[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Network Working Group                                         P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft                                            VPN Consortium
Updates: 2535, 3755, 4034                                August 23, 2009
(if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: February 24, 2010

        Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
   derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

   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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 24, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Hoffman                 Expires February 24, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           DNSSEC Alg. Allocation              August 2009

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.


   This document specifies how DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm
   identifiers in the IANA registries are allocated.  It changes the
   rule from "standard required" to "RFC required".

1.  Introduction

   [RFC2535] specifies that that IANA registry for DNS Security
   Algorithm Numbers be updated by IETF Standards Action only, with the
   exception of two values 253 and 254.  In essence, this means that for
   an algorithm to get its own entry in the registry, the algorithm must
   be defined in an RFC on Standards Track as defined in [RFC2026].  The
   rule from RFC 2535 is repeated in [RFC3755] and [RFC4034].

   RFC 2535 allows algorithms that are not on standards track to use
   private values 253 and 254 in signatures.  In each case, an
   unregistered private name must be included with each use of the
   algorithm in order to differentiate different algorithms that use the

2.  Requirements for Assignments in the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers

   This document changes the rule for registration from requiring a
   Standards Track RFC to requiring a published RFC of any type.  There
   are two reasons for relaxing the rule:

   o  There are some algorithms that are useful that may not be able to
      be in a Standards Track RFC.  For example, an algorithm might be
      sponsored by a government and use cryptography that has not been
      evaluated thoroughly enough to be able to be put on Standards
      Track.  Another example is that the algorithm might have an
      unclear intellectual property rights situation, and that prevents
      the algorithm from being put on Standards Track.

   o  Although the size of the registry is quite restricted (about 250
      entries), new algorithms are proposed relatively rarely.  It could
      easily be many decades before there is any reason to consider
      restricting the registry again.

Hoffman                 Expires February 24, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           DNSSEC Alg. Allocation              August 2009

   Some developers will care about the standards level of the RFCs that
   are in the registry.  The registry should reflect the current
   standards level of each algorithm listed.

   Because the size of the registry is smaller than many IETF
   registries, and because some members of the DNS community have
   expressed concern about the registry eventually filling up, the IETF
   should re-evaluate the requirements for entry into this registry when
   the registry is about half full.  That evaluation may lead to tighter
   restrictions or a new mechanism for essentially extending the size of
   the registry.

   The private-use values, 253 and 254, are still useful for developers
   who want to test algorithms for which there is no RFC in private.
   This document does not change the semantics of those two values.

3.  IANA Considerations

   This document updates allocation rules for unassigned values in the
   "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry
   located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/
   dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml, in the sub-registry titled "DNS Security
   Algorithm Numbers".  The registration procedure for values that were
   not assigned before this document is published is "RFC Required".

   IANA is requested to add a textual notation to the "References"
   column in the registry that gives the current standards status for
   each RFC that is listed in the registry.

4.  Security Considerations

   An algorithm described in an RFC that is not on Standards Track may
   have weaker security than one that is on standards track; in fact,
   that may be the reason that the algorithm was not allowed on
   Standards Track.  Note, however, that not being on Standards Track
   does not necessarily mean that an algorithm is weaker.  There are
   other reasons (such as intellectual property concerns) that can keep
   algorithms that are widely considered to be strong off of Standards

5.  References

Hoffman                 Expires February 24, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           DNSSEC Alg. Allocation              August 2009

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2535]  Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
              RFC 2535, March 1999.

   [RFC3755]  Weiler, S., "Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation
              Signer (DS)", RFC 3755, May 2004.

   [RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
              RFC 4034, March 2005.

5.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

Appendix A.  Experimental and Documentation Values

   During the early discussion of this document, it was proposed that
   maybe there should be a small number of values reserved for
   "experimental" purposes.  This proposal was not included in this
   document because of the long history in the IETF of experimental
   values that became permanent.  That is, a developer would release
   (maybe "experimentally") a version of software that had the
   experimental value associated with a particular extension,
   competitors would code their systems to test interoperability, and
   then no one wanted to change the values in their software to the
   "real" value that was later assigned.

   There was also a proposal that IANA should reserve two values to be
   used in documentation only, similar to the way that "example.com" has
   been reserved as a domain name.  That proposal was also not included
   in this document because all values need to be associated with some
   algorithm, and there is no problem with having examples that point to
   commonly-deployed algorithms.

Author's Address

   Paul Hoffman
   VPN Consortium

   Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org

Hoffman                 Expires February 24, 2010               [Page 4]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/