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Experimental Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Protocol Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. Delegations Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2. Insecure Delegation Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.3. Dynamic Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Client Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Delegations Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Validation Process Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.3. NSEC Record Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.4. Use of the AD bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Transition Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Implementing Opt-In Using "Views" . . . . . . . . . . 15
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
1. Overview
The cost to cryptographically secure delegations to unsigned zones is
high for large delegation-centric zones and zones where insecure
delegations will be updated rapidly. For these zones, the costs of
maintaining the NextSECure (NSEC) record chain may be extremely high
relative to the gain of cryptographically authenticating existence of
unsecured zones.
This document describes an experimental method of eliminating the
superfluous cryptography present in secure delegations to unsigned
zones. Using "Opt-In", a zone administrator can choose to remove
insecure delegations from the NSEC chain. This is accomplished by
extending the semantics of the NSEC record by using a redundant bit
in the type map.
2. Definitions and Terminology
Throughout this document, familiarity with the DNS system (RFC 1035
[1]), DNS security extensions ([4], [5], and [6], referred to in this
document as "standard DNSSEC"), and DNSSEC terminology (RFC 3090
[10]) is assumed.
The following abbreviations and terms are used in this document:
RR: is used to refer to a DNS resource record.
RRset: refers to a Resource Record Set, as defined by [8]. In this
document, the RRset is also defined to include the covering RRSIG
records, if any exist.
signed name: refers to a DNS name that has, at minimum, a (signed)
NSEC record.
unsigned name: refers to a DNS name that does not (at least) have an
NSEC record.
covering NSEC record/RRset: is the NSEC record used to prove
(non)existence of a particular name or RRset. This means that for
a RRset or name 'N', the covering NSEC record has the name 'N', or
has an owner name less than 'N' and "next" name greater than 'N'.
delegation: refers to an NS RRset with a name different from the
current zone apex (non-zone-apex), signifying a delegation to a
subzone.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
secure delegation: refers to a signed name containing a delegation
(NS RRset), and a signed DS RRset, signifying a delegation to a
signed subzone.
insecure delegation: refers to a signed name containing a delegation
(NS RRset), but lacking a DS RRset, signifying a delegation to an
unsigned subzone.
Opt-In insecure delegation: refers to an unsigned name containing
only a delegation NS RRset. The covering NSEC record uses the
Opt-In methodology described in this document.
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 [2].
3. Experimental Status
This document describes an EXPERIMENTAL extension to DNSSEC. It
interoperates with non-experimental DNSSEC using the technique
described in [7]. This experiment is identified with the following
private algorithms (using algorithm 253):
"3.optin.verisignlabs.com": is an alias for DNSSEC algorithm 3, DSA,
and
"5.optin.verisignlabs.com": is an alias for DNSSEC algorithm 5,
RSASHA1.
Servers wishing to sign and serve zones that utilize Opt-In MUST sign
the zone with only one or more of these private algorithms and MUST
NOT use any other algorithms.
Resolvers MUST NOT apply the Opt-In validation rules described in
this document unless a zone is signed using one or more of these
private algorithms.
This experimental protocol relaxes the restriction that validators
MUST ignore the setting of the NSEC bit in the type map as specified
in RFC 4035 [6] Section 5.4.
The remainder of this document assumes that the servers and resolvers
involved are aware of and are involved in this experiment.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
4. Protocol Additions
In DNSSEC, delegation NS RRsets are not signed, but are instead
accompanied by an NSEC RRset of the same name and (possibly) a DS
record. The security status of the subzone is determined by the
presence or absence of the DS RRset, cryptographically proven by the
NSEC record. Opt-In expands this definition by allowing insecure
delegations to exist within an otherwise signed zone without the
corresponding NSEC record at the delegation's owner name. These
insecure delegations are proven insecure by using a covering NSEC
record.
Since this represents a change of the interpretation of NSEC records,
resolvers must be able to distinguish between RFC standard DNSSEC
NSEC records and Opt-In NSEC records. This is accomplished by
"tagging" the NSEC records that cover (or potentially cover) insecure
delegation nodes. This tag is indicated by the absence of the NSEC
bit in the type map. Since the NSEC bit in the type map merely
indicates the existence of the record itself, this bit is redundant
and safe for use as a tag.
An Opt-In tagged NSEC record does not assert the (non)existence of
the delegations that it covers (except for a delegation with the same
name). This allows for the addition or removal of these delegations
without recalculating or resigning records in the NSEC chain.
However, Opt-In tagged NSEC records do assert the (non)existence of
other RRsets.
An Opt-In NSEC record MAY have the same name as an insecure
delegation. In this case, the delegation is proven insecure by the
lack of a DS bit in the type map, and the signed NSEC record does
assert the existence of the delegation.
Zones using Opt-In MAY contain a mixture of Opt-In tagged NSEC
records and standard DNSSEC NSEC records. If an NSEC record is not
Opt-In, there MUST NOT be any insecure delegations (or any other
records) between it and the RRsets indicated by the 'next domain
name' in the NSEC RDATA. If it is Opt-In, there MUST only be
insecure delegations between it and the next node indicated by the
'next domain name' in the NSEC RDATA.
In summary,
o An Opt-In NSEC type is identified by a zero-valued (or not-
specified) NSEC bit in the type bit map of the NSEC record.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
o A standard DNSSEC NSEC type is identified by a one-valued NSEC bit
in the type bit map of the NSEC record.
and
o An Opt-In NSEC record does not assert the non-existence of a name
between its owner name and "next" name, although it does assert
that any name in this span MUST be an insecure delegation.
o An Opt-In NSEC record does assert the (non)existence of RRsets
with the same owner name.
4.1. Server Considerations
Opt-In imposes some new requirements on authoritative DNS servers.
4.1.1. Delegations Only
This specification dictates that only insecure delegations may exist
between the owner and "next" names of an Opt-In tagged NSEC record.
Signing tools MUST NOT generate signed zones that violate this
restriction. Servers MUST refuse to load and/or serve zones that
violate this restriction. Servers also MUST reject AXFR or IXFR
responses that violate this restriction.
4.1.2. Insecure Delegation Responses
When returning an Opt-In insecure delegation, the server MUST return
the covering NSEC RRset in the Authority section.
In standard DNSSEC, NSEC records already must be returned along with
the insecure delegation. The primary difference that this proposal
introduces is that the Opt-In tagged NSEC record will have a
different owner name from the delegation RRset. This may require
implementations to search for the covering NSEC RRset.
4.1.3. Dynamic Update
Opt-In changes the semantics of Secure DNS Dynamic Update [9]. In
particular, it introduces the need for rules that describe when to
add or remove a delegation name from the NSEC chain. This document
does not attempt to define these rules. Until these rules are
defined, servers MUST NOT process DNS Dynamic Update requests against
zones that use Opt-In NSEC records. Servers SHOULD return responses
to update requests with RCODE=REFUSED.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
4.2. Client Considerations
Opt-In imposes some new requirements on security-aware resolvers
(caching or otherwise).
4.2.1. Delegations Only
As stated in Section 4.1 above, this specification restricts the
namespace covered by Opt-In tagged NSEC records to insecure
delegations only. Clients are not expected to take any special
measures to enforce this restriction; instead, it forms an underlying
assumption that clients may rely on.
4.2.2. Validation Process Changes
This specification does not change the resolver's resolution
algorithm. However, it does change the DNSSEC validation process.
4.2.2.1. Referrals
Resolvers MUST be able to use Opt-In tagged NSEC records to
cryptographically prove the validity and security status (as
insecure) of a referral. Resolvers determine the security status of
the referred-to zone as follows:
o In standard DNSSEC, the security status is proven by the existence
or absence of a DS RRset at the same name as the delegation. The
existence of the DS RRset indicates that the referred-to zone is
signed. The absence of the DS RRset is proven using a verified
NSEC record of the same name that does not have the DS bit set in
the type map. This NSEC record MAY also be tagged as Opt-In.
o Using Opt-In, the security status is proven by the existence of a
DS record (for signed) or the presence of a verified Opt-In tagged
NSEC record that covers the delegation name. That is, the NSEC
record does not have the NSEC bit set in the type map, and the
delegation name falls between the NSEC's owner and "next" name.
Using Opt-In does not substantially change the nature of following
referrals within DNSSEC. At every delegation point, the resolver
will have cryptographic proof that the referred-to subzone is signed
or unsigned.
4.2.2.2. Queries for DS Resource Records
Since queries for DS records are directed to the parent side of a
zone cut (see [5], Section 5), negative responses to these queries
may be covered by an Opt-In flagged NSEC record.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 7]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
Resolvers MUST be able to use Opt-In tagged NSEC records to
cryptographically prove the validity and security status of negative
responses to queries for DS records. In particular, a NOERROR/NODATA
(i.e., RCODE=3, but the answer section is empty) response to a DS
query may be proven by an Opt-In flagged covering NSEC record, rather
than an NSEC record matching the query name.
4.2.3. NSEC Record Caching
Caching resolvers MUST be able to retrieve the appropriate covering
Opt-In NSEC record when returning referrals that need them. This
requirement differs from standard DNSSEC in that the covering NSEC
will not have the same owner name as the delegation. Some
implementations may have to use new methods for finding these NSEC
records.
4.2.4. Use of the AD bit
The AD bit, as defined by [3] and [6], MUST NOT be set when:
o sending a Name Error (RCODE=3) response where the covering NSEC is
tagged as Opt-In.
o sending an Opt-In insecure delegation response, unless the
covering (Opt-In) NSEC record's owner name equals the delegation
name.
o sending a NOERROR/NODATA response when query type is DS and the
covering NSEC is tagged as Opt-In, unless NSEC record's owner name
matches the query name.
This rule is based on what the Opt-In NSEC record actually proves:
for names that exist between the Opt-In NSEC record's owner and
"next" names, the Opt-In NSEC record cannot prove the non-existence
or existence of the name. As such, not all data in the response has
been cryptographically verified, so the AD bit cannot be set.
5. Benefits
Using Opt-In allows administrators of large and/or changing
delegation-centric zones to minimize the overhead involved in
maintaining the security of the zone.
Opt-In accomplishes this by eliminating the need for NSEC records for
insecure delegations. This, in a zone with a large number of
delegations to unsigned subzones, can lead to substantial space
savings (both in memory and on disk). Additionally, Opt-In allows
for the addition or removal of insecure delegations without modifying
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 8]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
the NSEC record chain. Zones that are frequently updating insecure
delegations (e.g., Top-Level Domains (TLDs)) can avoid the
substantial overhead of modifying and resigning the affected NSEC
records.
6. Example
Consider the zone EXAMPLE shown below. This is a zone where all of
the NSEC records are tagged as Opt-In.
Example A: Fully Opt-In Zone.
EXAMPLE. SOA ...
EXAMPLE. RRSIG SOA ...
EXAMPLE. NS FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE.
EXAMPLE. RRSIG NS ...
EXAMPLE. DNSKEY ...
EXAMPLE. RRSIG DNSKEY ...
EXAMPLE. NSEC FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. (
SOA NS RRSIG DNSKEY )
EXAMPLE. RRSIG NSEC ...
FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. A ...
FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG A ...
FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NSEC NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE. A RRSIG
FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG NSEC ...
NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NS NS.NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE.
NS.NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE. A ...
NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE. NS NS.NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE.
NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE NSEC SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE NS RRSIG
NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE RRSIG NSEC ...
SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NS NS.ELSEWHERE.
SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. DS ...
SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG DS ...
SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NSEC EXAMPLE. NS RRSIG DNSKEY
SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG NSEC ...
UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE. NS NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE.
NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE. A ...
Example A.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 9]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
In this example, a query for a signed RRset (e.g., "FIRST-
SECURE.EXAMPLE A") or a secure delegation ("WWW.SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE
A") will result in a standard DNSSEC response.
A query for a nonexistent RRset will result in a response that
differs from standard DNSSEC by the following: the NSEC record will
be tagged as Opt-In, there may be no NSEC record proving the non-
existence of a matching wildcard record, and the AD bit will not be
set.
A query for an insecure delegation RRset (or a referral) will return
both the answer (in the Authority section) and the corresponding
Opt-In NSEC record to prove that it is not secure.
Example A.1: Response to query for WWW.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE. A
RCODE=NOERROR, AD=0
Answer Section:
Authority Section:
UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE. NS NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE
SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NSEC EXAMPLE. NS RRSIG DS
SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG NSEC ...
Additional Section:
NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE. A ...
Example A.1
In the Example A.1 zone, the EXAMPLE. node MAY use either style of
NSEC record, because there are no insecure delegations that occur
between it and the next node, FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. In other words,
Example A would still be a valid zone if the NSEC record for EXAMPLE.
was changed to the following RR:
EXAMPLE. NSEC FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. (SOA NS
RRSIG DNSKEY NSEC )
However, the other NSEC records (FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. and SECOND-
SECURE.EXAMPLE.) MUST be tagged as Opt-In because there are insecure
delegations in the range they define. (NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE. and
UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE., respectively).
NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE. is an example of an insecure delegation that is
part of the NSEC chain and also covered by an Opt-In tagged NSEC
record. Because NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE. is a signed name, it cannot be
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 10]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
removed from the zone without modifying and resigning the prior NSEC
record. Delegations with names that fall between NOT-SECURE-
2.EXAMPLE. and SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. may be added or removed without
resigning any NSEC records.
7. Transition Issues
Opt-In is not backwards compatible with standard DNSSEC and is
considered experimental. Standard DNSSEC-compliant implementations
would not recognize Opt-In tagged NSEC records as different from
standard NSEC records. Because of this, standard DNSSEC
implementations, if they were to validate Opt-In style responses,
would reject all Opt-In insecure delegations within a zone as
invalid. However, by only signing with private algorithms, standard
DNSSEC implementations will treat Opt-In responses as unsigned.
It should be noted that all elements in the resolution path between
(and including) the validator and the authoritative name server must
be aware of the Opt-In experiment and implement the Opt-In semantics
for successful validation to be possible. In particular, this
includes any caching middleboxes between the validator and
authoritative name server.
8. Security Considerations
Opt-In allows for unsigned names, in the form of delegations to
unsigned subzones, to exist within an otherwise signed zone. All
unsigned names are, by definition, insecure, and their validity or
existence cannot be cryptographically proven.
In general:
o Records with unsigned names (whether or not existing) suffer from
the same vulnerabilities as records in an unsigned zone. These
vulnerabilities are described in more detail in [12] (note in
particular Sections 2.3, "Name Games" and 2.6, "Authenticated
Denial").
o Records with signed names have the same security whether or not
Opt-In is used.
Note that with or without Opt-In, an insecure delegation may have its
contents undetectably altered by an attacker. Because of this, the
primary difference in security that Opt-In introduces is the loss of
the ability to prove the existence or nonexistence of an insecure
delegation within the span of an Opt-In NSEC record.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 11]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
In particular, this means that a malicious entity may be able to
insert or delete records with unsigned names. These records are
normally NS records, but this also includes signed wildcard
expansions (while the wildcard record itself is signed, its expanded
name is an unsigned name), which can be undetectably removed or used
to replace an existing unsigned delegation.
For example, if a resolver received the following response from the
example zone above:
Example S.1: Response to query for WWW.DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE. A
RCODE=NOERROR
Answer Section:
Authority Section:
DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE. NS NS.FORGED.
EXAMPLE. NSEC FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. SOA NS \
RRSIG DNSKEY
EXAMPLE. RRSIG NSEC ...
Additional Section:
Attacker has forged a name
The resolver would have no choice but to believe that the referral to
NS.FORGED. is valid. If a wildcard existed that would have been
expanded to cover "WWW.DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE.", an attacker could
have undetectably removed it and replaced it with the forged
delegation.
Note that being able to add a delegation is functionally equivalent
to being able to add any record type: an attacker merely has to forge
a delegation to the nameserver under his/her control and place
whatever records are needed at the subzone apex.
While in particular cases, this issue may not present a significant
security problem, in general it should not be lightly dismissed.
Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that Opt-In be used sparingly.
In particular, zone signing tools SHOULD NOT default to Opt-In, and
MAY choose not to support Opt-In at all.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 12]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
9. Acknowledgments
The contributions, suggestions, and remarks of the following persons
(in alphabetic order) to this document are acknowledged:
Mats Kolkman, Edward Lewis, Ted Lindgreen, Rip Loomis, Bill
Manning, Dan Massey, Scott Rose, Mike Schiraldi, Jakob Schlyter,
Brian Wellington.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[1] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Wellington, B. and O. Gudmundsson, "Redefinition of DNS
Authenticated Data (AD) bit", RFC 3655, November 2003.
[4] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
"DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033,
March 2005.
[5] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
"Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034,
March 2005.
[6] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
"Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4035, March 2005.
[7] Blacka, D., "DNSSEC Experiments", RFC 4955, July 2007.
10.2. Informative References
[8] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification",
RFC 2181, July 1997.
[9] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic
Update", RFC 3007, November 2000.
[10] Lewis, E., "DNS Security Extension Clarification on Zone
Status", RFC 3090, March 2001.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 13]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
[11] Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC", RFC 3225,
December 2001.
[12] Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name
System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 14]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
Appendix A. Implementing Opt-In Using "Views"
In many cases, it may be convenient to implement an Opt-In zone by
combining two separately maintained "views" of a zone at request
time. In this context, "view" refers to a particular version of a
zone, not to any specific DNS implementation feature.
In this scenario, one view is the secure view, the other is the
insecure (or legacy) view. The secure view consists of an entirely
signed zone using Opt-In tagged NSEC records. The insecure view
contains no DNSSEC information. It is helpful, although not
necessary, for the secure view to be a subset (minus DNSSEC records)
of the insecure view.
In addition, the only RRsets that may solely exist in the insecure
view are non-zone-apex NS RRsets. That is, all non-NS RRsets (and
the zone apex NS RRset) MUST be signed and in the secure view.
These two views may be combined at request time to provide a virtual,
single Opt-In zone. The following algorithm is used when responding
to each query:
V_A is the secure view as described above.
V_B is the insecure view as described above.
R_A is a response generated from V_A, following standard DNSSEC.
R_B is a response generated from V_B, following DNS resolution as
per RFC 1035 [1].
R_C is the response generated by combining R_A with R_B, as
described below.
A query is DNSSEC-aware if it either has the DO bit [11] turned on
or is for a DNSSEC-specific record type.
1. If V_A is a subset of V_B and the query is not DNSSEC-aware,
generate and return R_B, otherwise
2. Generate R_A.
3. If R_A's RCODE != NXDOMAIN, return R_A, otherwise
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 15]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
4. Generate R_B and combine it with R_A to form R_C:
For each section (ANSWER, AUTHORITY, ADDITIONAL), copy the
records from R_A into R_B, EXCEPT the AUTHORITY section SOA
record, if R_B's RCODE = NOERROR.
5. Return R_C.
Authors' Addresses
Roy Arends
Nominet
Sandford Gate
Sandy Lane West
Oxford OX4 6LB
UNITED KINGDOM
Phone: +44 1865 332211
EMail: roy@nominet.org.uk
Mark Kosters
VeriSign, Inc.
21355 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA 20166
US
Phone: +1 703 948 3200
EMail: mkosters@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com
David Blacka
VeriSign, Inc.
21355 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA 20166
US
Phone: +1 703 948 3200
EMail: davidb@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisignlabs.com
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 16]
RFC 4956 DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In July 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Arends, et al. Experimental [Page 17]
View Git Blame Copy Permalink