[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

DNS Extensions Working Group                                   R. Arends
Internet-Draft                                      Telematica Instituut
Expires: April 26, 2006                                          P. Koch
                                                                DENIC eG
                                                             J. Schlyter
                                                                  NIC-SE
                                                        October 23, 2005


                Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms
                 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-trans-03.txt

Status of this Memo

   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 becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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 26, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document collects and summarizes different proposals for
   alternative and additional strategies for authenticated denial in DNS
   responses, evaluates these proposals and gives a recommendation for a
   way forward.




Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Transition Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Mechanisms With Need of Updating DNSSEC-bis  . . . . . . .  4
       2.1.1.  Dynamic NSEC Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.1.2.  Add Versioning/Subtyping to Current NSEC . . . . . . .  5
       2.1.3.  Type Bit Map NSEC Indicator  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.4.  New Apex Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.1.5.  NSEC White Lies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.1.6.  NSEC Optional via DNSSKEY Flag . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.1.7.  New Answer Pseudo RR Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.2.  Mechanisms Without Need of Updating DNSSEC-bis . . . . . .  9
       2.2.1.  Partial Type-code and Signal Rollover  . . . . . . . .  9
       2.2.2.  A Complete Type-code and Signal Rollover . . . . . . . 10
       2.2.3.  Unknown (New) Algorithm in DS, DNSKEY, and RRSIG . . . 11
       2.2.4.  Unknown (New) Hash Algorithm in DS . . . . . . . . . . 12
   3.  Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16



























Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


1.  Introduction

   This report shall document the process of dealing with the NSEC
   walking problem late in the Last Call for [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and
   [RFC4035].  It preserves some of the discussion that took place in
   the DNSEXT WG during the first half of June 2004 as well as some
   additional ideas that came up subsequently.

   This is an edited excerpt of the chairs' mail to the WG:
      The working group consents on not including NSEC-alt in the
      DNSSEC-bis documents.  The working group considers to take up
      "prevention of zone enumeration" as a work item.
      There may be multiple mechanisms to allow for co-existence with
      DNSSEC-bis.  The chairs allow the working group a little over a
      week (up to June 12, 2004) to come to consensus on a possible
      modification to the document to enable gentle rollover.  If that
      consensus cannot be reached the DNSSEC-bis documents will go out
      as-is.

   To ease the process of getting consensus, a summary of the proposed
   solutions and analysis of the pros and cons were written during the
   weekend.

   This summary includes:

      An inventory of the proposed mechanisms to make a transition to
      future work on authenticated denial of existence.
      List the known Pros and Cons, possibly provide new arguments, and
      possible security considerations of these mechanisms.
      Provide a recommendation on a way forward that is least disruptive
      to the DNSSEC-bis specifications as they stand and keep an open
      path to other methods for authenticated denial of existence.

   The descriptions of the proposals in this document are coarse and do
   not cover every detail necessary for implementation.  In any case,
   documentation and further study is needed before implementaion and/or
   deployment, including those which seem to be solely operational in
   nature.


2.  Transition Mechanisms

   In the light of recent discussions and past proposals, we have found
   several ways to allow for transition to future expansion of
   authenticated denial.  We tried to illuminate the paths and pitfalls
   in these ways forward.  Some proposals lead to a versioning of
   DNSSEC, where DNSSEC-bis may co-exist with DNSSEC-ter, other
   proposals are 'clean' but may cause delay, while again others may be



Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


   plain hacks.

   Some paths do not introduce versioning, and might require the current
   DNSSEC-bis documents to be fully updated to allow for extensions to
   authenticated denial mechanisms.  Other paths introduce versioning
   and do not (or minimally) require DNSSEC-bis documents to be updated,
   allowing DNSSEC-bis to be deployed, while future versions can be
   drafted independent from or partially depending on DNSSEC-bis.

2.1.  Mechanisms With Need of Updating DNSSEC-bis

   Mechanisms in this category demand updates to the DNSSEC-bis document
   set.

2.1.1.  Dynamic NSEC Synthesis

   This proposal assumes that NSEC RRs and the authenticating RRSIG will
   be generated dynamically to just cover the (non existent) query name.
   The owner name is (the) one preceding the name queried for, the Next
   Owner Name Field has the value of the Query Name Field + 1 (first
   successor in canonical ordering).  A separate key (the normal ZSK or
   a separate ZSK per authoritative server) would be used for RRSIGs on
   NSEC RRs.  This is a defense against enumeration, though it has the
   presumption of online signing.

2.1.1.1.  Coexistence and Migration

   There is no change in interpretation other then that the next owner
   name might or might not exist.

2.1.1.2.  Limitations

   This introduces an unbalanced cost between query and response
   generation due to dynamic generation of signatures.

2.1.1.3.  Amendments to DNSSEC-bis

   The current DNSSEC-bis documents might need to be updated to indicate
   that the next owner name might not be an existing name in the zone.
   This is not a real change to the spec since implementers have been
   warned not to synthesize with previously cached NSEC records.  A
   specific bit to identify the dynamic signature generating key might
   be useful as well, to prevent it from being used to fake positive
   data.

2.1.1.4.  Cons

   Unbalanced cost is a ground for DDoS.  Though this protects against



Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


   enumeration, it is not really a path for versioning.

2.1.1.5.  Pros

   Hardly any amendments to DNSSEC-bis.

2.1.2.  Add Versioning/Subtyping to Current NSEC

   This proposal introduces versioning for the NSEC RR type (a.k.a.
   subtyping) by adding a (one octet) version field to the NSEC RDATA.
   Version number 0 is assigned to the current (DNSSEC-bis) meaning,
   making this an 'Must Be Zero' (MBZ) for the to be published docset.

2.1.2.1.  Coexistence and Migration

   Since the versioning is done inside the NSEC RR, different versions
   may coexist.  However, depending on future methods, that may or may
   not be useful inside a single zone.  Resolvers cannot ask for
   specific NSEC versions but may be able to indicate version support by
   means of a to be defined EDNS option bit.

2.1.2.2.  Limitations

   There are no technical limitations, though it will cause delay to
   allow testing of the (currently unknown) new NSEC interpretation.

   Since the versioning and signaling is done inside the NSEC RR, future
   methods will likely be restricted to a single RR type authenticated
   denial (as opposed to e.g.  NSEC-alt, which currently proposes three
   RR types).

2.1.2.3.  Amendments to DNSSEC-bis

   Full Update of the current DNSSEC-bis documents to provide for new
   fields in NSEC, while specifying behavior in case of unknown field
   values.

2.1.2.4.  Cons

   Though this is a clean and clear path without versioning DNSSEC, it
   takes some time to design, gain consensus, update the current dnssec-
   bis document, test and implement a new authenticated denial record.

2.1.2.5.  Pros

   Does not introduce an iteration to DNSSEC while providing a clear and
   clean migration strategy.




Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


2.1.3.  Type Bit Map NSEC Indicator

   Bits in the type-bit-map are reused or allocated to signify the
   interpretation of NSEC.

   This proposal assumes that future extensions make use of the existing
   NSEC RDATA syntax, while it may need to change the interpretation of
   the RDATA or introduce an alternative denial mechanism, invoked by
   the specific type-bit-map-bits.

2.1.3.1.  Coexistence and migration

   Old and new NSEC meaning could coexist, depending how the signaling
   would be defined.  The bits for NXT, NSEC, RRSIG or other outdated RR
   types are available as well as those covering meta/query types or
   types to be specifically allocated.

2.1.3.2.  Limitations

   This mechanism uses an NSEC field that was not designed for that
   purpose.  Similar methods were discussed during the Opt-In discussion
   and the Silly-State discussion.

2.1.3.3.  Amendments to DNSSEC-bis

   The specific type-bit-map-bits must be allocated and they need to be
   specified as 'Must Be Zero' (MBZ) when used for standard (dnssec-bis)
   interpretation.  Also, behaviour of the resolver and validator must
   be documented in case unknown values are encountered for the MBZ
   field.  Currently the protocol document specifies that the validator
   MUST ignore the setting of the NSEC and the RRSIG bits, while other
   bits are only used for the specific purpose of the type-bit-map field

2.1.3.4.  Cons

   The type-bit-map was not designed for this purpose.  It is a
   straightforward hack.  Text in protocol section 5.4 was put in
   specially to defend against this usage.

2.1.3.5.  Pros

   No change needed to the on-the-wire protocol as specified in the
   current docset.

2.1.4.  New Apex Type

   This introduces a new Apex type (parallel to the zone's SOA)
   indicating the DNSSEC version (or authenticated denial) used in or



Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


   for this zone.

2.1.4.1.  Coexistence and Migration

   Depending on the design of this new RR type multiple denial
   mechanisms may coexist in a zone.  Old validators will not understand
   and thus ignore the new type, so interpretation of the new NSEC
   scheme may fail, negative responses may appear 'bogus'.

2.1.4.2.  Limitations

   A record of this kind is likely to carry additional feature/
   versioning indications unrelated to the current question of
   authenticated denial.

2.1.4.3.  Amendments to DNSSEC-bis

   The current DNSSEC-bis documents need to be updated to indicate that
   the absence of this type indicates dnssec-bis, and that the (mere)
   presence of this type indicated unknown versions.

2.1.4.4.  Cons

   The only other 'zone' or 'apex' record is the SOA record.  Though
   this proposal is not new, it is yet unknown how it might fulfill
   authenticated denial extensions.  This new RR type would only provide
   for a generalized signaling mechanism, not the new authenticated
   denial scheme.  Since it is likely to be general in nature, due to
   this generality consensus is not to be reached soon.

2.1.4.5.  Pros

   This approach would allow for a lot of other per zone information to
   be transported or signaled to both (slave) servers and resolvers.

2.1.5.  NSEC White Lies

   This proposal disables one part of NSEC (the pointer part) by means
   of a special target (root, apex, owner, ...), leaving intact only the
   ability to authenticate denial of existence of RR sets, not denial of
   existence of domain names (NXDOMAIN).  It may be necessary to have
   one working NSEC to prove the absence of a wildcard.

2.1.5.1.  Coexistence and Migration

   The NSEC target can be specified per RR, so standard NSEC and 'white
   lie' NSEC can coexist in a zone.  There is no need for migration
   because no versioning is introduced or intended.



Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


2.1.5.2.  Limitations

   This proposal breaks the protocol and is applicable to certain types
   of zones only (no wildcard, no deep names, delegation only).  Most of
   the burden is put on the resolver side and operational consequences
   are yet to be studied.

2.1.5.3.  Amendments to DNSSEC-bis

   The current DNSSEC-bis documents need to be updated to indicate that
   the NXDOMAIN responses may be insecure.

2.1.5.4.  Cons

   Strictly speaking this breaks the protocol and doesn't fully fulfill
   the requirements for authenticated denial of existence.  Security
   implications need to be carefully documented: search path problems
   (forged denial of existence may lead to wrong expansion of non-FQDNs
   [RFC1535]) and replay attacks to deny existence of records.

2.1.5.5.  Pros

   Hardly any amendments to DNSSEC-bis.  Operational "trick" that is
   available anyway.

2.1.6.  NSEC Optional via DNSSKEY Flag

   A new DNSKEY may be defined to declare NSEC optional per zone.

2.1.6.1.  Coexistence and Migration

   Current resolvers/validators will not understand the Flag bit and
   will have to treat negative responses as bogus.  Otherwise, no
   migration path is needed since NSEC is simply turned off.

2.1.6.2.  Limitations

   NSEC can only be made completely optional at the cost of being unable
   to prove unsecure delegations (absence of a DS RR).  A next to this
   approach would just disable authenticated denial for non-existence of
   nodes.

2.1.6.3.  Amendments to DNSSEC-bis

   New DNSKEY Flag to be defined.  Resolver/Validator behaviour needs to
   be specified in the light of absence of authenticated denial.





Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


2.1.6.4.  Cons

   Doesn't fully meet requirements.  Operational consequences to be
   studied.

2.1.6.5.  Pros

   Official version of the "trick" presented in (8).  Operational
   problems can be addressed during future work on validators.

2.1.7.  New Answer Pseudo RR Type

   A new pseudo RR type may be defined that will be dynamically created
   (and signed) by the responding authoritative server.  The RR in the
   response will cover the QNAME, QCLASS and QTYPE and will authenticate
   both denial of existence of name (NXDOMAIN) or RRset.

2.1.7.1.  Coexistence and Migration

   Current resolvers/validators will not understand the pseudo RR and
   will thus not be able to process negative responses so testified.  A
   signaling or solicitation method would have to be specified.

2.1.7.2.  Limitations

   This method can only be used with online keys and online signing
   capacity.

2.1.7.3.  Amendments to DNSSEC-bis

   Signaling method needs to be defined.

2.1.7.4.  Cons

   Keys have to be held and processed online with all security
   implications.  An additional flag for those keys identifying them as
   online or negative answer only keys should be considered.

2.1.7.5.  Pros

   Expands DNSSEC authentication to the RCODE.

2.2.  Mechanisms Without Need of Updating DNSSEC-bis

2.2.1.  Partial Type-code and Signal Rollover

   Carefully crafted type code/signal rollover to define a new
   authenticated denial space that extends/replaces DNSSEC-bis



Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


   authenticated denial space.  This particular path is illuminated by
   Paul Vixie in a Message-Id <20040602070859.0F50913951@sa.vix.com>
   posted to <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org> 2004-06-02.

2.2.1.1.  Coexistence and Migration

   To protect the current resolver for future versions, a new DNSSEC-OK
   bit must be allocated to make clear it does or does not understand
   the future version.  Also, a new DS type needs to be allocated to
   allow differentiation between a current signed delegation and a
   'future' signed delegation.  Also, current NSEC needs to be rolled
   into a new authenticated denial type.

2.2.1.2.  Limitations

   None.

2.2.1.3.  Amendments to DNSSEC-bis

   None.

2.2.1.4.  Cons

   It is cumbersome to carefully craft an TCR that 'just fits'.  The
   DNSSEC-bis protocol has many 'borderline' cases that needs special
   consideration.  It might be easier to do a full TCR, since a few of
   the types and signals need upgrading anyway.

2.2.1.5.  Pros

   Graceful adoption of future versions of NSEC, while there are no
   amendments to DNSSEC-bis.

2.2.2.  A Complete Type-code and Signal Rollover

   A new DNSSEC space is defined which can exist independent of current
   DNSSEC-bis space.

   This proposal assumes that all current DNSSEC type-codes (RRSIG/
   DNSKEY/NSEC/DS) and signals (DNSSEC-OK) are not used in any future
   versions of DNSSEC.  Any future version of DNSSEC has its own types
   to allow for keys, signatures, authenticated denial, etcetera.

2.2.2.1.  Coexistence and Migration

   Both spaces can co-exist.  They can be made completely orthogonal.





Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


2.2.2.2.  Limitations

   None.

2.2.2.3.  Amendments to DNSSEC-bis

   None.

2.2.2.4.  Cons

   With this path we abandon the current DNSSEC-bis.  Though it is easy
   to role specific well-known and well-tested parts into the re-write,
   once deployment has started this path is very expensive for
   implementers, registries, registrars and registrants as well as
   resolvers/users.  A TCR is not to be expected to occur frequently, so
   while a next generation authenticated denial may be enabled by a TCR,
   it is likely that that TCR will only be agreed upon if it serves a
   whole basket of changes or additions.  A quick introduction of
   NSEC-ng should not be expected from this path.

2.2.2.5.  Pros

   No amendments/changes to current DNSSEC-bis docset needed.  It is
   always there as last resort.

2.2.3.  Unknown (New) Algorithm in DS, DNSKEY, and RRSIG

   This proposal assumes that future extensions make use of the existing
   NSEC RDATA syntax, while they may need to change the interpretation
   of the RDATA or introduce an alternative denial mechanism, invoked by
   the specific unknown (new) signing algorithm.  The different
   interpretation would be signaled by use of different signature
   algorithms in the DS RR at the parent.  Consequently, the DNSKEY RR
   for the child zone's KSK would contain a matching algorithm field.

2.2.3.1.  Coexistence and migration

   Old and new NSEC RDATA interpretation or known and unknown signatures
   can NOT coexist in a zone since.  While DS RRs with both new and well
   known algorithm designation could both exist at the parent, that
   would not lead to an unambiguous interpretation of the NSEC RRs in
   the zone.  RRSIG RRs need to cover complete RRSets, so it is not
   possible to sign an 'old' NSEC RR with an RRSIG using an 'old'
   algorithm and then, at the same owner, sign another 'new' NSEC RR
   with an RRSIG of the 'new' algorithm type.






Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


2.2.3.2.  Limitations

   Validating resolvers agnostic of the 'new' signing algorithm (which
   may be a well known algorithm, but might not be recognized due to the
   new code) will treat the entire zone as insecure.

   The algorithm version space is split for each future version of
   DNSSEC.  Violation of the 'modular components' concept.  We use the
   'validator' to protect the 'resolver' from unknown interpretations.

2.2.3.3.  Amendments to DNSSEC-bis

   None.

2.2.3.4.  Cons

   The algorithm field was not designed for this purpose.  This is a
   straightforward hack.

2.2.3.5.  Pros

   No amendments/changes to current DNSSEC-bis docset needed.

2.2.4.  Unknown (New) Hash Algorithm in DS

   Similar to the previous method this one uses the DS RR at the parent
   to signal child zone properties.  Here, the digest type field of the
   DS RR would be used to signal presence of a different (than DNSSEC-
   bis) authenticated denial scheme at the child.

2.2.4.1.  Coexistence and migration

   Old and new NSEC RDATA interpretation or known and unknown signatures
   can NOT coexist in a zone.

2.2.4.2.  Limitations

   Validating resolvers agnostic of the 'new' hashing algorithm (which
   may be a well known algorithm, but might not be recognized due to the
   new code) will treat the entire zone as insecure.

   The digest type space is split for each future version of DNSSEC.
   Violation of the 'modular components' concept.  We use the
   'validator' to protect the 'resolver' from unknown interpretations.

2.2.4.3.  Amendments to DNSSEC-bis

   None.



Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


2.2.4.4.  Cons

   The digest type field was not designed for this purpose.  This is a
   straightforward hack.

2.2.4.5.  Pros

   No amendments/changes to current DNSSEC-bis docset needed.


3.  Recommendation

   The authors recommend that the working group commits to and starts
   work on a partial TCR, allowing graceful transition towards a future
   version of NSEC.  Meanwhile, to accomodate the need for an
   immediately, temporary, solution against zone-traversal, we recommend
   On-Demand NSEC synthesis.

   This approach does not require any mandatory changes to DNSSEC-bis,
   does not violate the protocol and fulfills the requirements.  As a
   side effect, it moves the cost of implementation and deployment to
   the users (zone owners) of this mechanism.


4.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Sam Weiler and Mark Andrews for their
   input and constructive comments.


5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, March 2005.

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




Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.

5.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1535]  Gavron, E., "A Security Problem and Proposed Correction
              With Widely Deployed DNS Software", RFC 1535,
              October 1993.

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

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.




































Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


Authors' Addresses

   Roy Arends
   Telematica Instituut
   Brouwerijstraat 1
   Enschede  7523 XC
   The Netherlands

   Phone: +31 53 4850485
   Email: roy.arends@telin.nl


   Peter Koch
   DENIC eG
   Wiesenhuettenplatz 26
   Frankfurt  60329
   Germany

   Phone: +49 69 27235 0
   Email: pk@DENIC.DE


   Jakob Schlyter
   NIC-SE
   Box 5774
   Stockholm  SE-114 87
   Sweden

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





















Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft   Evaluating DNSSEC Transition Mechanisms    October 2005


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.


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 (2005).  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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Arends, et al.           Expires April 26, 2006                [Page 16]


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