[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-dnsext...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

Obsoleted by: 4033, 4034, 4035 PROPOSED STANDARD

Network Working Group                                   J. Schlyter, Ed.
Request for Comments: 3845                                   August 2004
Updates: 3755, 2535
Category: Standards Track


          DNS Security (DNSSEC) NextSECure (NSEC) RDATA Format

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).

Abstract

   This document redefines the wire format of the "Type Bit Map" field
   in the DNS NextSECure (NSEC) resource record RDATA format to cover
   the full resource record (RR) type space.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  The NSEC Resource Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
       2.1.  NSEC RDATA Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
             2.1.1.  The Next Domain Name Field . . . . . . . . . . .  3
             2.1.2.  The List of Type Bit Map(s) Field  . . . . . . .  3
             2.1.3.  Inclusion of Wildcard Names in NSEC RDATA  . . .  4
       2.2.  The NSEC RR Presentation Format  . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.3.  NSEC RR Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       5.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       5.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7.  Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   8.  Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7







Schlyter, Ed.               Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3845                DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format             August 2004


1.  Introduction

   The DNS [6][7] NSEC [5] Resource Record (RR) is used for
   authenticated proof of the non-existence of DNS owner names and
   types.  The NSEC RR is based on the NXT RR as described in RFC 2535
   [2], and is similar except for the name and typecode.  The RDATA
   format for the NXT RR has the limitation in that the RDATA could only
   carry information about the existence of the first 127 types.  RFC
   2535 did reserve a bit to specify an extension mechanism, but the
   mechanism was never actually defined.

   In order to avoid needing to develop an extension mechanism into a
   deployed base of DNSSEC aware servers and resolvers once the first
   127 type codes are allocated, this document redefines the wire format
   of the "Type Bit Map" field in the NSEC RDATA to cover the full RR
   type space.

   This document introduces a new format for the type bit map.  The
   properties of the type bit map format are that it can cover the full
   possible range of typecodes, that it is relatively economical in the
   amount of space it uses for the common case of a few types with an
   owner name, that it can represent owner names with all possible types
   present in packets of approximately 8.5 kilobytes, and that the
   representation is simple to implement.  Efficient searching of the
   type bitmap for the presence of certain types is not a requirement.

   For convenience and completeness, this document presents the syntax
   and semantics for the NSEC RR based on the specification in RFC 2535
   [2] and as updated by RFC 3755 [5], thereby not introducing changes
   except for the syntax of the type bit map.

   This document updates RFC 2535 [2] and RFC 3755 [5].

   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, RFC 2119 [1].

2.  The NSEC Resource Record

   The NSEC resource record lists two separate things: the owner name of
   the next RRset in the canonical ordering of the zone, and the set of
   RR types present at the NSEC RR's owner name.  The complete set of
   NSEC RRs in a zone indicate which RRsets exist in a zone, and form a
   chain of owner names in the zone.  This information is used to
   provide authenticated denial of existence for DNS data, as described
   in RFC 2535 [2].

   The type value for the NSEC RR is 47.



Schlyter, Ed.               Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3845                DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format             August 2004


   The NSEC RR RDATA format is class independent and defined for all
   classes.

   The NSEC RR SHOULD have the same TTL value as the SOA minimum TTL
   field.  This is in the spirit of negative caching [8].

2.1.  NSEC RDATA Wire Format

   The RDATA of the NSEC RR is as shown below:

                         1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    /                      Next Domain Name                         /
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    /                   List of Type Bit Map(s)                     /
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.1.1.  The Next Domain Name Field

   The Next Domain Name field contains the owner name of the next RR in
   the canonical ordering of the zone.  The value of the Next Domain
   Name field in the last NSEC record in the zone is the name of the
   zone apex (the owner name of the zone's SOA RR).

   A sender MUST NOT use DNS name compression on the Next Domain Name
   field when transmitting an NSEC RR.

   Owner names of RRsets that are not authoritative for the given zone
   (such as glue records) MUST NOT be listed in the Next Domain Name
   unless at least one authoritative RRset exists at the same owner
   name.

2.1.2.  The List of Type Bit Map(s) Field

   The RR type space is split into 256 window blocks, each representing
   the low-order 8 bits of the 16-bit RR type space.  Each block that
   has at least one active RR type is encoded using a single octet
   window number (from 0 to 255), a single octet bitmap length (from 1
   to 32) indicating the number of octets used for the window block's
   bitmap, and up to 32 octets (256 bits) of bitmap.

   Window blocks are present in the NSEC RR RDATA in increasing
   numerical order.

   "|" denotes concatenation

   Type Bit Map(s) Field = ( Window Block # | Bitmap Length | Bitmap ) +



Schlyter, Ed.               Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3845                DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format             August 2004


   Each bitmap encodes the low-order 8 bits of RR types within the
   window block, in network bit order.  The first bit is bit 0.  For
   window block 0, bit 1 corresponds to RR type 1 (A), bit 2 corresponds
   to RR type 2 (NS), and so forth.  For window block 1, bit 1
   corresponds to RR type 257, and bit 2 to RR type 258.  If a bit is
   set to 1, it indicates that an RRset of that type is present for the
   NSEC RR's owner name.  If a bit is set to 0, it indicates that no
   RRset of that type is present for the NSEC RR's owner name.

   Since bit 0 in window block 0 refers to the non-existing RR type 0,
   it MUST be set to 0.  After verification, the validator MUST ignore
   the value of bit 0 in window block 0.

   Bits representing Meta-TYPEs or QTYPEs, as specified in RFC 2929 [3]
   (section 3.1), or within the range reserved for assignment only to
   QTYPEs and Meta-TYPEs MUST be set to 0, since they do not appear in
   zone data.  If encountered, they must be ignored upon reading.

   Blocks with no types present MUST NOT be included.  Trailing zero
   octets in the bitmap MUST be omitted.  The length of each block's
   bitmap is determined by the type code with the largest numerical
   value within that block, among the set of RR types present at the
   NSEC RR's owner name.  Trailing zero octets not specified MUST be
   interpreted as zero octets.

2.1.3.  Inclusion of Wildcard Names in NSEC RDATA

   If a wildcard owner name appears in a zone, the wildcard label ("*")
   is treated as a literal symbol and is treated the same as any other
   owner name for purposes of generating NSEC RRs.  Wildcard owner names
   appear in the Next Domain Name field without any wildcard expansion.
   RFC 2535 [2] describes the impact of wildcards on authenticated
   denial of existence.

2.2.  The NSEC RR Presentation Format

   The presentation format of the RDATA portion is as follows:

   The Next Domain Name field is represented as a domain name.

   The List of Type Bit Map(s) Field is represented as a sequence of RR
   type mnemonics.  When the mnemonic is not known, the TYPE
   representation as described in RFC 3597 [4] (section 5) MUST be used.








Schlyter, Ed.               Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 3845                DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format             August 2004


2.3.  NSEC RR Example

   The following NSEC RR identifies the RRsets associated with
   alfa.example.com. and the next authoritative name after
   alfa.example.com.

   alfa.example.com. 86400 IN NSEC host.example.com. A MX RRSIG NSEC
   TYPE1234

   The first four text fields specify the name, TTL, Class, and RR type
   (NSEC).  The entry host.example.com. is the next authoritative name
   after alfa.example.com. in canonical order.  The A, MX, RRSIG, NSEC,
   and TYPE1234 mnemonics indicate there are A, MX, RRSIG, NSEC, and
   TYPE1234 RRsets associated with the name alfa.example.com.

   The RDATA section of the NSEC RR above would be encoded as:

      0x04 'h'  'o'  's'  't'
      0x07 'e'  'x'  'a'  'm'  'p'  'l'  'e'
      0x03 'c'  'o'  'm'  0x00
      0x00 0x06 0x40 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x03
      0x04 0x1b 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
      0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
      0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
      0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x20

   Assuming that the resolver can authenticate this NSEC record, it
   could be used to prove that beta.example.com does not exist, or could
   be used to prove that there is no AAAA record associated with
   alfa.example.com.  Authenticated denial of existence is discussed in
   RFC 2535 [2].

3.  IANA Considerations

   This document introduces no new IANA considerations, because all of
   the protocol parameters used in this document have already been
   assigned by RFC 3755 [5].

4.  Security Considerations

   The update of the RDATA format and encoding does not affect the
   security of the use of NSEC RRs.









Schlyter, Ed.               Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3845                DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format             August 2004


5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
        2535, March 1999.

   [3]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Brunner-Williams, E., and B. Manning, "Domain
        Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929,
        September 2000.

   [4]  Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR)
        Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.

   [5]  Weiler, S., "Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation Signer
        (DS)", RFC 3755, May 2004.

5.2.  Informative References

   [6]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD
        13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [7]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
        specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [8]  Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)", RFC
        2308, March 1998.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The encoding described in this document was initially proposed by
   Mark Andrews.  Other encodings where proposed by David Blacka and
   Michael Graff.

7.  Author's Address

   Jakob Schlyter (editor)
   NIC-SE
   Box 5774
   Stockholm  SE-114 87
   Sweden

   EMail: jakob@nic.se
   URI: http://www.nic.se/




Schlyter, Ed.               Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 3845                DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format             August 2004


8.  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/S HE
   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 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF 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.







Schlyter, Ed.               Standards Track                     [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/