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

Versions: (RFC 4641) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 6781

DNSOP                                                         O. Kolkman
Internet-Draft                                                W. Mekking
Obsoletes: 4641 (if approved)                                 NLnet Labs
Intended status: Informational                                 R. Gieben
Expires: March 15, 2013                                        SIDN Labs
                                                      September 11, 2012


                DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2
                     draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis-13

Abstract

   This document describes a set of practices for operating the DNS with
   security extensions (DNSSEC).  The target audience is zone
   administrators deploying DNSSEC.

   The document discusses operational aspects of using keys and
   signatures in the DNS.  It discusses issues of key generation, key
   storage, signature generation, key rollover, and related policies.

   This document obsoletes RFC 4641 as it covers more operational ground
   and gives more up-to-date requirements with respect to key sizes and
   the DNSSEC operations.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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 March 15, 2013.




Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   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.

























Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     1.1.  The Use of the Term 'key'  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     1.2.  Time Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   2.  Keeping the Chain of Trust Intact  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.  Key Generation and Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.1.  Operational Motivation for Zone Signing Keys and Key
           Signing Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.2.  Practical Consequences of KSK and ZSK Separation . . . . . 12
       3.2.1.  Rolling a KSK that is not a trust anchor . . . . . . . 12
       3.2.2.  Rolling a KSK that is a trust anchor . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.2.3.  The use of the SEP flag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.3.  Key Effectivity Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.4.  Cryptographic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       3.4.1.  Signature Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       3.4.2.  Key Sizes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       3.4.3.  Private Key Storage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       3.4.4.  Key Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       3.4.5.  Differentiation for 'High-Level' Zones?  . . . . . . . 19
   4.  Signature Generation, Key Rollover, and Related Policies . . . 21
     4.1.  Key Rollovers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       4.1.1.  Zone Signing Key Rollovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
         4.1.1.1.  Pre-Publish Zone Signing Key Rollover  . . . . . . 21
         4.1.1.2.  Double Signature Zone Signing Key Rollover . . . . 24
         4.1.1.3.  Pros and Cons of the Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       4.1.2.  Key Signing Key Rollovers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
         4.1.2.1.  Special Considerations for RFC 5011 KSK
                   rollover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       4.1.3.  Rollover for a Single Type Signing Scheme Key
               Rollover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       4.1.4.  Algorithm rollovers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
         4.1.4.1.  Single Type Signing Scheme Algorithm Rollover  . . 34
         4.1.4.2.  Algorithm rollover, RFC 5011 style . . . . . . . . 34
         4.1.4.3.  Single Signing Type Algorithm Rollover, RFC
                   5011 style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
         4.1.4.4.  NSEC to NSEC3 algorithm rollover . . . . . . . . . 36
       4.1.5.  Considerations for Automated Key Rollovers . . . . . . 37
     4.2.  Planning for Emergency Key Rollover  . . . . . . . . . . . 37
       4.2.1.  KSK Compromise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
         4.2.1.1.  Emergency Key Rollover Keeping the Chain of
                   Trust Intact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
         4.2.1.2.  Emergency Key Rollover Breaking the Chain of
                   Trust  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
       4.2.2.  ZSK Compromise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
       4.2.3.  Compromises of Keys Anchored in Resolvers  . . . . . . 40
       4.2.4.  Stand-by Keys  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     4.3.  Parent Policies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


       4.3.1.  Initial Key Exchanges and Parental Policies
               Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
       4.3.2.  Storing Keys or Hashes?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
       4.3.3.  Security Lameness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
       4.3.4.  DS Signature Validity Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
       4.3.5.  Changing DNS Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
         4.3.5.1.  Cooperating DNS operators  . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
         4.3.5.2.  Non Cooperating DNS Operators  . . . . . . . . . . 46
     4.4.  Time in DNSSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
       4.4.1.  Time Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
       4.4.2.  Signature Validity Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
         4.4.2.1.  Maximum Value  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
         4.4.2.2.  Minimum Value  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
         4.4.2.3.  Differentiation between RRsets . . . . . . . . . . 52
   5.  Next Record type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
     5.1.  Differences between NSEC and NSEC3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
     5.2.  NSEC or NSEC3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
     5.3.  NSEC3 parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
       5.3.1.  NSEC3 Algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
       5.3.2.  NSEC3 Iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
       5.3.3.  NSEC3 Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
       5.3.4.  Opt-Out  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
   7.  IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
   8.  Contributors and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
   Appendix A.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
   Appendix B.  Typographic Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
   Appendix C.  Transition Figures for Special Case Algorithm
                Rollovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   Appendix D.  Transition Figure for Changing DNS Operators  . . . . 75
   Appendix E.  Summary of Changes from RFC 4641  . . . . . . . . . . 77
   Appendix F.  Document Editing History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
     F.1.  draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641-00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
     F.2.  version 0->1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
     F.3.  version 1->2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
     F.4.  version 2->3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
     F.5.  version 3->4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
     F.6.  version 4->5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
     F.7.  version 5->6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
     F.8.  version 6->7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
     F.9.  version 7->8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
     F.10. version 8->9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
     F.11. version 9->10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
     F.12. version 10->11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
     F.13. version 11->12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


     F.14. version 12->13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
     F.15. Subversion information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
















































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document describes how to run a DNS Security (DNSSEC)-enabled
   environment.  It is intended for operators who have knowledge of the
   DNS (see RFC 1034 [RFC1034] and RFC 1035 [RFC1035]) and want to
   deploy DNSSEC (RFC 4033 [RFC4033], RFC 4034 [RFC4034], RFC 4035
   [RFC4035] and RFC 5155 [RFC5155]).  The focus of the document is on
   serving authoritative DNS information and is aimed at zone owners,
   name server operators, registries, registrars and registrants.  It
   assumes that there is no direct relation between those entities and
   the operators of validating recursive name servers (validators).

   During workshops and early operational deployment, operators and
   system administrators have gained experience about operating the DNS
   with security extensions (DNSSEC).  This document translates these
   experiences into a set of practices for zone administrators.
   Although the DNS Root has been signed since July 15, 2010 and now
   more than 80 secure delegations are provisioned in the root, at the
   time of writing there still exists relatively little experience with
   DNSSEC in production environments below the top-level domain (TLD)
   level; this document should therefore explicitly not be seen as
   representing 'Best Current Practices'.  Instead, it describes the
   decisions that should be made when deploying DNSSEC, gives the
   choices available for each one, and provides some operational
   guidelines.  The document does not give strong recommendations.  That
   may be subject for a future version of this document.

   The procedures herein are focused on the maintenance of signed zones
   (i.e., signing and publishing zones on authoritative servers).  It is
   intended that maintenance of zones such as re-signing or key
   rollovers be transparent to any verifying clients.

   The structure of this document is as follows.  In Section 2, we
   discuss the importance of keeping the "chain of trust" intact.
   Aspects of key generation and storage of keys are discussed in
   Section 3; the focus in this section is mainly on the security of the
   private part of the key(s).  Section 4 describes considerations
   concerning the public part of the keys.  Section 4.1 and Section 4.2
   deal with the rollover, or replacement, of keys.  Section 4.3
   discusses considerations on how parents deal with their children's
   public keys in order to maintain chains of trust.  Section 4.4 covers
   all kinds of timing issues around key publication.  Section 5 covers
   the considerations regarding selecting and using NSEC or NSEC3
   [RFC5155].

   The typographic conventions used in this document are explained in
   Appendix B.




Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   Since we describe operational suggestions and there are no protocol
   specifications, the RFC 2119 [RFC2119] language does not apply to
   this document, though we do use quotes from other documents that do
   include the RFC 2119 language.

   This document obsoletes RFC 4641 [RFC4641].

1.1.  The Use of the Term 'key'

   It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the concept of
   asymmetric keys on which DNSSEC is based (public key cryptography RFC
   4949 [RFC4949]).  Therefore, this document will use the term 'key'
   rather loosely.  Where it is written that 'a key is used to sign
   data' it is assumed that the reader understands that it is the
   private part of the key pair that is used for signing.  It is also
   assumed that the reader understands that the public part of the key
   pair is published in the DNSKEY Resource Record and that it is the
   public part that is used in signature verification.

1.2.  Time Definitions

   In this document, we will be using a number of time-related terms.
   The following definitions apply:

   Signature validity period:  The period that a signature is valid.  It
      starts at the (absolute) time specified in the signature inception
      field of the RRSIG RR and ends at the (absolute) time specified in
      the expiration field of the RRSIG RR.  The document sometimes also
      uses the term "validity period", which means the same.

   Signature publication period:  The period that a signature is
      published.  It starts at the time the signature is introduced in
      the zone for the first time and ends at the time when the
      signature is removed or replaced with a new signature.  After one
      stops publishing an RRSIG in a zone, it may take a while before
      the RRSIG has expired from caches and has actually been removed
      from the DNS.

   Key effectivity period:  The period during which a key pair is
      expected to be effective.  It is defined as the time between the
      earliest inception time stamp and the last expiration date of any
      signature made with this key, regardless of any discontinuity in
      the use of the key.  The key effectivity period can span multiple
      signature validity periods.







Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   Maximum/Minimum Zone Time to Live (TTL):  The maximum or minimum
      value of the TTLs from the complete set of RRs in a zone, that are
      used by validators or resolvers.  Note that the minimum TTL is not
      the same as the MINIMUM field in the SOA RR.  See RFC 2308
      [RFC2308] for more information.














































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


2.  Keeping the Chain of Trust Intact

   Maintaining a valid chain of trust is important because broken chains
   of trust will result in data being marked as Bogus (as defined in RFC
   4033 [RFC4033] Section 5), which may cause entire (sub)domains to
   become invisible to verifying clients.  The administrators of secured
   zones need to realize that, to verifying clients, their zone is part
   of a chain of trust.

   As mentioned in the introduction, the procedures herein are intended
   to ensure that maintenance of zones, such as re-signing or key
   rollovers, will be transparent to the verifying clients on the
   Internet.

   Administrators of secured zones will need to keep in mind that data
   published on an authoritative primary server will not be immediately
   seen by verifying clients; it may take some time for the data to be
   transferred to other (secondary) authoritative name servers and
   clients may be fetching data from caching non-authoritative servers.
   In this light, note that the time until the data is available on the
   slave can be negligible when using NOTIFY [RFC1996] and incremental
   transfer (IXFR) [RFC1995].  It increases when full zone transfers
   (AXFR) are used in combination with NOTIFY.  It increases even more
   if you rely on the full zone transfers being based only on the SOA
   timing parameters for refresh.

   For the verifying clients, it is important that data from secured
   zones can be used to build chains of trust regardless of whether the
   data came directly from an authoritative server, a caching name
   server, or some middle box.  Only by carefully using the available
   timing parameters can a zone administrator ensure that the data
   necessary for verification can be obtained.

   The responsibility for maintaining the chain of trust is shared by
   administrators of secured zones in the chain of trust.  This is most
   obvious in the case of a 'key compromise' when a trade-off must be
   made between maintaining a valid chain of trust and replacing the
   compromised keys as soon as possible.  Then zone administrators will
   have to decide between keeping the chain of trust intact - thereby
   allowing for attacks with the compromised key - or deliberately
   breaking the chain of trust and making secured subdomains invisible
   to security-aware resolvers (also see Section 4.2).









Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


3.  Key Generation and Storage

   This section describes a number of considerations with respect to the
   use of keys.  For the design of an operational procedure for key
   generation and storage, a number of decisions need to be made:

   o  Does one differentiate between Zone Signing Keys and Key Signing
      Keys or is the use of one type of key sufficient?

   o  Are Key Signing Keys (likely to be) in use as trust anchors
      [RFC4033]?

   o  What are the timing parameters that are allowed by the operational
      requirements?

   o  What are the cryptographic parameters that fit the operational
      need?

   The following section discusses the considerations that need to be
   taken into account when making those choices.

3.1.  Operational Motivation for Zone Signing Keys and Key Signing Keys

   The DNSSEC validation protocol does not distinguish between different
   types of DNSKEYs.  The motivations to differentiate between keys are
   purely operational; validators will not make a distinction.

   For operational reasons, described below, it is possible to designate
   one or more keys to have the role of Key Signing Keys (KSKs).  These
   keys will only sign the apex DNSKEY RRset in a zone.  Other keys can
   be used to sign all the other RRsets in a zone that require
   signatures.  They are referred to as Zone Signing Keys (ZSKs).  In
   cases where the differentiation between KSK and ZSK is not made, keys
   have both the role of KSK and ZSK, we talk about a Single Type
   Signing Scheme.

   If the two functions are separated, then for almost any method of key
   management and zone signing, the KSK is used less frequently than the
   ZSK.  Once a DNSKEY RRset is signed with the KSK, all the keys in the
   RRset can be used as ZSKs.  If there has been an event that increases
   the risk that a ZSK is compromised, it can be simply replaced with a
   ZSK rollover.  The new RRset is then re-signed with the KSK.

   Changing a key that is a secure entry point (SEP) [RFC4034] for a
   zone can be relatively expensive as it involves interaction with
   third parties: when a key is only pointed to by a delegation signer
   (DS) [RFC4034] record in the parent zone, one needs to complete the
   interaction with the parent and wait for the updated DS record to



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   appear in the DNS.  In the case where a key is configured as a trust
   anchor, one has to wait until one has sufficient confidence that all
   trust anchors have been replaced.  In fact, it may be that one is not
   able to reach the complete user-base with information about the key
   rollover.

   Given the assumption that for KSKs the SEP flag is set, the KSK can
   be distinguished from a ZSK by examining the flag field in the DNSKEY
   RR: If the flag field is an odd number it is a KSK; otherwise it is a
   ZSK.

   There is also a risk that keys can be compromised through theft or
   loss.  For keys that are installed on file-systems of name servers
   that are connected to the network (e.g. for dynamic updates), that
   risk is relatively high.  Where keys are stored on Hardware Security
   Modules (HSMs) or stored off-line, such risk is relatively low.
   However, storing keys off-line or with more limitations on access
   control has a negative effect on the operational flexibility.  By
   separating the KSK and ZSK functionality, these risks can be managed
   while making the tradeoff against the involved costs.  For example, a
   KSK can be stored off-line or with more limitations on access control
   than ZSKs which need to be readily available for operational purposes
   such as the addition or deletion of zone data.  A KSK stored on a
   smartcard, that is kept in a safe, combined with a ZSK stored on a
   file-system accessible by operators for daily routine may provide a
   better protection against key compromise without losing much
   operational flexibility.  It must be said that some HSMs give the
   option to have your keys online, giving more protection and hardly
   affecting the operational flexibility.  In those cases, a KSK-ZSK
   split is not more beneficial than the Single Type Signing Scheme.

   It is worth mentioning that there's not much point obsessively
   protecting the key if you don't protect the zone files, which also
   live on the file-systems.

   Finally there is a risk of cryptanalysis of the key material.  The
   costs of such analysis are correlated to the length of the key.
   However, cryptanalysis arguments provide no strong motivation for a
   KSK/ZSK split.  Suppose one differentiates between a KSK and a ZSK
   whereby the KSK effectivity period is X times the ZSK effectivity
   period.  Then, in order for the resistance to cryptanalysis to be the
   same for the KSK and the ZSK, the KSK needs to be X times stronger
   than the ZSK.  Since for all practical purposes, X will be somewhere
   of the order of 10 to 100, the associated key sizes will vary only
   about a byte in size for symmetric keys.  When translated to
   asymmetric keys, the size difference is still too insignificant to
   warrant a key-split; it only marginally affects the packet size and
   signing speed.



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   The arguments for differentiation between the ZSK and KSK are weakest
   when:

   o  the exposure to risk is low (e.g. when keys are stored on HSMs);

   o  one can be certain that a key is not used as a trust anchor;

   o  maintenance of the various keys cannot be performed through tools
      (is prone to human error); and

   o  the interaction through the child-parent provisioning chain -- in
      particular the timely appearance of a new DS record in the parent
      zone in emergency situations -- is predictable.

   If the above holds then the costs of the operational complexity of a
   KSK-ZSK split may outweigh the costs of operational flexibility and
   choosing a Single Type Signing Scheme is a reasonable option.  In
   other cases we advise that the separation between KSKs and ZSKs is
   made.

3.2.  Practical Consequences of KSK and ZSK Separation

   A key that acts only as a Zone Signing Key is used to sign all the
   data except the DNSKEY RRset in a zone on a regular basis.  When a
   ZSK is to be rolled, no interaction with the parent is needed.  This
   allows for a relatively short key effectivity period.

   A key with only the Key Signing Key role is to be used to sign the
   DNSKEY RRs in a zone.  If a KSK is to be rolled, there may be
   interactions with other parties.  These can include the
   administrators of the parent zone or administrators of verifying
   resolvers that have the particular key configured as secure entry
   points.  In the latter case, everyone relying on the trust anchor
   needs to roll over to the new key, a process that may be subject to
   stability costs if automated trust anchor rollover mechanisms (e.g.
   RFC 5011 [RFC5011]) are not in place.  Hence, the key effectivity
   period of these keys can and should be made much longer.

3.2.1.  Rolling a KSK that is not a trust anchor

   There are three schools of thought on rolling a KSK that is not a
   trust anchor:

   1.  It should be done frequently and regularly (possibly every few
       months) so that a key rollover remains an operational routine.

   2.  It should be done frequently but irregularly.  Frequently meaning
       every few months, again based on the argument that a rollover is



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


       a practiced and common operational routine, and irregular meaning
       with a large jitter, so that third parties do not start to rely
       on the key and will not be tempted to configure it as a trust
       anchor.

   3.  It should only be done when it is known or strongly suspected
       that the key can be or has been compromised, or in conjunction
       with operator change policies and procedures, like when a new
       algorithm or key storage is required.

   There is no widespread agreement on which of these three schools of
   thought is better for different deployments of DNSSEC.  There is a
   stability cost every time a non-anchor KSK is rolled over, but it is
   possibly low if the communication between the child and the parent is
   good.  On the other hand, the only completely effective way to tell
   if the communication is good is to test it periodically.  Thus,
   rolling a KSK with a parent is only done for two reasons: to test and
   verify the rolling system to prepare for an emergency, and in the
   case of (preventing) an actual emergency.

   Finally, in most cases a zone administrator cannot be fully certain
   that the zone's KSK is not in use as a trust anchor somewhere.  While
   the configuration of trust anchors is not the responsibility of the
   zone administrator, there may be stability costs for the validator
   administrator that (wrongfully) configured the trust anchor when the
   zone administrator rolls a KSK.

3.2.2.  Rolling a KSK that is a trust anchor

   The same operational concerns apply to the rollover of KSKs that are
   used as trust anchors: if a trust anchor replacement is done
   incorrectly, the entire domain that the trust anchor covers will
   become Bogus until the trust anchor is corrected.

   In a large number of cases it will be safe to work from the
   assumption that one's keys are not in use as trust anchors.  If a
   zone administrator publishes a "DNSSEC Signing Policy and/or a DNSSEC
   Practice Statement" [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework] that should
   be explicit about the fact whether the existence of trust anchors
   will be taken into account.  There may be cases where local policies
   enforce the configuration of trust anchors on zones which are mission
   critical (e.g. in enterprises where the trust anchor for the
   enterprise domain is configured in the enterprise's validator).  It
   is expected that the zone administrators are aware of such
   circumstances.

   One can argue that because of the difficulty of getting all users of
   a trust anchor to replace an old trust anchor with a new one, a KSK



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   that is a trust anchor should never be rolled unless it is known or
   strongly suspected that the key has been compromised.  In other words
   the costs of a KSK rollover are prohibitively high because some users
   cannot be reached.

   However, the "operational habit" argument also applies to trust
   anchor reconfiguration at the clients' validators.  If a short key
   effectivity period is used and the trust anchor configuration has to
   be revisited on a regular basis, the odds that the configuration
   tends to be forgotten is smaller.  In fact, the costs for those users
   can be minimized by automating the rollover with RFC 5011 [RFC5011]
   and by rolling the key regularly (and advertising such) so that the
   operators of validating resolvers will put the appropriate mechanism
   in place to deal with these stability costs: in other words, budget
   for these costs instead of incurring them unexpectedly.

   It is therefore preferred to roll KSKs that are expected to be used
   as trust anchors on a regular basis if and only if those rollovers
   can be tracked using standardized (e.g.  RFC 5011 [RFC5011])
   mechanisms.

3.2.3.  The use of the SEP flag

   The so-called Secure Entry Point (SEP) [RFC4035] flag can be used to
   distinguish between keys that are intended to be used as the secure
   entry point into the zone when building chains of trust, i.e., they
   are (to be) pointed to by parental DS RRs or configured as a trust
   anchor.

   While the SEP flag does not play any role in validation, it is used
   in practice for operational purposes such as for the rollover
   mechanism described in RFC 5011 [RFC5011].  The common convention is
   to set the SEP flag on any key that is used for key exchanges with
   the parent and/or potentially used for configuration as a trust
   anchor.  Therefore, it is suggested that the SEP flag is set on keys
   that are used as KSKs and not on keys that are used as ZSKs, while in
   those cases where a distinction between KSK and ZSK is not made (i.e.
   for a Single Type Signing Scheme), it is suggested that the SEP flag
   is set on all keys.

   Note: some signing tools may assume a KSK/ZSK split and use the (non)
   presence of the SEP flag to determine which key is to be used for
   signing zone data; these tools may get confused when a Single Type
   Signing Scheme is used.







Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


3.3.  Key Effectivity Period

   In general the available key length sets an upper limit on the key
   effectivity period.  For all practical purposes it is sufficient to
   define the key effectivity period based on purely operational
   requirements and match the key length to that value.  Ignoring the
   operational perspective, a reasonable effectivity period for KSKs
   that have corresponding DS records in the parent zone is of the order
   of two decades or longer.  That is, if one does not plan to test the
   rollover procedure, the key should be effective essentially forever,
   and only rolled over in case of emergency.

   When one opts for a regular key-rollover, a reasonable key
   effectivity period for KSKs that have a parent zone is one year,
   meaning you have the intent to replace them after 12 months.  The key
   effectivity period is merely a policy parameter, and should not be
   considered a constant value.  For example, the real key effectivity
   period may be a little bit longer than 12 months, because not all
   actions needed to complete the rollover could be finished in time.

   As argued above, this annual rollover gives operational practice of
   rollovers for both the zone and validator administrators.  Besides,
   in most environments a year is a time-span that is easily planned and
   communicated.

   Where keys are stored online and the exposure to various threats of
   compromise is fairly high, an intended key effectivity period of a
   month is reasonable for Zone Signing Keys.

   Although very short key effectivity periods are theoretically
   possible, when replacing keys one has to take into account the
   rollover considerations from Section 4.1 and Section 4.4.  Key
   replacement endures for a couple of Maximum Zone TTLs, depending on
   the rollover scenario.  Therefore, a multiple of Maximum Zone TTL
   durations is a reasonable lower limit on the key effectivity period.
   Forcing a smaller key effectivity period will result in an
   unnecessary and inconventiently large DNSKEY RRset published in the
   zone.

   The motivation for having the ZSK's effectivity period shorter than
   the KSK's effectivity period is rooted in the operational
   consideration that it is more likely that operators have more
   frequent read access to the ZSK than to the KSK.  Thus, in cases
   where the ZSK cannot be afforded the same level of protection as the
   KSK (such as when zone keys are kept online), and where the risk of
   unauthorized disclosure of the ZSK's private key is not negligible
   (e.g. when HSMs are not in use), the ZSK's effectivity period should
   be kept shorter than the KSK's effectivity period.



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   In fact, if the risk of loss, theft, or other compromise is the same
   for a zone and key signing key, there is little reason to choose
   different effectivity periods for ZSKs and KSKs.  And when the split
   between ZSKs and KSKs is not made, the argument is redundant.

   There are certainly cases in which the use of a Single Type Signing
   Scheme with a long key effectivity period is a good choice, for
   example, where the costs and risks of compromise, and the costs and
   risks involved with having to perform an emergency roll are low.

3.4.  Cryptographic Considerations

3.4.1.  Signature Algorithm

   At the time of writing, there are three types of signature algorithms
   that can be used in DNSSEC: RSA, DSA and GOST.  Proposals for other
   algorithms are in the making.  All three are fully specified in many
   freely-available documents, and are widely considered to be patent-
   free.  The creation of signatures with RSA and DSA takes roughly the
   same time, but DSA is about ten times slower for signature
   verification.  Also note that, in the context of DNSSEC, DSA is
   limited to a maximum of 1024 bit keys.

   We suggest the use of RSA/SHA-256 as the preferred signature
   algorithms and RSA/SHA-1 as an alternative.  Both have advantages and
   disadvantages.  RSA/SHA-1 has been deployed for many years, while
   RSA/SHA-256 has only begun to be deployed.  On the other hand, it is
   expected that if effective attacks on either algorithm appear, they
   will appear for RSA/SHA-1 first.  RSA/MD5 should not be considered
   for use because RSA/MD5 will very likely be the first common-use
   signature algorithm to have an effective attack.

   At the time of publication, it is known that the SHA-1 hash has
   cryptanalysis issues and work is in progress on addressing them.  The
   use of public key algorithms based on hashes stronger than SHA-1
   (e.g., SHA-256) is recommended, if these algorithms are available in
   implementations (see RFC 5702 [RFC5702] and RFC 4509 [RFC4509]).

   Also at the time of publication, digital signature algorithms based
   on Elliptic Curve (EC) Cryptography with DNSSEC (GOST [RFC5933],
   ECDSA [RFC6605]) are being standardized and implemented.  The use of
   EC has benefits in terms of size.  On the other hand, one has to
   balance that against the amount of validating resolver
   implementations that will not recognize EC signatures and thus treat
   the zone as insecure.  Beyond the observation of this trade-off, we
   will not discuss this further.





Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


3.4.2.  Key Sizes

   This section assumes RSA keys, as suggested in the previous section.

   DNSSEC signing keys should be large enough to avoid all known
   cryptographic attacks during the effectivity period of the key.  To
   date, despite huge efforts, no one has broken a regular 1024-bit key;
   in fact, the best completed attack is estimated to be the equivalent
   of a 700-bit key.  An attacker breaking a 1024-bit signing key would
   need to expend phenomenal amounts of networked computing power in a
   way that would not be detected in order to break a single key.
   Because of this, it is estimated that most zones can safely use 1024-
   bit keys for at least the next ten years (A 1024-bit asymmetric key
   has an approximate equivalent strength of a symmetric 80-bit key).

   Depending on local policy (e.g. owners of keys that are used as
   extremely high value trust anchors, or non-anchor keys that may be
   difficult to roll over), it may be advisable to use lengths longer
   than 1024 bits.  Typically, the next larger key size used is 2048
   bits, which has the approximate equivalent strength of a symmetric
   112-bit key (RFC 3766 [RFC3766]).  Signing and verifying with a 2048-
   bit key takes longer than with a 1024-bit key.  The increase depends
   on software and hardware implementations, but public operations (such
   as verification) are about four times slower, while private
   operations (such as signing) slow down about eight times.

   Another way to decide on the size of key to use is to remember that
   the effort it takes for an attacker to break a 1024-bit key is the
   same regardless of how the key is used.  If an attacker has the
   capability of breaking a 1024-bit DNSSEC key, he also has the
   capability of breaking one of the many 1024-bit TLS trust anchor keys
   that are currently installed in web browsers.  If the value of a
   DNSSEC key is lower to the attacker than the value of a TLS trust
   anchor, the attacker will use the resources to attack the latter.

   It is possible that there will be an unexpected improvement in the
   ability for attackers to break keys, and that such an attack would
   make it feasible to break 1024-bit keys but not 2048-bit keys.  If
   such an improvement happens, it is likely that there will be a huge
   amount of publicity, particularly because of the large number of
   1024-bit TLS trust anchors built into popular web browsers.  At that
   time, all 1024-bit keys (both ones with parent zones and ones that
   are trust anchors) can be rolled over and replaced with larger keys.

   Earlier documents (including the previous version of this document)
   urged the use of longer keys in situations where a particular key was
   "heavily used".  That advice may have been true 15 years ago, but it
   is not true today when using RSA algorithms and keys of 1024 bits or



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   higher.

3.4.3.  Private Key Storage

   It is preferred that, where possible, zone private keys and the zone
   file master copy that is to be signed be kept and used in off-line,
   non-network-connected, physically secure machines only.
   Periodically, an application can be run to add authentication to a
   zone by adding RRSIG and NSEC/NSEC3 RRs.  Then the augmented file can
   be transferred to the master.

   When relying on dynamic update [RFC3007] or any other update
   mechanism that runs at a regular interval to manage a signed zone, be
   aware that at least one private key of the zone will have to reside
   on the master server, or reside on an HSM to which the server has
   access.  This key is only as secure as the amount of exposure the
   server receives to unknown clients and on the level of security of
   the host.  Although not mandatory, one could administer a zone using
   a "hidden master" scheme to minimize the risk.  In this arrangement
   the master name server that processes the updates is unavailable to
   general hosts on the Internet; it is not listed in the NS RRset.  The
   name servers in the NS RRset are able to receive zone updates through
   IXFR, AXFR, or an out-of-band distribution mechanism, possibly in
   combination with NOTIFY or another mechanism to trigger zone
   replication.

   The ideal situation is to have a one-way information flow to the
   network to avoid the possibility of tampering from the network.
   Keeping the zone master on-line on the network and simply cycling it
   through an off-line signer does not do this.  The on-line version
   could still be tampered with if the host it resides on is
   compromised.  For maximum security, the master copy of the zone file
   should be off-net and should not be updated based on an unsecured
   network mediated communication.

   The ideal situation may not be achievable because of economic
   tradeoffs between risks and costs.  For instance, keeping a zone file
   off-line is not practical and will increase the costs of operating a
   DNS zone.  So in practice the machines on which zone files are
   maintained will be connected to a network.  Operators are advised to
   take security measures to shield unauthorized access to the master
   copy in order to prevent modification of DNS data before its signed.

   Similarly the choice for storing a private key in an HSM will be
   influenced by a tradeoff between various concerns:

   o  The risks that an unauthorized person has unnoticed read-access to
      the private key.



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   o  The remaining window of opportunity for the attacker.

   o  The economic impact of the possible attacks (for a TLD that impact
      will typically be higher than for an individual users).

   o  The costs of rolling the (compromised) keys.  (The costs of
      rolling a ZSK is lowest and the costs of rolling a KSK that is in
      wide use as a trust anchor is highest.)

   o  The costs of buying and maintaining an HSM.

   For dynamically updated secured zones [RFC3007], both the master copy
   and the private key that is used to update signatures on updated RRs
   will need to be on-line.

3.4.4.  Key Generation

   Careful generation of all keys is a sometimes overlooked but
   absolutely essential element in any cryptographically secure system.
   The strongest algorithms used with the longest keys are still of no
   use if an adversary can guess enough to lower the size of the likely
   key space so that it can be exhaustively searched.  Technical
   suggestions for the generation of random keys will be found in RFC
   4086 [RFC4086] and NIST SP 800-90A [NIST-SP-800-90A].  In particular,
   one should carefully assess whether the random number generator used
   during key generation adheres to these suggestions.  Typically, HSMs
   tend to provide a good facility for key generation.

   Keys with a long effectivity period are particularly sensitive as
   they will represent a more valuable target and be subject to attack
   for a longer time than short-period keys.  It is preferred that long-
   term key generation occur off-line in a manner isolated from the
   network via an air gap or, at a minimum, high-level secure hardware.

3.4.5.  Differentiation for 'High-Level' Zones?

   An earlier version of this document (RFC 4641 [RFC4641]) made a
   differentiation between key lengths for KSKs used for zones that are
   high in the DNS hierarchy and those for KSKs used low down.

   This distinction is now considered not relevant.  Longer key lengths
   for keys higher in the hierarchy are not useful because the
   cryptographic guidance is that everyone should use keys that no one
   can break.  Also, it is impossible to judge which zones are more or
   less valuable to an attacker.  An attack can only take place if the
   key compromise goes unnoticed and the attacker can act as a man-in-
   the-middle (MITM).  For example, if example.com is compromised and
   the attacker forges answers for somebank.example.com. and sends them



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   out during an MITM, when the attack is discovered, it will be simple
   to prove that example.com has been compromised and the KSK will be
   rolled.
















































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


4.  Signature Generation, Key Rollover, and Related Policies

4.1.  Key Rollovers

   Regardless of whether a zone uses periodic key rollovers, or only
   rolls keys in case of an irregular event, key rollovers are a fact of
   life when using DNSSEC.  Zone administrators who are in the process
   of rolling their keys have to take into account that data published
   in previous versions of their zone still lives in caches.  When
   deploying DNSSEC, this becomes an important consideration; ignoring
   data that may be in caches may lead to loss of service for clients.

   The most pressing example of this occurs when zone material signed
   with an old key is being validated by a resolver that does not have
   the old zone key cached.  If the old key is no longer present in the
   current zone, this validation fails, marking the data Bogus.
   Alternatively, an attempt could be made to validate data that is
   signed with a new key against an old key that lives in a local cache,
   also resulting in data being marked Bogus.

   The typographic conventions used in the diagrams below are explained
   in Appendix B.

4.1.1.  Zone Signing Key Rollovers

   If the choice for splitting zone and key signing keys has been made,
   then those two types of keys can be rolled separately and zone
   signing keys can be rolled without taking into account DS records
   from the parent or the configuration of such a key as trust anchor.

   For "Zone Signing Key rollovers", there are two ways to make sure
   that during the rollover data still cached can be verified with the
   new key sets or newly generated signatures can be verified with the
   keys still in caches.  One scheme, described in Section 4.1.1.1, uses
   key pre-publication; the other uses double signatures, described in
   Section 4.1.1.2.  The pros and cons are described in Section 4.1.1.3.

4.1.1.1.  Pre-Publish Zone Signing Key Rollover

   This section shows how to perform a ZSK rollover without the need to
   sign all the data in a zone twice -- the "Pre-Publish key rollover".
   This method has advantages in the case of a key compromise.  If the
   old key is compromised, the new key has already been distributed in
   the DNS.  The zone administrator is then able to quickly switch to
   the new key and remove the compromised key from the zone.  Another
   major advantage is that the zone size does not double, as is the case
   with the Double Signature ZSK rollover.




Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   Pre-Publish key rollover from DNSKEY_Z_10 to DNSKEY_Z_11 involves
   four stages as follows:

    ----------------------------------------------------------
     initial            new DNSKEY          new RRSIGs
    ----------------------------------------------------------
     SOA_0              SOA_1               SOA_2
     RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)    RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)     RRSIG_Z_11(SOA)

     DNSKEY_K_1         DNSKEY_K_1          DNSKEY_K_1
     DNSKEY_Z_10        DNSKEY_Z_10         DNSKEY_Z_10
                        DNSKEY_Z_11         DNSKEY_Z_11
     RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)  RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)   RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------
     DNSKEY removal
    ------------------------------------------------------------
     SOA_3
     RRSIG_Z_11(SOA)

     DNSKEY_K_1
     DNSKEY_Z_11

     RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)
    ------------------------------------------------------------

                    Figure 1: Pre-Publish Key Rollover

   initial:  Initial version of the zone: DNSKEY_K_1 is the Key Signing
      Key. DNSKEY_Z_10 is used to sign all the data of the zone, i.e.,
      it is the Zone Signing Key.

   new DNSKEY:  DNSKEY_Z_11 is introduced into the key set (note that no
      signatures are generated with this key yet, but this does not
      secure against brute force attacks on its public key).  The
      minimum duration of this pre-roll phase is the time it takes for
      the data to propagate to the authoritative servers, plus TTL value
      of the key set.

   new RRSIGs:  At the "new RRSIGs" stage , DNSKEY_Z_11 is used to sign
      the data in the zone exclusively (i.e., all the signatures from
      DNSKEY_Z_10 are removed from the zone).  DNSKEY_Z_10 remains
      published in the key set.  This way, data that was loaded into
      caches from the zone in the "new DNSKEY" step can still be
      verified with key sets fetched from this version of the zone.  The
      minimum time that the key set including DNSKEY_Z_10 is to be
      published is the time that it takes for zone data from the



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


      previous version of the zone to expire from old caches, i.e., the
      time it takes for this zone to propagate to all authoritative
      servers, plus the Maximum Zone TTL value of any of the data in the
      previous version of the zone.

   DNSKEY removal:  DNSKEY_Z_10 is removed from the zone.  The key set,
      now only containing DNSKEY_K_1 and DNSKEY_Z_11, is re-signed with
      the DNSKEY_K_1.

   The above scheme can be simplified by always publishing the "future"
   key immediately after the rollover.  The scheme would look as follows
   (we show two rollovers); the future key is introduced in "new DNSKEY"
   as DNSKEY_Z_12 and again a newer one, numbered 13, in "new DNSKEY
   (II)":


       initial             new RRSIGs          new DNSKEY
      -----------------------------------------------------------------
       SOA_0               SOA_1               SOA_2
       RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)     RRSIG_Z_11(SOA)     RRSIG_Z_11(SOA)

       DNSKEY_K_1          DNSKEY_K_1          DNSKEY_K_1
       DNSKEY_Z_10         DNSKEY_Z_10         DNSKEY_Z_11
       DNSKEY_Z_11         DNSKEY_Z_11         DNSKEY_Z_12
       RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)   RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)   RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)
       ----------------------------------------------------------------

       ----------------------------------------------------------------
       new RRSIGs (II)     new DNSKEY (II)
       ----------------------------------------------------------------
       SOA_3               SOA_4
       RRSIG_Z_12(SOA)     RRSIG_Z_12(SOA)

       DNSKEY_K_1          DNSKEY_K_1
       DNSKEY_Z_11         DNSKEY_Z_12
       DNSKEY_Z_12         DNSKEY_Z_13
       RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)   RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)
       ----------------------------------------------------------------

       Figure 2: Pre-Publish Zone Signing Key Rollover, Showing Two
                                 Rollovers

   Note that the key introduced in the "new DNSKEY" phase is not used
   for production yet; the private key can thus be stored in a
   physically secure manner and does not need to be 'fetched' every time
   a zone needs to be signed.





Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


4.1.1.2.  Double Signature Zone Signing Key Rollover

   This section shows how to perform a ZSK key rollover using the double
   zone data signature scheme, aptly named "Double Signature rollover".

   During the "new DNSKEY" stage the new version of the zone file will
   need to propagate to all authoritative servers and the data that
   exists in (distant) caches will need to expire, requiring at least
   the propagation delay plus the Maximum Zone TTL of previous versions
   of the zone.

   Double Signature ZSK rollover involves three stages as follows:

      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      initial             new DNSKEY         DNSKEY removal
      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      SOA_0               SOA_1              SOA_2
      RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)     RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)
                          RRSIG_Z_11(SOA)    RRSIG_Z_11(SOA)
      DNSKEY_K_1          DNSKEY_K_1         DNSKEY_K_1
      DNSKEY_Z_10         DNSKEY_Z_10
                          DNSKEY_Z_11        DNSKEY_Z_11
      RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)   RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)  RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)
      ----------------------------------------------------------------

           Figure 3: Double Signature Zone Signing Key Rollover

   initial:  Initial Version of the zone: DNSKEY_K_1 is the Key Signing
      Key. DNSKEY_Z_10 is used to sign all the data of the zone, i.e.,
      it is the Zone Signing Key.

   new DNSKEY:  At the "New DNSKEY" stage DNSKEY_Z_11 is introduced into
      the key set and all the data in the zone is signed with
      DNSKEY_Z_10 and DNSKEY_Z_11.  The rollover period will need to
      continue until all data from version 0 (i.e. the version of the
      zone data containing SOA_0) of the zone has been replaced in all
      secondary servers and then has expired from remote caches.  This
      will take at least the propagation delay plus the Maximum Zone TTL
      of version 0 of the zone.

   DNSKEY removal:  DNSKEY_Z_10 is removed from the zone as are all
      signatures created with it.  The key set, now only containing
      DNSKEY_Z_11, is re-signed with DNSKEY_K_1 and DNSKEY_Z_11.

   At every instance, RRSIGs from the previous version of the zone can
   be verified with the DNSKEY RRset from the current version and vice-
   versa.  The duration of the "new DNSKEY" phase and the period between
   rollovers should be at least the propogation delay to secondary



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   servers plus the Maximum Zone TTL of the previous version of the
   zone.

   Note that in this example we assumed for simplicity that the zone was
   not modified during the rollover.  In fact new data can be introduced
   at anytime during this period, as long as it is signed with both
   keys.

4.1.1.3.  Pros and Cons of the Schemes

   Pre-Publish key rollover:  This rollover does not involve signing the
      zone data twice.  Instead, before the actual rollover, the new key
      is published in the key set and thus is available for
      cryptanalysis attacks.  A small disadvantage is that this process
      requires four stages.  Also the Pre-Publish scheme involves more
      parental work when used for KSK rollovers as explained in
      Section 4.1.2.

   Double Signature ZSK rollover:  The drawback of this approach is that
      during the rollover the number of signatures in your zone doubles;
      this may be prohibitive if you have very big zones.  An advantage
      is that it only requires three stages.

4.1.2.  Key Signing Key Rollovers

   For the rollover of a Key Signing Key, the same considerations as for
   the rollover of a Zone Signing Key apply.  However, we can use a
   Double Signature scheme to guarantee that old data (only the apex key
   set) in caches can be verified with a new key set and vice versa.
   Since only the key set is signed with a KSK, zone size considerations
   do not apply.

   Note that KSK rollovers and ZSK rollovers are different in the sense
   that a KSK rollover requires interaction with the parent (and
   possibly replacing of trust anchors) and the ensuing delay while
   waiting for it.















Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    initial            new DNSKEY        DS change    DNSKEY removal
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
    SOA_0 -----------------------------> SOA_1 ------------------------>
    RRSIG_par(SOA) --------------------> RRSIG_par(SOA) --------------->
    DS_K_1 ----------------------------> DS_K_2 ----------------------->
    RRSIG_par(DS) ---------------------> RRSIG_par(DS) ---------------->

   Child:
    SOA_0              SOA_1 -----------------------> SOA_2
    RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)    RRSIG_Z_10(SOA) -------------> RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)

    DNSKEY_K_1         DNSKEY_K_1 ------------------>
                       DNSKEY_K_2 ------------------> DNSKEY_K_2
    DNSKEY_Z_10        DNSKEY_Z_10 -----------------> DNSKEY_Z_10
    RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)  RRSIG_K_1 (DNSKEY) ---------->
                       RRSIG_K_2 (DNSKEY) ----------> RRSIG_K_2(DNSKEY)
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------

   Figure 4: Stages of Deployment for a Double Signature Key Signing Key
                                 Rollover

   initial:  Initial version of the zone.  The parental DS points to
      DNSKEY_K_1.  Before the rollover starts, the child will have to
      verify what the TTL is of the DS RR that points to DNSKEY_K_1 --
      it is needed during the rollover and we refer to the value as
      TTL_DS.

   new DNSKEY:  During the "new DNSKEY" phase, the zone administrator
      generates a second KSK, DNSKEY_K_2.  The key is provided to the
      parent, and the child will have to wait until a new DS RR has been
      generated that points to DNSKEY_K_2.  After that DS RR has been
      published on all servers authoritative for the parent's zone, the
      zone administrator has to wait at least TTL_DS to make sure that
      the old DS RR has expired from caches.

   DS change:  The parent replaces DS_K_1 with DS_K_2.

   DNSKEY removal:  DNSKEY_K_1 has been removed.

   The scenario above puts the responsibility for maintaining a valid
   chain of trust with the child.  It also is based on the premise that
   the parent only has one DS RR (per algorithm) per zone.  An
   alternative mechanism has been considered.  Using an established
   trust relation, the interaction can be performed in-band, and the
   removal of the keys by the child can possibly be signaled by the
   parent.  In this mechanism, there are periods where there are two DS



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   RRs at the parent.  This is known as a KSK Double-DS Rollover, and is
   shown in Figure 5.  This method has some drawbacks for KSKs.  We
   first describe the rollover scheme and then indicate these drawbacks.


   --------------------------------------------------------------------
     initial         new DS         new DNSKEY       DS removal
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
     SOA_0           SOA_1 ------------------------> SOA_2
     RRSIG_par(SOA)  RRSIG_par(SOA) ---------------> RRSIG_par(SOA)
     DS_K_1          DS_K_1 ----------------------->
                     DS_K_2 -----------------------> DS_K_2
     RRSIG_par(DS)   RRSIG_par(DS) ----------------> RRSIG_par(DS)

   Child:
     SOA_0 -----------------------> SOA_1 ---------------------------->
     RRSIG_Z_10(SOA) -------------> RRSIG_Z_10(SOA) ------------------>

     DNSKEY_K_1 ------------------> DNSKEY_K_2 ----------------------->
     DNSKEY_Z_10 -----------------> DNSKEY_Z_10 ---------------------->
     RRSIG_K_1 (DNSKEY) ----------> RRSIG_K_2 (DNSKEY) --------------->
   --------------------------------------------------------------------

      Figure 5: Stages of Deployment for a Double-DS Key Signing Key
                                 Rollover

   When the child zone wants to roll, it notifies the parent during the
   "new DS" phase and submits the new key (or the corresponding DS) to
   the parent.  The parent publishes DS_K_1 and DS_K_2, pointing to
   DNSKEY_K_1 and DNSKEY_K_2, respectively.  During the rollover ("new
   DNSKEY" phase), which can take place as soon as the new DS set
   propagated through the DNS, the child replaces DNSKEY_K_1 with
   DNSKEY_K_2.  If the old key has expired from caches, at the "DS
   removal" phase, the parent can be notified that the old DS record can
   be deleted.

   The drawbacks of this scheme are that, during the "new DS" phase, the
   parent cannot verify the match between the DS_K_2 RR and DNSKEY_K_2
   using the DNS -- as DNSKEY_K_2 is not yet published.  Besides, we
   introduce a "security lame" key (see Section 4.3.3).  Finally, the
   child-parent interaction consists of two steps.  The "Double
   Signature" method only needs one interaction.

4.1.2.1.  Special Considerations for RFC 5011 KSK rollover

   The scenario sketched above assumes that the KSK is not in use as a
   trust anchor, but that validating name servers exclusively depend on



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   the parental DS record to establish the zone's security.  If it is
   known that validating name servers have configured trust anchors,
   then that needs to be taken into account.  Here we assume that zone
   administrators will deploy RFC 5011 [RFC5011] style rollovers.

   RFC 5011 style rollovers increase the duration of key rollovers: the
   key to be removed must first be revoked.  Thus, before the DNSKEY_K_1
   removal phase, DNSKEY_K_1 must be published for one more Maximum Zone
   TTL with the REVOKE bit set.  The revoked key must be self-signed, so
   in this phase the DNSKEY RRset must also be signed with DNSKEY_K_1.

4.1.3.  Rollover for a Single Type Signing Scheme Key Rollover

   The rollover of a key when a Single Type Signing Scheme is used is
   subject to the same requirement as the rollover of a KSK or ZSK:
   During any stage of the rollover, the chain of trust needs to
   continue to validate for any combination of data in the zone as well
   as data that may still live in distant caches.

   There are two variants for this rollover.  Since the choice for a
   Single Type Signing Scheme is motivated by operational simplicity we
   describe the most straightforward rollover scheme first.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------
     initial           new DNSKEY      DS change     DNSKEY removal
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
     SOA_0 --------------------------> SOA_1 ---------------------->
     RRSIG_par(SOA) -----------------> RRSIG_par(SOA) ------------->
     DS_S_1 -------------------------> DS_S_2 --------------------->
     RRSIG_par(DS_S_1) --------------> RRSIG_par(DS_S_2) ---------->

   Child:
     SOA_0             SOA_1 ----------------------> SOA_2
     RRSIG_S_1(SOA)    RRSIG_S_1(SOA) ------------->
                       RRSIG_S_2(SOA) -------------> RRSIG_S_2(SOA)
     DNSKEY_S_1        DNSKEY_S_1 ----------------->
                       DNSKEY_S_2 -----------------> DNSKEY_S_2
     RRSIG_S_1(DNSKEY) RRSIG_S_1(DNSKEY) ---------->
                       RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY) ----------> RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY)
     -----------------------------------------------------------------

     Figure 6: Stages of the Straightforward rollover in a Single Type
                              Signing Scheme







Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   initial:  Parental DS points to DNSKEY_S_1.  All RRsets in the zone
      are signed with DNSKEY_S_1.

   new DNSKEY:  A new key (DNSKEY_S_2) is introduced and all the RRsets
      are signed with both DNSKEY_S_1 and DNSKEY_S_2.

   DS change:  After the DNSKEY RRset with the two keys had time to
      propagate into distant caches (that is the key set exclusively
      containing DNSKEY_S_1 has been expired) the parental DS record can
      be changed.

   DNSKEY removal:  After the DS RRset containing DS_S_1 has expired
      from distant caches, DNSKEY_S_1 can be removed from the DNSKEY
      RRset.

   In this first variant, the new signatures and new public key are
   added to the zone.  Once they are propagated, the DS at the parent is
   switched.  If the old DS has expired from the caches, the old
   signatures and old public key can be removed from the zone.

   This rollover has the drawback that it introduces double signatures
   over all data of the zone.  Taking these zone size considerations
   into account, it is possible to not introduce the signatures made
   with DNSKEY_S_2 at the "new DNSKEY" step.  Instead, signatures of
   DNSKEY_S_1 are replaced with signatures of DNSKEY_S_2 in an
   additional stage between the "DS change" and "DNSKEY removal" step:
   After the DS RRset containing DS_S_1 has expired from distant caches,
   the signatures can be swapped.  Only after the new signatures made
   with DNSKEY_S_2 have been propagated, the old public key DNSKEY_S_1
   can be removed from the DNSKEY RRset.

   The second variant of Single Type Signing Scheme Key rollover is the
   Double-DS rollver.  In this variant, one introduces a new DNSKEY into
   the key set and submits the new DS to the parent.  The new key is not
   yet used to sign RRsets.  The signatures made with DNSKEY_S_1 are
   replaced with signatures made with DNSKEY_S_2 at the moment that
   DNSKEY_S_2 and DS_S_2 have been propagated.














Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


------------------------------------------------------------------------
  initial            new DS         new RRSIG         DS removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parent:
  SOA_0              SOA_1 -------------------------> SOA_2
  RRSIG_par(SOA)     RRSIG_par(SOA) ----------------> RRSIG_par(SOA)
  DS_S_1             DS_S_1 ------------------------>
                     DS_S_2 ------------------------> DS_S_2
  RRSIG_par(DS)      RRSIG_par(DS) -----------------> RRSIG_par(DS)

Child:
  SOA_0              SOA_1          SOA_2             SOA_3
  RRSIG_S_1(SOA)     RRSIG_S_1(SOA) RRSIG_S_2(SOA)    RRSIG_S_2(SOA)

  DNSKEY_S_1         DNSKEY_S_1     DNSKEY_S_1
                     DNSKEY_S_2     DNSKEY_S_2        DNSKEY_S_2
  RRSIG_S_1 (DNSKEY)                RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY) RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure 7: Stages of Deployment for a Double-DS Rollover in a Single
                            Type Signing Scheme

4.1.4.  Algorithm rollovers

   A special class of key rollovers is the one needed for a change of
   signature algorithms (either adding a new algorithm, removing an old
   algorithm, or both).  Additional steps are needed to retain integrity
   during this rollover.  We first describe the generic case; special
   considerations for rollovers that involve trust anchors and single
   type keys are discussed later.

   There exist both a conservative and a liberal approach for algorithm
   rollover.  This has to do with section 2.2 in RFC 4035 [RFC4035]:


    There MUST be an RRSIG for each RRset using at least one DNSKEY of
    each algorithm in the zone apex DNSKEY RRset.  The apex DNSKEY RRset
    itself MUST be signed by each algorithm appearing in the DS RRset
    located at the delegating parent (if any).


   The conservative approach interprets this section very strictly,
   meaning that it expects that every RRset has a valid signature for
   every algorithm signalled by the zone apex DNSKEY RRset - including
   RRsets in caches.  The liberal approach uses a more loose
   interpretation of the section and limits the rule to RRsets in the
   zone at the authoritative name servers.  There is a reasonable
   argument for saying that this is valid, because the specific section



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   is a subsection of section 2. in RFC 4035: Zone Signing.

   When following the more liberal approach, algorithm rollover is just
   as easy as a regular Double-Signature KSK rollover (Section 4.1.2).
   Note that the Double-DS KSK rollover method cannot be used, since
   that would introduce a parental DS of which the apex DNSKEY RRset has
   not been signed with the introduced algorithm.

   However, there are implementations of validators known that follow
   the more conservative approach.  Performing a Double-Signature KSK
   algorithm rollover will temporarily make your zone appear as Bogus by
   such validators during the rollover.  Therefore, the rollover
   described in this section will explain the stages of deployment
   assuming the conservative approach.

   When adding a new algorithm, the signatures should be added first.
   After the TTL of RRSIGS has expired, and caches have dropped the old
   data covered by those signatures, the DNSKEY with the new algorithm
   can be added.

   After the new algorithm has been added, the DS record can be
   exchanged using Double-Signature KSK Rollover.

   When removing an old algorithm, the DS for the algorithm should be
   removed from the parent zone first, followed by the DNSKEY and the
   signatures (in the child zone).

   Figure 8 describes the steps.























Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   ----------------------------------------------------------------
    initial              new RRSIGs           new DNSKEY
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
    SOA_0 -------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(SOA) ----------------------------------------------->
    DS_K_1 ------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(DS_K_1) -------------------------------------------->

   Child:
    SOA_0                SOA_1                SOA_2
    RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)      RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)      RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)
                         RRSIG_Z_11(SOA)      RRSIG_Z_11(SOA)

    DNSKEY_K_1           DNSKEY_K_1           DNSKEY_K_1
                                              DNSKEY_K_2
    DNSKEY_Z_10          DNSKEY_Z_10          DNSKEY_Z_10
                                              DNSKEY_Z_11
    RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)
                                              RRSIG_K_2(DNSKEY)

   ----------------------------------------------------------------
    new DS               DNSKEY removal       RRSIGs removal
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
    SOA_1 ------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(SOA) ---------------------------------------------->
    DS_K_2 ------------------------------------------------------>
    RRSIG_par(DS_K_2) ------------------------------------------->

   Child:
    -------------------> SOA_3                SOA_4
    -------------------> RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)
    -------------------> RRSIG_Z_11(SOA)      RRSIG_Z_11(SOA)

    ------------------->
    -------------------> DNSKEY_K_2           DNSKEY_K_2
    ------------------->
    -------------------> DNSKEY_Z_11          DNSKEY_Z_11
    ------------------->
    -------------------> RRSIG_K_2(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_K_2(DNSKEY)
   ----------------------------------------------------------------

        Figure 8: Stages of Deployment during an Algorithm Rollover







Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   initial:  Describes state of the zone before any transition is done.
      The number of the keys may vary, but all keys (in DNSKEY records)
      for the zone use the same algorithm.

   new RRSIGs:  The signatures made with the new key over all records in
      the zone are added, but the key itself is not.  This step is
      needed to propagate the signatures created with the new algorithm
      to the caches.  If this is not done, it is possible for a resolver
      to retrieve the new DNSKEY RRset (containing the new algorithm)
      but to have RRsets in its cache with signatures created by the old
      DNSKEY RRset (i.e. without the new algorithm).

      The RRSIG for the DNSKEY RRset does not need to be pre-published
      (since these records will travel together), and does not need
      special processing in order to keep them synchronized.

   new DNSKEY:  After the old data has expired from caches, the new key
      can be added to the zone.

   new DS:  After the cache data for the old DNSKEY RRset has expired,
      the DS record for the new key can be added to the parent zone and
      the DS record for the old key can be removed in the same step.

   DNSKEY removal:  After the cache data for the old DS RRset has
      expired, the old algorithm can be removed.  This time the old key
      needs to be removed first, before removing the old signatures.

   RRSIGs removal:  After the cache data for the old DNSKEY RRset has
      expired, the old signatures can also be removed during this step.

   Below we deal with a few special cases of algorithm rollovers:

   1: Single Type Signing Scheme Algorithm Rollover:  when there is no
      differentiation between Zone and Key signing keys
      (Section 4.1.4.1).

   2: RFC 5011 Algorithm Rollover:  when trust anchors can track the
      roll via RFC 5011 style rollover (Section 4.1.4.2).

   3: 1 and 2 combined:  when a Single Type Signing Scheme Algorithm
      rollover is performed RFC 5011 style (Section 4.1.4.3).

   In addition to the narrative below, these special cases are
   represented in Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14 in Appendix C.







Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


4.1.4.1.  Single Type Signing Scheme Algorithm Rollover

   If one key is used that acts both as ZSK and KSK, the same scheme and
   figure as above (in Section 4.1.4, Figure 8) applies whereby all
   DNSKEY_Z_* records from the table are removed and all RRSIG_Z_* are
   replaced with RRSIG_S_*.  All DNSKEY_K_* records are replaced with
   DNSKEY_S_* and all RRSIG_K_* records are replaced with RRSIG_S_*.
   The requirement to sign with both algorithms and make sure that old
   RRSIGS have the opportunity to expire from distant caches before
   introducing the new algorithm in the DNSKEY RRset is still valid.

   This is shown in Figure 12 in Appendix C.

4.1.4.2.  Algorithm rollover, RFC 5011 style

   Trust anchor algorithm rollover is almost as simple as a regular RFC
   5011 based rollover.  However, the old trust anchor must be revoked
   before it is removed from the zone.

   The timeline (see Figure 13 in Appendix C) is similar to that of
   Figure 8 above, but after the "new DS" step, an additional step is
   required where the DNSKEY is revoked.  The details of this step
   ("revoke DNSKEY") are shown in figure Figure 9 below.




























Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   ---------------------------------
     revoke DNSKEY
   ---------------------------------
   Parent:
     ----------------------------->
     ----------------------------->
     ----------------------------->
     ----------------------------->

   Child:
     SOA_3
     RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)
     RRSIG_Z_11(SOA)

     DNSKEY_K_1_REVOKED
     DNSKEY_K_2

     DNSKEY_Z_11
     RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)
     RRSIG_K_2(DNSKEY)
   --------------------------------

      Figure 9: The Revoke DNSKEY state that is added to an algorithm
                     rollover when RFC 5011 is in use.

   There is one exception to the requirement from RFC 4035 quoted in
   section 4.1.5 above: while all zone data must be signed with an
   unrevoked key, it is permissible to sign the key set with a revoked
   key.  The somewhat esoteric argument is as follows:

   Resolvers that do not understand the RFC 5011 Revoke flag will handle
   DNSKEY_K_1_REVOKED the same as if it was DNSKEY_K_1.  In other words,
   they will handle the revoked key as a normal key, and thus RRsets
   signed with this key will validate.  As a result, the signature
   matches the algorithm listed in the DNSKEY RRset.

   Resolvers that do implement RFC 5011 will remove DNSKEY_K_1 from the
   set of trust anchors.  That is okay, since they have already added
   DNSKEY_K_2 as the new trust anchor.  Thus, algorithm 2 is the only
   signaled algorithm by now.  That means, we only need
   RRSIG_K_2(DNSKEY) to authenticate the DNSKEY RRset, and we still are
   compliant with section 2.2 from RFC 4035: There must be an RRSIG for
   each RRset using at least one DNSKEY of each algorithm in the zone
   apex DNSKEY RRset.







Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


4.1.4.3.  Single Signing Type Algorithm Rollover, RFC 5011 style

   If a decision is made to perform an RFC 5011 style rollover with a
   Single Signing Scheme key, it should be noted that section 2.1 of RFC
   5011 states:


       Once the resolver sees the REVOKE bit, it MUST NOT use this key
       as a trust anchor or for any other purpose except to validate
       the RRSIG it signed over the DNSKEY RRset specifically for the
       purpose of validating the revocation.


   This means that if once DNSKEY_S_1 is revoked, it cannot be used to
   validate its signatures over non-DNSKEY RRsets.  Thus, those RRsets
   should be signed with a shadow key, DNSKEY_Z_10, during the algorithm
   rollover.  The shadow key can be removed at the same time the revoked
   DNSKEY_S_1 is removed from the zone.  In other words, the zone must
   temporarily fall back to a KSK/ZSK split model during the rollover.

   In other words, the rule that at every RRset there must be at least
   one signature for each algorithm used in the DNSKEY RRset still
   applies.  This means that a different key with the same algorithm,
   other than the revoked key, must sign the entire zone.  Thus, more
   operations are needed if the Single Type Signing Scheme is used.
   Before rolling the algorithm, a new key must be introduced with the
   same algorithm as the key that is candidate for revocation.  That key
   can than temporarily act as ZSK during the algorithm rollover.

   As with algorithm rollover RFC 5011 style, while all zone data must
   be signed with an unrevoked key, it is permissible to sign the key
   set with a revoked key using the same esoteric argument given in
   Section 4.1.4.2.

   The lesson of all of this is that a Single Type Signing Scheme
   algorithm rollover using RFC 5011 is as complicated as the name of
   the rollover implies: reverting to a split key scheme for the
   duration of the rollover may be preferable.

4.1.4.4.  NSEC to NSEC3 algorithm rollover

   A special case is the rollover from an NSEC signed zone to an NSEC3
   signed zone.  In this case algorithm numbers are used to signal
   support for NSEC3 but they do not mandate the use of NSEC3.
   Therefore, NSEC records should remain in the zone until the rollover
   to a new algorithm has completed and the new DNSKEY RRset has
   populated distant caches, at the end of the "new DNSKEY" stage.  At
   that point the validators that have not implemented NSEC3 will treat



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   the zone as unsecured as soon as they follow the chain of trust to
   the DS that points to a DNSKEY of the new algorithm, while validators
   that support NSEC3 will happily validate using NSEC.  Turning on
   NSEC3 can then be done during the "new DS" step: increasing the
   serial number, introducing the NSEC3PARAM record to signal that NSEC3
   authenticated denial of existence data should be served, and
   resigning the zone.

   Summarizing, an NSEC to NSEC3 rollover is an ordinary algorithm
   rollover whereby NSEC is used all the time and only after that
   rollover finished NSEC3 needs to be deployed.  The procedures are
   also listed in Sections 10.4 and 10.5 of RFC 5155 [RFC5155].

4.1.5.  Considerations for Automated Key Rollovers

   As keys must be renewed periodically, there is some motivation to
   automate the rollover process.  Consider the following:

   o  ZSK rollovers are easy to automate as only the child zone is
      involved.

   o  A KSK rollover needs interaction between parent and child.  Data
      exchange is needed to provide the new keys to the parent;
      consequently, this data must be authenticated and integrity must
      be guaranteed in order to avoid attacks on the rollover.

4.2.  Planning for Emergency Key Rollover

   This section deals with preparation for a possible key compromise.
   It is advised to have a documented procedure ready for when a key
   compromise is suspected or confirmed.

   When the private material of one of a zone's keys is compromised it
   can be used by an attacker for as long as a valid trust chain exists.
   A trust chain remains intact for

   o  as long as a signature over the compromised key in the trust chain
      is valid, and

   o  as long as the DS RR in the parent zone points to the
      (compromised) key signing the DNSKEY RRset, and

   o  as long as the (compromised) key is anchored in a resolver and is
      used as a starting point for validation (this is generally the
      hardest to update).

   While a trust chain to a zone's compromised key exists, your
   namespace is vulnerable to abuse by anyone who has obtained



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 37]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   illegitimate possession of the key.  Zone administrators have to make
   a decision as to whether the abuse of the compromised key is worse
   than having data in caches that cannot be validated.  If the zone
   administrator chooses to break the trust chain to the compromised
   key, data in caches signed with this key cannot be validated.
   However, if the zone administrator chooses to take the path of a
   regular rollover, during the rollover the malicious key holder can
   continue to spoof data so that it appears to be valid.

4.2.1.  KSK Compromise

   A compromised KSK can be used to sign the key set of an attacker's
   version of the zone.  That zone could be used to poison the DNS.

   A zone containing a DNSKEY RRset with a compromised KSK is vulnerable
   as long as the compromised KSK is configured as trust anchor or a DS
   record in the parent zone points to it.

   Therefore, when the KSK has been compromised, the trust anchor or the
   parent DS record should be replaced as soon as possible.  It is local
   policy whether to break the trust chain during the emergency
   rollover.  The trust chain would be broken when the compromised KSK
   is removed from the child's zone while the parent still has a DS
   record pointing to the compromised KSK.  The assumption is that there
   is only one DS record at the parent.  If there are multiple DS
   records this does not apply, although the chain of trust of this
   particular key is broken.

   Note that an attacker's version of the zone still uses the
   compromised KSK and the presence of the corresponding DS record in
   the parent would cause the data in this zone to appear as valid.
   Removing the compromised key would cause the attacker's version of
   the zone to appear as valid and the original zone as Bogus.
   Therefore, we advise not to remove the KSK before the parent has a DS
   record for the new KSK in place.

4.2.1.1.  Emergency Key Rollover Keeping the Chain of Trust Intact

   If it is desired to perform an emergency key rollover in a manner
   that keeps the chain of trust intact, the timing of the replacement
   of the KSK is somewhat critical.  The goal is to remove the
   compromised KSK as soon as the new DS RR is available at the parent.
   This means ensuring that the signature made with a new KSK over the
   key set that contains the compromised KSK expires just after the new
   DS appears at the parent.  Expiration of that signature will cause
   expiration of that key set from the caches.

   The procedure is as follows:



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 38]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   1.  Introduce a new KSK into the key set, keep the compromised KSK in
       the key set.  Lower the TTL for DNSKEYs so that the DNSKEY RRset
       will expire from caches sooner.

   2.  Sign the key set, with a short validity period.  The validity
       period should expire shortly after the DS is expected to appear
       in the parent and the old DSes have expired from caches.  This
       provides an upper limit on how long the compromised KSK can be
       used in a replay attack.

   3.  Upload the DS for this new key to the parent.

   4.  Follow the procedure of the regular KSK rollover: Wait for the DS
       to appear at the authoritative servers and then wait as long as
       the TTL of the old DS RRs.  If necessary, re-sign the DNSKEY
       RRset and modify/extend the expiration time.

   5.  Remove the compromised DNSKEY RR from the zone and re-sign the
       key set using your "normal" TTL and signature validity period.

   An additional danger of a key compromise is that the compromised key
   could be used to facilitate a legitimately looking DNSKEY/DS rollover
   and/or name server changes at the parent.  When that happens, the
   domain may be in dispute.  An authenticated out-of-band and secure
   notify mechanism to contact a parent is needed in this case.

   Note that this is only a problem when the DNSKEY and or DS records
   are used to authenticate communication with the parent.

4.2.1.2.  Emergency Key Rollover Breaking the Chain of Trust

   There are two methods to perform an emergency key rollover in a
   manner that breaks the chain of trust.  The first method causes the
   child zone to appear Bogus to validating resolvers.  The other causes
   the child zone to appear Insecure.  These are described below.

   In the method that causes the child zone to appear Bogus to
   validating resolvers, the child zone replaces the current KSK with a
   new one and re-signs the key set.  Next, it sends the DS of the new
   key to the parent.  Only after the parent has placed the new DS in
   the zone is the child's chain of trust repaired.  Note that until
   that time, the child zone is still vulnerable to spoofing: the
   attacker is still in possession of the compromised key that the DS
   points to.

   An alternative method of breaking the chain of trust is by removing
   the DS RRs from the parent zone altogether.  As a result, the child
   zone would become Insecure.  After the DS has expired from distant



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 39]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   caches, the keys and signatures are removed from the child zone, new
   keys and signatures are introduced and finally, a new DS is submitted
   to the parent.

4.2.2.  ZSK Compromise

   Primarily because there is no interaction with the parent required
   when a ZSK is compromised, the situation is less severe than with a
   KSK compromise.  The zone must still be re-signed with a new ZSK as
   soon as possible.  As this is a local operation and requires no
   communication between the parent and child, this can be achieved
   fairly quickly.  However, one has to take into account that -- just
   as with a normal rollover -- the immediate disappearance of the old
   compromised key may lead to verification problems.  Also note that
   until the RRSIG over the compromised ZSK has expired, the zone may be
   still at risk.

4.2.3.  Compromises of Keys Anchored in Resolvers

   A key can also be pre-configured in resolvers as a trust anchor.  If
   trust anchor keys are compromised, the administrators of resolvers
   using these keys should be notified of this fact.  Zone
   administrators may consider setting up a mailing list to communicate
   the fact that a SEP key is about to be rolled over.  This
   communication will of course need to be authenticated by some means,
   e.g. by using digital signatures.

   End-users faced with the task of updating an anchored key should
   always verify the new key.  New keys should be authenticated out-of-
   band, for example, through the use of an announcement website that is
   secured using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246].

4.2.4.  Stand-by Keys

   Stand-by keys are keys that are published in your zone, but are not
   used to sign RRsets.  There are two reasons why someone would want to
   use stand-by keys.  One is to speed up the emergency key rollover.
   The other is to recover from a disaster that leaves your production
   private keys inaccessible.

   The way to deal with stand-by keys differs for ZSKs and KSKs.  To
   make a stand-by ZSK, you need to publish its DNSKEY RR.  To make a
   stand-by KSK, you need to get its DS RR published at the parent.

   Assuming you have your normal DNS operation, to prepare stand-by keys
   you need to:





Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 40]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   o  Generate a stand-by ZSK and KSK.  Store them safely in a different
      location to the place where the currently used ZSK and KSK are
      held.

   o  Pre-publish the DNSKEY RR of the stand-by ZSK in the zone.

   o  Pre-publish the DS of the stand-by KSK in the parent zone.

   Now suppose a disaster occurs and disables access to the currently
   used keys.  To recover from that situation, follow these procedures:

   o  Set up your DNS operations and introduce the stand-by KSK into the
      zone.

   o  Post-publish the disabled ZSK and sign the zone with the stand-by
      keys.

   o  After some time, when the new signatures have been propagated, the
      old keys, old signatures and the old DS can be removed.

   o  Generate a new stand-by key set at a different location and
      continue "normal" operation.

4.3.  Parent Policies

4.3.1.  Initial Key Exchanges and Parental Policies Considerations

   The initial key exchange is always subject to the policies set by the
   parent.  It is specifically important in a registry-registrar-
   registrant model where a registry maintains the parent zone, and the
   registrant (the user of the child-domain name) deals with the
   registry through an intermediary called a registrar (see [RFC3375]
   for a comprehensive definition).  The key material is to be passed
   from the DNS operator to the parent via a registrar, where both DNS
   operator and registrar are selected by the registrant and might be
   different organisations.  When designing a key exchange policy, one
   should take into account that the authentication and authorization
   mechanisms used during a key exchange should be as strong as the
   authentication and authorization mechanisms used for the exchange of
   delegation information between parent and child.  That is, there is
   no implicit need in DNSSEC to make the authentication process
   stronger than it is for regular DNS.

   Using the DNS itself as the source for the actual DNSKEY material has
   the benefit that it reduces the chances of user error.  A DNSKEY
   query tool can make use of the SEP bit [RFC4035] to select the proper
   key(s) from a DNSSEC key set, thereby reducing the chance that the
   wrong DNSKEY is sent.  It can validate the self-signature over a key;



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 41]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   thereby verifying the ownership of the private key material.
   Fetching the DNSKEY from the DNS ensures that the chain of trust
   remains intact once the parent publishes the DS RR indicating the
   child is secure.

   Note: out-of-band verification is still needed when the key material
   is fetched for the first time, even via DNS.  The parent can never be
   sure whether or not the DNSKEY RRs have been spoofed.

   With some type of key rollovers, the DNSKEY is not pre-published and
   a DNSKEY query tool is not able to retrieve the successor key.  In
   this case, the out-of-band method is required.  This also allows the
   child to determine the digest algorithm of the DS record.

4.3.2.  Storing Keys or Hashes?

   When designing a registry system one should consider whether to store
   the DNSKEYs and/or the corresponding DSes.  Since a child zone might
   wish to have a DS published using a message digest algorithm not yet
   understood by the registry, the registry can't count on being able to
   generate the DS record from a raw DNSKEY.  Thus, we suggest that
   registry systems should be able to store DS RRs, even if they also
   store DNSKEYs (see also draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-trust-anchor
   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dnssec-trust-anchor]).

   The storage considerations also relate to the design of the customer
   interface and the method by which data is transferred between
   registrant and registry: will the child zone administrator be able to
   upload DS RRs with unknown hash algorithms or does the interface only
   allow DNSKEYs?  When registries support the Extensible Provisioning
   Protocol (EPP) [RFC5910], that can be used for registrar-registry
   interactions since that protocol allows the transfer of both DS and,
   optionally, DNSKEY RRs.  There is no standardized way for moving the
   data between the customer and the registrar.  Different registrars
   have different mechanisms, ranging from simple web interfaces to
   various APIs.  In some cases the use of the DNSSEC extensions to EPP
   may be applicable.

   Having an out-of-band mechanism, such as a registry directory (e.g.,
   Whois), to find out which keys are used to generate DS Resource
   Records for specific owners and/or zones may also help with
   troubleshooting.

4.3.3.  Security Lameness

   Security lameness is defined as the state whereby the parent has a DS
   RR pointing to a non-existant DNSKEY RR.  Security lameness may occur
   temporarily during a Double-DS rollover scheme.  However care should



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 42]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   be taken that not all DS RRs are pointing to a non-existing DNSKEY
   RR, which will cause the child's zone to be marked Bogus by verifying
   DNS clients.

   As part of a comprehensive delegation check, the parent could, at key
   exchange time, verify that the child's key is actually configured in
   the DNS.  However, if a parent does not understand the hashing
   algorithm used by the child, the parental checks are limited to only
   comparing the key id.

   Child zones should be very careful in removing DNSKEY material,
   specifically SEP keys, for which a DS RR exists.

   Once a zone is "security lame", a fix (e.g., removing a DS RR) will
   take time to propagate through the DNS.

4.3.4.  DS Signature Validity Period

   Since the DS can be replayed as long as it has a valid signature, a
   short signature validity period for the DS RRSIG minimizes the time a
   child is vulnerable in the case of a compromise of the child's
   KSK(s).  A signature validity period that is too short introduces the
   possibility that a zone is marked Bogus in case of a configuration
   error in the signer.  There may not be enough time to fix the
   problems before signatures expire (this is a generic argument; also
   see Section 4.4.2).  Something as mundane as zone administrator
   unavailability during weekends shows the need for DS signature
   validity periods longer than two days.  Just like any signature
   validity period, we suggest an absolute minimum for the DS signature
   validity period of a few days.

   The maximum signature validity period of the DS record depends on how
   long child zones are willing to be vulnerable after a key compromise.
   On the other hand, shortening the DS signature validity period
   increases the operational risk for the parent.  Therefore, the parent
   may have policy to use a signature validity period that is
   considerably longer than the child would hope for.

   A compromise between the policy/operational constraints of the parent
   and minimizing damage for the child may result in a DS signature
   validity period somewhere between a week and several months.

   In addition to the signature validity period, which sets a lower
   bound on the number of times the zone administrator will need to sign
   the zone data, and an upper bound to the time a child is vulnerable
   after key compromise, there is the TTL value on the DS RRs.
   Shortening the TTL reduces the damage of a successful replay attack.
   It does mean that the authoritative servers will see more queries.



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 43]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   But on the other hand, a short TTL lowers the persistence of DS
   RRsets in caches thereby increasing the speed with which updated DS
   RRsets propagate through the DNS.

4.3.5.  Changing DNS Operators

   The parent-child relation is often described in terms of a registry-
   registrar-registrant model, where a registry maintains the parent
   zone, and the registrant (the user of the child-domain name) deals
   with the registry through an intermediary called a registrar
   [RFC3375].  Registrants may out-source the maintenance of their DNS
   system, including the maintenance of DNSSEC key material, to the
   registrar or to another third party, referred to here as the DNS
   operator.

   For various reasons, a registrant may want to move between DNS
   operators.  How easy this move will be depends principally on the DNS
   operator from which the registrant is moving (the losing operator),
   as they have control over the DNS zone and its keys.  The following
   sections describe the two cases: where the losing operator cooperates
   with the new operator (the gaining operator), and where the two do
   not cooperate.

4.3.5.1.  Cooperating DNS operators

   In this scenario, it is assumed that the losing operator will not
   pass any private key material to the gaining operator (that would
   constitute a trivial case) but is otherwise fully cooperative.

   In this environment, the change could be made with a Pre-Publish ZSK
   rollover whereby the losing operator pre-publishes the ZSK of the
   gaining operator, combined with a Double Signature KSK rollover where
   the two registrars exchange public keys and independently generate a
   signature over those key sets that they combine and both publish in
   their copy of the zone.  Once that is done they can use their own
   private keys to sign any of their zone content during the transfer.















Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 44]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


    ------------------------------------------------------------
    initial            |        pre-publish                    |
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Parent:
     NS_A                            NS_A
     DS_A                            DS_A
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Child at A:            Child at A:        Child at B:
     SOA_A0                 SOA_A1             SOA_B0
     RRSIG_Z_A(SOA)         RRSIG_Z_A(SOA)     RRSIG_Z_B(SOA)

     NS_A                   NS_A               NS_B
     RRSIG_Z_A(NS)          NS_B               RRSIG_Z_B(NS)
                            RRSIG_Z_A(NS)

     DNSKEY_Z_A             DNSKEY_Z_A         DNSKEY_Z_A
                            DNSKEY_Z_B         DNSKEY_Z_B
     DNSKEY_K_A             DNSKEY_K_A         DNSKEY_K_A
                            DNSKEY_K_B         DNSKEY_K_B
     RRSIG_K_A(DNSKEY)      RRSIG_K_A(DNSKEY)  RRSIG_K_A(DNSKEY)
                            RRSIG_K_B(DNSKEY)  RRSIG_K_B(DNSKEY)
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------
          redelegation                 |   post migration      |
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Parent:
              NS_B                           NS_B
              DS_B                           DS_B
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Child at A:        Child at B:           Child at B:

     SOA_A1             SOA_B0                SOA_B1
     RRSIG_Z_A(SOA)     RRSIG_Z_B(SOA)        RRSIG_Z_B(SOA)

     NS_A               NS_B                  NS_B
     NS_B               RRSIG_Z_B(NS)         RRSIG_Z_B(NS)
     RRSIG_Z_A(NS)

     DNSKEY_Z_A         DNSKEY_Z_A
     DNSKEY_Z_B         DNSKEY_Z_B            DNSKEY_Z_B
     DNSKEY_K_A         DNSKEY_K_A
     DNSKEY_K_B         DNSKEY_K_B            DNSKEY_K_B
     RRSIG_K_A(DNSKEY)  RRSIG_K_A(DNSKEY)
     RRSIG_K_B(DNSKEY)  RRSIG_K_B(DNSKEY)     RRSIG_K_B(DNSKEY)
    ------------------------------------------------------------

               Figure 10: Rollover for cooperating operators



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 45]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   In this figure A denotes the losing operator and B the gaining
   operator.  RRSIG_Z is the RRSIG produced by a ZSK, RRSIG_K is
   produced with a KSK, the appended A or B indicates the producers of
   the key pair.  "Child at A" is how the zone content is represented by
   the losing DNS operator and "Child at B" is how the zone content is
   represented by the gaining DNS operator.

   The zone is initially delegated from the parent to the name servers
   of operator A. Operator A uses his own ZSK and KSK to sign the zone.
   The cooperating operator A will pre-publish the new NS record and the
   ZSK and KSK of operator B, including the RRSIG over the DNSKEY RRset
   generated by the KSK of B. Operator B needs to publish the same
   DNSKEY RRset.  When that DNSKEY RRset has populated the caches, the
   re-delegation can be made, which involves adjusting the NS and DS
   records in the parent zone to point to operator B. And after all
   DNSSEC records related to A have expired from the caches, operator B
   can stop publishing the keys and signatures belonging to operator A
   and vice versa.

   The requirement to exchange signatures has a couple of drawbacks.  It
   requires more operational overhead, because not only the operators
   have to exchange public keys, they also have to exchange the
   signatures of the new DNSKEY RRset.  This drawback does not exist if
   the Double Signature KSK rollover is replaced with a Double-DS KSK
   rollover.  See Figure 15 in Appendix D for the diagram.

   Thus, if the registry and registrars allow DS records to be published
   that do not point to a published DNSKEY in the child zone, the
   Double-DS KSK rollover is preferred (see Figure 5), in combination
   with the Pre-Publish ZSK rollover.  This does not require sharing the
   KSK signatures between the operators, but both operators still have
   to publish each others ZSKs.

4.3.5.2.  Non Cooperating DNS Operators

   In the non-cooperative case matters are more complicated.  The losing
   operator may not cooperate and leave the data in the DNS as is.  In
   the extreme case the losing operator may become obstructive and
   publish a DNSKEY RR with a high TTL and corresponding signature
   validity period so that registrar A's DNSKEY could end up in caches
   for (in theory at least) tens of years.

   The problem arises when a validator tries to validate with the losing
   operator's key and there is no signature material produced with the
   losing operator available in the delegation path after re-delegation
   from the losing operator to the gaining operator has taken place.
   One could imagine a rollover scenario where the gaining operator
   takes a copy of all RRSIGs created by the losing operator and



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 46]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   publishes those in conjunction with its own signatures, but that
   would not allow any changes in the zone content.  Since a re-
   delegation took place, the NS RRset has - by definition - changed so
   such rollover scenario will not work.  Besides if zone transfers are
   not allowed by the losing operator and NSEC3 is deployed in the
   losing operator's zone, then the gaining operator's zone will not
   have certainty that all of A's RRSIGs have been copied.

   The only viable operation for the registrant is to have their zone go
   Insecure for the duration of the change.  The registry should be
   asked to remove the DS RR pointing to the losing operator's DNSKEY
   and to change the NS RRset to point to the gaining operator.  Once
   this has propagated through the DNS, the registry should be asked to
   insert the DS record pointing to the (newly signed) zone at operator
   B.

   Note that some behavior of resolver implementations may aid in the
   process of changing DNS operators:

   o  TTL sanity checking, as described in RFC 2308 [RFC2308], will
      limit the impact the actions of an obstructive, losing operator.
      Resolvers that implement TTL sanity checking will use an upper
      limit for TTLs on RRsets in responses.

   o  If RRsets at the zone cut (are about to) expire, the resolver
      restarts its search above the zone cut.  Otherwise, the resolver
      risks to keep using a name server that might be un-delegated by
      the parent.

   o  Limiting the time DNSKEYs that seem to be unable to validate
      signatures are cached and/or trying to recover from cases where
      DNSKEYs do not seem to be able to validate data, also reduces the
      effects of the problem of non-cooperating registrars.

   However, there is no operational methodology to work around this
   business issue, and proper contractual relationships between all
   involved parties seems to be the only solution to cope with these
   problems.  It should be noted that in many cases, the problem with
   temporary broken delegations already exists when a zone changes from
   one DNS operator to another.  Besides, it is often the case that when
   operators are changed, the services that that zone references also
   change operator, possibly involving some downtime.

   In any case, to minimise such problems, the classic configuration is
   to have relative short TTL on all involved resource records.  That
   will solve many of the problems regarding changes to a zone
   regardless of whether DNSSEC is used.




Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 47]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


4.4.  Time in DNSSEC

   Without DNSSEC, all times in the DNS are relative.  The SOA fields
   REFRESH, RETRY, and EXPIRATION are timers used to determine the time
   elapsed after a slave server synchronized with a master server.  The
   Time to Live (TTL) value and the SOA RR minimum TTL parameter
   [RFC2308] are used to determine how long a forwarder should cache
   data (or negative responses) after it has been fetched from an
   authoritative server.  By using a signature validity period, DNSSEC
   introduces the notion of an absolute time in the DNS.  Signatures in
   DNSSEC have an expiration date after which the signature is marked as
   invalid and the signed data is to be considered Bogus.

   The considerations in this section are all qualitative and focused on
   the operational and managerial issues.  A more thorough quantitative
   analysis of rollover timing parameters can be found in
   draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing
   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing].

4.4.1.  Time Considerations

   Because of the expiration of signatures, one should consider the
   following:

   o  We suggest the Maximum Zone TTL value of your zone data to be
      smaller than your signature validity period.

         If the TTL was of similar order as the signature validity
         period, then all RRsets fetched during the validity period
         would be cached until the signature expiration time.  Section
         8.1 of RFC 4033 [RFC4033] suggests that "the resolver may use
         the time remaining before expiration of the signature validity
         period of a signed RRset as an upper bound for the TTL".  As a
         result, query load on authoritative servers would peak at
         signature expiration time, as this is also the time at which
         records simultaneously expire from caches.

         Having a TTL that is at least a few times smaller than your
         signature validity period avoids query load peaks.

   o  We suggest the signature publication period to end at least one
      Maximum Zone TTL duration (but preferably a minimum of a few days)
      before the end of the signature validity period.

         Re-signing a zone shortly before the end of the signature
         validity period may cause simultaneous expiration of data from
         caches.  This in turn may lead to peaks in the load on
         authoritative servers.  To avoid this, schemes are deployed



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 48]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


         whereby the zone is periodically visited for a re-signing
         operation and those signatures that are within a so called
         Refresh Period from signature expiration are recreated.  Also
         see Section 4.4.2 below.

         In case of an operational error, you would have one Maximum
         Zone TTL duration to resolve the problem.  Re-signing a zone a
         few days before the end of the signature validity period
         ensures the signatures will survive at least a (long) weekend
         in case of such operational havoc.  This is called the Refresh
         Period (see Section 4.4.2).

   o  We suggest the Minimum Zone TTL to be long enough to both fetch
      and verify all the RRs in the trust chain.  In workshop
      environments, it has been demonstrated [NIST-workshop] that a low
      TTL (under 5 to 10 minutes) caused disruptions because of the
      following two problems:

         1.  During validation, some data may expire before the
         validation is complete.  The validator should be able to keep
         all data until it is completed.  This applies to all RRs needed
         to complete the chain of trust: DS, DNSKEY, RRSIG, and the
         final answers, i.e., the RRset that is returned for the initial
         query.

         2.  Frequent verification causes load on recursive name
         servers.  Data at delegation points, DS, DNSKEY, and RRSIG RRs
         benefit from caching.  The TTL on those should be relatively
         long.  Data at the leafs in the DNS tree has less impact on
         recursive name servers.

   o  Slave servers will need to be able to fetch newly signed zones
      well before the RRSIGs in the zone served by the slave server pass
      their signature expiration time.

         When a slave server is out of synchronization with its master
         and data in a zone is signed by expired signatures, it may be
         better for the slave server not to give out any answer.

         Normally, a slave server that is not able to contact a master
         server for an extended period will expire a zone.  When that
         happens, the server will respond differently to queries for
         that zone.  Some servers issue SERVFAIL, whereas others turn
         off the 'AA' bit in the answers.  The time of expiration is set
         in the SOA record and is relative to the last successful
         refresh between the master and the slave servers.  There exists
         no coupling between the signature expiration of RRSIGs in the
         zone and the expire parameter in the SOA.



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 49]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


         If the server serves a DNSSEC-secured zone, then it may happen
         that the signatures expire well before the SOA expiration timer
         counts down to zero.  It is not possible to completely prevent
         this by modifying the SOA parameters.

         However, the effects can be minimized where the SOA expiration
         time is equal to or shorter than the Refresh Period (see
         Section 4.4.2).

         The consequence of an authoritative server not being able to
         update a zone for an extended period of time is that signatures
         may expire.  In this case, non-secure resolvers will continue
         to be able to resolve data served by the particular slave
         servers while security-aware resolvers will experience problems
         because of answers being marked as Bogus.

         We suggest the SOA expiration timer being approximately one
         third or a quarter of the signature validity period.  It will
         allow problems with transfers from the master server to be
         noticed before signatures time out.

         We also suggest that operators of name servers that supply
         secondary services develop systems to identify upcoming
         signature expirations in zones they slave and take appropriate
         action where such an event is detected.

         When determining the value for the expiration parameter one has
         to take the following into account: what are the chances that
         all secondaries expire the zone?  How quickly can the
         administrators of the secondary servers be reached to load a
         valid zone?  These questions are not DNSSEC-specific but may
         influence the choice of your signature validity periods.

4.4.2.  Signature Validity Periods

4.4.2.1.  Maximum Value

   The first consideration for choosing a maximum signature validity
   period is the risk of a replay attack.  For low-value, long-term
   stable resources, the risks may be minimal and the signature validity
   period may be several months.  Although signature validity periods of
   many years are allowed, the same operational habit arguments as given
   in Section 3.2.2 play a role: when a zone is re-signed with some
   regularity, then zone administrators remain conscious about the
   operational necessity of re-signing.






Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 50]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


4.4.2.2.  Minimum Value

   The minimum value of the signature validity period is set for the
   time by which one would like to survive operational failure in
   provisioning: what is the time that a failure will be noticed, what
   is the time that action is expected to be taken?  By answering these
   questions, availability of zone administrators during (long) weekends
   or time taken to access backup media can be taken into account.  The
   result could easily suggest a minimum signature validity period of a
   few days.

   Note however, the argument above is assuming that zone data has just
   been signed and published when the problem occurred.  In practice it
   may be that a zone is signed according to a frequency set by the Re-
   Sign Period whereby the signer visits the zone content and only
   refreshes signatures that are within a given amount of time (the
   Refresh Period) of expiration.  The Re-Sign Period must be smaller
   than the Refresh Period in order for zone data to be signed in a
   timely fashion.

   If an operational problem occurs during re-signing, then the
   signatures in the zone to expire first are the ones that have been
   generated longest ago.  In the worst case, these signatures are the
   Refresh Period minus the Re-Sign Period away from signature
   expiration.

   To make matters slightly more complicated, some signers vary the
   signature validity period over a small range (the jitter interval) so
   that not all signatures expire at the same time.

   In other words, the minimum signature validity period is set by first
   choosing the Refresh Period (usually a few days), then defining the
   Re-Sign Period in such a way that the Refresh Period minus the Re-
   Sign Period, minus the maximum jitter sets the time in which
   operational havoc can be resolved.

   The relationship between signature times is illustrated in Figure 11.














Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 51]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   Inception          Signing                                 Expiration
   time               time                                    time
   |                  |                                 |     |     |
   |------------------|---------------------------------|.....|.....|
   |                  |                                 |     |     |
                                                          +/-jitter

   | Inception offset |                                       |
   |<---------------->|            Validity Period            |
   |               |<---------------------------------------->|


   Inception          Signing Reuse   Reuse   Reuse   New     Expiration
   time               time                            RRSIG   time
   |                  |       |       |       |       |       |
   |------------------|-------------------------------|-------|
   |                  |       |       |       |       |       |
                       <-----> <-----> <-----> <----->
                     Resign Period

                                                |   Refresh   |
                                                |<----------->|
                                                |   Period    |

                  Figure 11: Signature Timing Parameters

   Note that in the figure the validity of the signature starts shortly
   before the signing time.  That is done to deal with validators that
   might have some clock skew.  This is called the inception offset and
   it should be chosen so that false negatives are minimized to a
   reasonable level.

4.4.2.3.  Differentiation between RRsets

   It is possible to vary signature validity periods between signatures
   over different RRsets in the zone.  In practice, this could be done
   when zones contain highly volatile data (which may be the case in
   Dynamic Update environments).  Note however that the risk of replay
   (e.g., by stale secondary servers) is what should be leading in
   determining the signature validity period, since the TTLs on the data
   itself are still the primary parameter for cache expiry.

   In some cases, the risk of replaying existing data might be different
   from the risk of replaying the denial of data.  In those cases the
   signature validity period on NSEC or NSEC3 records may be tweaked
   accordingly.

   When a zone contains secure delegations, then a relatively short



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 52]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   signature validity period protects the child against replay attacks
   in the case the child's key is compromised (see Section 4.3.4).
   Since there is a higher operational risk for the parent registry when
   choosing a short validity period and a higher operational risk for
   the child when choosing a long validity period, some (price)
   differentiation may occur for validity periods between individual DS
   RRs in a single zone.

   There seem to be no other arguments for differentiation in validity
   periods.









































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 53]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


5.  Next Record type

   One of the design tradeoffs made during the development of DNSSEC was
   to separate the signing and serving operations instead of performing
   cryptographic operations as DNS requests are being serviced.  It is
   therefore necessary to create records that cover the very large
   number of non-existent names that lie between the names that do
   exist.

   There are two mechanisms to provide authenticated proof of non-
   existence of domain names in DNSSEC: a clear-text one and an
   obfuscated-data one.  Each mechanism:

   o  includes a list of all the RRTYPEs present, which can be used to
      prove the non-existence of RRTYPEs at a certain name;

   o  stores only the name for which the zone is authoritative (that is,
      glue in the zone is omitted); and

   o  uses a specific RRTYPE to store information about the RRTYPEs
      present at the name: the clear-text mechanism uses NSEC, and the
      obfuscated-data mechanism uses NSEC3.

5.1.  Differences between NSEC and NSEC3

   The clear text mechanism (NSEC) is implemented using a sorted linked
   list of names in the zone.  The obfuscated-data mechanism (NSEC3) is
   similar but first hashes the names using a one-way hash function,
   before creating a sorted linked list of the resulting (hashed)
   strings.

   The NSEC record requires no cryptographic operations aside from the
   validation of its associated signature record.  It is human readable
   and can be used in manual queries to determine correct operation.
   The disadvantage is that it allows for "zone walking", where one can
   request all the entries of a zone by following the linked list of
   NSEC RRs via the "Next Domain Name" field.  Though all agree DNS data
   is accessible through query mechanisms, for some zone administrators
   this behavior is undesirable for policy, regulatory or other reasons.

   Furthermore, NSEC requires a signature over every RR in the zone
   file, thereby ensuring that any denial of existence is
   cryptographically signed.  However, in a large zone file containing
   many delegations, very few of which are to signed zones, this may
   produce unacceptable additional overhead, especially where insecure
   delegations are subject to frequent update (a typical example might
   be a TLD operator with few registrants using secure delegations).
   NSEC3 allows intervals between two secure delegations to "Opt-out" in



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 54]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   which case they may contain one or more insecure delegations, thus
   reducing the size and cryptographic complexity of the zone at the
   expense of the ability to cryptographically deny the existence of
   names in a specific span.

   The NSEC3 record uses a hashing method of the requested name.  To
   increase the workload required to guess entries in the zone, the
   number of hashing iterations can be specified in the NSEC3 record.
   Additionally, a salt can be specified that also modifies the hashes.
   Note that NSEC3 does not give full protection against information
   leakage from the zone (you can still derive the size of the zone,
   which RRtypes are in there, ...).

5.2.  NSEC or NSEC3

   The first motivation to deploy NSEC3, prevention of zone enumeration,
   only makes sense when zone content is not highly structured or
   trivially guessable.  Highly structured zones such as in-addr.arpa.,
   ip6.arpa. and e164.arpa. can be trivially enumerated using ordinary
   DNS properties, while for small zones that only contain records in
   the APEX and a few common names such as "www" or "mail", guessing
   zone content and proving completeness is also trivial when using
   NSEC3.  In these cases, the use of NSEC is preferred to ease the work
   required by signers and validating resolvers.

   For large zones where there is an implication of "not readily
   available" names, such as those where one has to sign a non-
   disclosure agreement before obtaining it, NSEC3 is preferred.  The
   second reason to consider NSEC3 is opt-out, which can reduce the
   number of NSEC3 records required.  This is discussed further below
   (Section 5.3.4).

5.3.  NSEC3 parameters

   NSEC3 is controlled by a number of parameters, some of which can be
   varied: this section discusses the choice of those parameters.

5.3.1.  NSEC3 Algorithm

   The NSEC3 hashing algorithm is performed on the Fully Qualified
   Domain Name (FQDN) in its uncompressed form.  This ensures brute
   force work done by an attacker for one FQDN cannot be re-used for
   another FQDN attack, as these entries are, by definition unique.

   At the time of writing, there is only one NSEC3 hash algorithm
   defined.  [RFC5155] specifically states: "When a new hash algorithm
   for use with NSEC3 is specified, a transition mechanism MUST also be
   defined."  Therefore this document does not consider NSEC3 hash



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 55]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   algorithm transition.

5.3.2.  NSEC3 Iterations

   One of the concerns with NSEC3 is that a pre-calculated dictionary
   attack could be performed in order to assess if certain domain names
   exist within a zone or not.  Two mechanisms are introduced in the
   NSEC3 specification to increase the costs of such dictionary attacks:
   iterations and salt.

   Iterations define the number of additional times the hash function
   has been performed.  A higher value results in greater resiliency
   against dictionary attacks, at a higher computational cost for both
   the server and resolver.

   RFC 5155 Section 10.3 [RFC5155] considers the trade-offs between
   incurring cost during the signing process and imposing costs to the
   validating name server, while still providing a reasonable barrier
   against dictionary attacks.  It provides useful limits of iterations
   for a given RSA key size.  These are 150 iterations for 1024 bit
   keys, 500 iterations for 2048 bit keys and 2,500 iterations for 4096
   bit keys.  Choosing a value of 100 iterations is deemed to be a
   sufficiently costly yet not excessive value: In the worst case
   scenario, the performance of name servers would be halved, regardless
   of key size [nsec3-hash-performance].

5.3.3.  NSEC3 Salt

   While the NSEC3 iterations parameter increases the cost of hashing a
   dictionary word, the NSEC3 salt reduces the lifetime for which that
   calculated hash can be used.  A change of the salt value by the zone
   administrator would cause an attacker to lose all pre-calculated work
   for that zone.

   There must be a complete NSEC3 chain using the same salt value, that
   matches the salt value in the NSEC3PARAM record.  NSEC3 salt changes
   do not need special rollover procedures.  Since changing the salt
   requires all the NSEC3 records to be regenerated, and thus requires
   generating new RRSIG's over these NSEC3 records, it makes sense to
   align the change of the salt with a change of the Zone Signing Key,
   as that process in itself already usually requires all RRSIG's to be
   regenerated.  If there is no critical dependency on incremental
   signing and the zone can be signed with little effort, there is no
   need for such alignment.







Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 56]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


5.3.4.  Opt-Out

   The Opt-Out mechanism was introduced to allow for a gradual
   introduction of signed records in zones that contain mostly
   delegation records.  The use of the Opt-Out flag changes the meaning
   of the NSEC3 span from authoritative denial of the existence of names
   within the span to a proof that DNSSEC is not available for the
   delegations within the span.  This allows for the addition or removal
   of the delegations covered by the span without recalculating or re-
   signing RRs in the NSEC3 RR chain.

   Opt-Out is specified to be used only over delegation points and will
   therefore only bring relief to zones with a large number of insecure
   delegations.  This consideration typically holds for large top-level-
   domains and similar zones; in most other circumstances, Opt-Out
   should not be deployed.  Further considerations can be found in
   Section 12.2 of RFC 5155 [RFC5155].


































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 57]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


6.  Security Considerations

   DNSSEC adds data origin authentication and data integrity to the DNS,
   using digital signatures over resource record sets.  DNSSEC does not
   protect against denial of service attacks, nor does it provide
   confidentiality.  For more general security considerations related to
   DNSSEC, please see RFC 4033 [RFC4033], RFC 4034 [RFC4034] and RFC
   4035 [RFC4035].

   This document tries to assess the operational considerations to
   maintain a stable and secure DNSSEC service.  When performing key
   rollovers, it is important to keep in mind that it takes time for the
   data to be propagated to the verifying clients.  Also important to
   notice is that this data may be cached.  Not taking into account the
   'data propagation' properties in the DNS may cause validation
   failures, because cached data may mismatch with data fetched from the
   authoritative servers.  This will make secured zones unavailable to
   security-aware resolvers.

































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 58]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


7.  IANA considerations

   There are no IANA considerations with respect to this document
















































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 59]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


8.  Contributors and Acknowledgments

   Significant parts of the text of this document is copied from RFC
   4641 [RFC4641].  That document was edited by Olaf Kolkman and Miek
   Gieben.  Other people that contributed or where otherwise involved in
   that work were in random order: Rip Loomis, Olafur Gudmundsson,
   Wesley Griffin, Michael Richardson, Scott Rose, Rick van Rein, Tim
   McGinnis, Gilles Guette, Olivier Courtay, Sam Weiler, Jelte Jansen,
   Niall O'Reilly, Holger Zuleger, Ed Lewis, Hilarie Orman, Marcos Sanz,
   Peter Koch, Mike StJohns, Emma Bretherick, Adrian Bedford, Lindy
   Foster, and O. Courtay.

   For this version of the document we would like to acknowledge a few
   people for significant contributions:

   Paul Hoffman  for his contribution on the choice of cryptographic
      parameters and addressing some of the trust anchor issues;

   Jelte Jansen  who provided the initial text in Section 4.1.4;

   Paul Wouters  who provided the initial text for Section 5 and Alex
      Bligh who improved it;

   Erik Rescorla  whose blogpost on "the Security of ZSK rollovers"
      inspired text in Section 3.1;

   Stephen Morris  who made a pass on English style and grammar;

   Olafur Gudmundsson and Ondrej Sury  who provided input on
      Section 4.1.4 based on actual operational experience.

   Rickard Bellgrim  reviewed the document extensively.

   The figure in Section 4.4.2 was adapted from the OpenDNSSEC user
   documentation.

   In addition valuable contributions in the form of text, comments, or
   review where provided by Mark Andrews, Patrik Faltstrom, Tony Finch,
   Alfred Hoenes, Bill Manning, Scott Rose, Wouter Wijngaards, Antoin
   Verschuren, Marc Lampo, George Barwood, Sebastian Castro and Suresh
   Krishnaswamy.










Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 60]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


9.  References

9.1.  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.

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

   [RFC4509]  Hardaker, W., "Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer
              (DS) Resource Records (RRs)", RFC 4509, May 2006.

   [RFC5155]  Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
              Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
              Existence", RFC 5155, March 2008.

   [RFC5702]  Jansen, J., "Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY
              and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702,
              October 2009.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1995]  Ohta, M., "Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS", RFC 1995,
              August 1996.

   [RFC1996]  Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
              Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, August 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2308]  Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS
              NCACHE)", RFC 2308, March 1998.

   [RFC3007]  Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 61]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


              Update", RFC 3007, November 2000.

   [RFC3375]  Hollenbeck, S., "Generic Registry-Registrar Protocol
              Requirements", RFC 3375, September 2002.

   [RFC3766]  Orman, H. and P. Hoffman, "Determining Strengths For
              Public Keys Used For Exchanging Symmetric Keys", BCP 86,
              RFC 3766, April 2004.

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
              Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.

   [RFC4641]  Kolkman, O. and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC Operational Practices",
              RFC 4641, September 2006.

   [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
              RFC 4949, August 2007.

   [RFC5011]  StJohns, M., "Automated Updates of DNS Security (DNSSEC)
              Trust Anchors", RFC 5011, September 2007.

   [RFC5910]  Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)
              Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible
              Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910, May 2010.

   [RFC5933]  Dolmatov, V., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of GOST
              Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records
              for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, July 2010.

   [RFC6605]  Hoffman, P. and W. Wijngaards, "Elliptic Curve Digital
              Signature Algorithm (DSA) for DNSSEC", RFC 6605,
              April 2012.

   [NIST-workshop]
              Rose, S., "NIST DNSSEC workshop notes", July 2001, <http:/
              /www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/
              msg01020.html>.

   [NIST-SP-800-90A]
              Barker, E. and J. Kelsey, "Recommendation for Random
              Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit
              Generators (Revised)", NIST Special Publication 800-90,
              March 2007.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing]



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 62]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


              Morris, S., Ihren, J., and J. Dickinson, "DNSSEC Key
              Timing Considerations",
              draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-03 (work in progress),
              July 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework]
              Ljunggren, F., Eklund-Lowinder, A., and T. Okubo, "A
              Framework for DNSSEC Policies and DNSSEC Practice
              Statements", draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-08
              (work in progress), June 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dnssec-trust-anchor]
              Larson, M. and O. Gudmundsson, "DNSSEC Trust Anchor
              Configuration and Maintenance",
              draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-trust-anchor-04 (work in
              progress), October 2010.

   [nsec3-hash-performance]
              Schaeffer, Y., "NSEC3 Hash Performance", NLnet Labs
              document 2010-02, March 2010.































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 63]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


Appendix A.  Terminology

   In this document, there is some jargon used that is defined in other
   documents.  In most cases, we have not copied the text from the
   documents defining the terms but have given a more elaborate
   explanation of the meaning.  Note that these explanations should not
   be seen as authoritative.

   Anchored key:  A DNSKEY configured in resolvers around the globe.
      This key is hard to update, hence the term anchored.

   Bogus:  Also see Section 5 of RFC 4033 [RFC4033].  An RRset in DNSSEC
      is marked "Bogus" when a signature of an RRset does not validate
      against a DNSKEY.

   Key rollover:  A key rollover (also called key supercession in some
      environments) is the act of replacing one key pair with another at
      the end of a key effectivity period.

   Key Signing Key or KSK:  A Key Signing Key (KSK) is a key that is
      used exclusively for signing the apex key set.  The fact that a
      key is a KSK is only relevant to the signing tool.

   Key size:  The term 'key size' can be substituted by 'modulus size'
      throughout the document for RSA keys.  It is mathematically more
      correct to use modulus size for RSA keys, but as this is a
      document directed at operators we feel more at ease with the term
      key size.

   Private and public keys:  DNSSEC secures the DNS through the use of
      public key cryptography.  Public key cryptography is based on the
      existence of two (mathematically related) keys, a public key and a
      private key.  The public keys are published in the DNS by use of
      the DNSKEY Resource Record (DNSKEY RR).  Private keys should
      remain private.

   Refresh Period:  The period before the expiration time of the
      signature, during which the signature is refreshed by the signer.

   Re-Sign Period:  This refers to the frequency with which a signing
      pass on the zone is performed.  The Re-Sign Period defines when
      the zone is exposed to the signer.  And on the signer - not all
      signatures in the zone have to be regenerated: that depends on the
      Refresh Period.







Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 64]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   Secure Entry Point (SEP) key:  A KSK that has a DS record in the
      parent zone pointing to it or is configured as a trust anchor.
      Although not required by the protocol, we suggest that the SEP
      flag [RFC4034] is set on these keys.

   Self-signature:  This only applies to signatures over DNSKEYs; a
      signature made with DNSKEY x over DNSKEY x is called a self-
      signature.  Note: without further information, self-signatures
      convey no trust.  They are useful to check the authenticity of the
      DNSKEY, i.e., they can be used as a hash.

   Signing Jitter:  A random variation in the signature validity period
      of RRSIGs in a zone to prevent all of them expiring at the same
      time.

   Signer:  The system that has access to the private key material and
      signs the Resource Record sets in a zone.  A signer may be
      configured to sign only parts of the zone, e.g., only those RRsets
      for which existing signatures are about to expire.

   Singing the zone file:  The term used for the event where an
      administrator joyfully signs its zone file while producing melodic
      sound patterns.

   Single Type Signing Scheme:  A signing scheme whereby the distinction
      between Zone Signing Keys and Key Signing Keys is not made.

   Zone administrator:  The 'role' that is responsible for signing a
      zone and publishing it on the primary authoritative server.

   Zone Signing Key (ZSK):  A key that is used for signing all data in a
      zone (except, perhaps, the DNSKEY RRset).  The fact that a key is
      a ZSK is only relevant to the signing tool.


















Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 65]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


Appendix B.  Typographic Conventions

   The following typographic conventions are used in this document:

   Key notation:  A key is denoted by DNSKEY_x_y, where x is an
      identifier for the type of key: K for Keys Signing Key, Z for Zone
      Signing Key and S when there is no distinction made between KSK
      and ZSKs but the key is used as a secure entry point.  The 'y'
      denotes a number or an identifier, y could be thought of as the
      key id.

   RRsets ignored:  If the signatures of non-DNSKEY RRsets have the same
      parameters as the SOA, then those are not mentioned; e.g., in the
      example below, the SOA is signed with the same parameters as the
      foo.example.com A RRset and the latter is therefore ignored in the
      abbreviated notation.

   RRset notations:  RRs are only denoted by the type.  All other
      information -- owner, class, rdata, and TTL -- is left out.  Thus:
      "example.com 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1" is reduced to "A".  RRsets are a
      list of RRs.  A example of this would be "A1, A2", specifying the
      RRset containing two "A" records.  This could again be abbreviated
      to just "A".

   Signature notation:  Signatures are denoted as RRSIG_x_y(type), which
      means that the RRset with the specific RRtype 'type' is signed
      with DNSKEY_x_y.  Signatures in the parent zone are denoted as
      RRSIG_par(type).

   SOA representation:  SOAs are represented as SOA_x, where x is the
      serial number.

   DS representation:  DSs are represented as DS_x_y, where x and y are
      identifiers similar to the key notation: x is an an identifier for
      the type of key the DS record refers to, y is the 'key id' of the
      key it refers to.

   Zone representation:  Using the above notation we have simplified the
      representation of a signed zone by leaving out all unnecessary
      details such as the names and by representing all data by "SOA_x"

   Using this notation the following signed zone:

   example.com.  3600  IN SOA   ns1.example.com. olaf.example.net. (
                           2005092303 ; serial
                           450        ; refresh (7 minutes 30 seconds)
                           600        ; retry (10 minutes)
                           345600     ; expire (4 days)



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 66]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


                           300        ; minimum (5 minutes)
                           )
          3600    RRSIG    SOA 5 2 3600 20120824013000 (
                           20100424013000 14 example.com.
                           NMafnzmmZ8wevpCOI+/JxqWBzPxrnzPnSXfo
                           ...
                           OMY3rTMA2qorupQXjQ== )
          3600    NS       ns1.example.com.
          3600    NS       ns2.example.com.
          3600    NS       ns3.example.com.
          3600    RRSIG    NS 5 2 3600 20120824013000 (
                           20100424013000 14 example.com.
                           p0Cj3wzGoPFftFZjj3jeKGK6wGWLwY6mCBEz
                           ...
                           +SqZIoVHpvE7YBeH46wuyF8w4XknA4Oeimc4
                           zAgaJM/MeG08KpeHhg== )
          3600    TXT      "Net::DNS  domain"
          3600    RRSIG    TXT 5 2 3600 20120824013000 (
                           20100424013000 14 example.com.
                           o7eP8LISK2TEutFQRvK/+U3wq7t4X+PQaQkp
                           ...
                           BcQ1o99vwn+IS4+J1g== )
          300     NSEC     foo.example.com. NS SOA TXT RRSIG NSEC DNSKEY
          300     RRSIG    NSEC 5 2 300 20120824013000 (
                           20100424013000 14 example.com.
                           JtHm8ta0diCWYGu/TdrE1O1sYSHblN2i/IX+
                           ...
                           PkXNI/Vgf4t3xZaIyw== )
          3600    DNSKEY   256 3 5 (
                           AQPaoHW/nC0fj9HuCW3hACSGiP0AkPS3dQFX
                           ...
                           sAuryjQ/HFa5r4mrbhkJ
                           ) ; key id = 14
          3600    DNSKEY   257 3 5 (
                           AQPUiszMMAi36agx/V+7Tw95l8PYmoVjHWvO
                           ...
                           oy88Nh+u2c9HF1tw0naH
                           ) ; key id = 15
          3600    RRSIG    DNSKEY 5 2 3600 20120824013000 (
                           20100424013000 14 example.com.
                           HWj/VEr6p/FiUUiL70QQWtk+NBIlsJ9mdj5U
                           ...
                           QhhmMwV3tIxJk2eDRQ== )
          3600    RRSIG    DNSKEY 5 2 3600 20120824013000 (
                           20100424013000 15 example.com.
                           P47CUy/xPV8qIEuua4tMKG6ei3LQ8RYv3TwE
                           ...
                           JWL70YiUnUG3m9OL9w== )



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 67]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


  foo.example.com.  3600  IN A 192.0.2.2
          3600    RRSIG    A 5 3 3600 20120824013000 (
                           20100424013000 14 example.com.
                           xHr023P79YrSHHMtSL0a1nlfUt4ywn/vWqsO
                           ...
                           JPV/SA4BkoFxIcPrDQ== )
          300     NSEC     example.com. A RRSIG NSEC
          300     RRSIG    NSEC 5 3 300 20120824013000 (
                           20100424013000 14 example.com.
                           Aaa4kgKhqY7Lzjq3rlPlFidymOeBEK1T6vUF
                           ...
                           Qe000JyzObxx27pY8A== )

   is reduced to the following representation:

            SOA_2005092303
            RRSIG_Z_14(SOA_2005092303)
            DNSKEY_K_14
            DNSKEY_Z_15
            RRSIG_K_14(DNSKEY)
            RRSIG_Z_15(DNSKEY)

   The rest of the zone data has the same signature as the SOA record,
   i.e., an RRSIG created with DNSKEY 14.



























Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 68]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


Appendix C.  Transition Figures for Special Case Algorithm Rollovers

   The figures in this Appendix complement and illustrate the special
   cases of algorithm rollovers as described in Section 4.1.4.















































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 69]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   ----------------------------------------------------------------
    initial              new RRSIGs           new DNSKEY
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
    SOA_0 -------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(SOA) ----------------------------------------------->
    DS_S_1 ------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(DS_S_1) -------------------------------------------->

   Child:
    SOA_0                SOA_1                SOA_2
    RRSIG_S_1(SOA)       RRSIG_S_1(SOA)       RRSIG_S_1(SOA)
                         RRSIG_S_2(SOA)       RRSIG_S_2(SOA)

    DNSKEY_S_1           DNSKEY_S_1           DNSKEY_S_1
                                              DNSKEY_S_2
    RRSIG_S_1(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_S_1(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_S_1(DNSKEY)
                         RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY)

   ----------------------------------------------------------------
    new DS               DNSKEY removal       RRSIGs removal
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
    SOA_1 ------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(SOA) ---------------------------------------------->
    DS_S_2 ------------------------------------------------------>
    RRSIG_par(DS_S_2) ------------------------------------------->

   Child:
    -------------------> SOA_3                SOA_4
    -------------------> RRSIG_S_1(SOA)
    -------------------> RRSIG_S_2(SOA)       RRSIG_S_2(SOA)

    ------------------->
    -------------------> DNSKEY_S_2           DNSKEY_S_2
    -------------------> RRSIG_S_1(DNSKEY)
    -------------------> RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY)
   ----------------------------------------------------------------

           Figure 12: Single Type Signing Scheme Algorithm Roll

   Also see Section 4.1.4.1.









Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 70]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   ----------------------------------------------------------------
    initial              new RRSIGs           new DNSKEY
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
    SOA_0 -------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(SOA) ----------------------------------------------->
    DS_K_1 ------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(DS_K_1) -------------------------------------------->

   Child:
    SOA_0                SOA_1                SOA_2
    RRSIG_Z_1(SOA)       RRSIG_Z_1(SOA)       RRSIG_Z_1(SOA)
                         RRSIG_Z_2(SOA)       RRSIG_Z_2(SOA)

    DNSKEY_K_1           DNSKEY_K_1           DNSKEY_K_1
                                              DNSKEY_K_2
    DNSKEY_Z_1           DNSKEY_Z_1           DNSKEY_Z_1
                                              DNSKEY_Z_2
    RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)
                                              RRSIG_K_2(DNSKEY)

   ----------------------------------------------------------------
    new DS               revoke DNSKEY        DNSKEY removal
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
    SOA_1 ------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(SOA) ---------------------------------------------->
    DS_K_2 ------------------------------------------------------>
    RRSIG_par(DS_K_2) ------------------------------------------->

   Child:
    -------------------> SOA_3                SOA_4
    -------------------> RRSIG_Z_1(SOA)       RRSIG_Z_1(SOA)
    -------------------> RRSIG_Z_2(SOA)       RRSIG_Z_2(SOA)

    -------------------> DNSKEY_K_1_REVOKED
    -------------------> DNSKEY_K_2           DNSKEY_K_2
    ------------------->
    -------------------> DNSKEY_Z_2           DNSKEY_Z_2
    -------------------> RRSIG_K_1(DNSKEY)
    -------------------> RRSIG_K_2(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_K_2(DNSKEY)

   ----------------------------------------------------------------
    RRSIGs removal
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
    ------------------------------------->
    ------------------------------------->



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 71]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


    ------------------------------------->
    ------------------------------------->

   Child:
    SOA_5
    RRSIG_Z_2(SOA)

    DNSKEY_K_2

    DNSKEY_Z_2

    RRSIG_K_2(DNSKEY)
   ----------------------------------------------------------------

                 Figure 13: RFC 5011 Style algorithm roll

   Also see Section 4.1.4.2.


































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 72]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   ----------------------------------------------------------------
    initial              new RRSIGs           new DNSKEY
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
    SOA_0 -------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(SOA) ----------------------------------------------->
    DS_S_1 ------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(DS_S_1) -------------------------------------------->

   Child:
    SOA_0                SOA_1                SOA_2
    RRSIG_S_1(SOA)
    RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)      RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)      RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)
                         RRSIG_S_2(SOA)       RRSIG_S_2(SOA)

    DNSKEY_S_1           DNSKEY_S_1           DNSKEY_S_1
    DNSKEY_Z_10          DNSKEY_Z_10          DNSKEY_Z_10
                                              DNSKEY_S_2
    RRSIG_S_1(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_S_1(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_S_1(DNSKEY)
                         RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY)

   ----------------------------------------------------------------
    new DS               revoke DNSKEY        DNSKEY removal
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
    SOA_1 ------------------------------------------------------->
    RRSIG_par(SOA) ---------------------------------------------->
    DS_S_2 ------------------------------------------------------>
    RRSIG_par(DS_S_2) ------------------------------------------->

   Child:
    -------------------> SOA_3                SOA_4

    -------------------> RRSIG_Z_10(SOA)
    -------------------> RRSIG_S_2(SOA)       RRSIG_S_2(SOA)

    -------------------> DNSKEY_S_1_REVOKED
    -------------------> DNSKEY_Z_10
    -------------------> DNSKEY_S_2           DNSKEY_S_2
    -------------------> RRSIG_S_1(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_S_1(DNSKEY)
    -------------------> RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY)    RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY)

   ----------------------------------------------------------------
    RRSIGs removal
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   Parent:
    ------------------------------------->
    ------------------------------------->



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 73]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


    ------------------------------------->
    ------------------------------------->

   Child:
    SOA_5


    RRSIG_S_2(SOA)



    DNSKEY_S_2

    RRSIG_S_2(DNSKEY)
   ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure 14: RFC 5011 algorithm roll in a Single Type Signing Scheme
                                Environment

   Also see Section 4.1.4.3.































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 74]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


Appendix D.  Transition Figure for Changing DNS Operators

   The figure in this Appendix complements and illustrates the special
   case of changing DNS operators as described in Section 4.3.5.1.















































Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 75]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


    ------------------------------------------------------------
    new DS             |        pre-publish                    |
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Parent:
     NS_A                            NS_A
     DS_A DS_B                       DS_A DS_B
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Child at A:            Child at A:        Child at B:
     SOA_A0                 SOA_A1             SOA_B0
     RRSIG_Z_A(SOA)         RRSIG_Z_A(SOA)     RRSIG_Z_B(SOA)

     NS_A                   NS_A               NS_B
     RRSIG_Z_A(NS)          NS_B               RRSIG_Z_B(NS)
                            RRSIG_Z_A(NS)

     DNSKEY_Z_A             DNSKEY_Z_A         DNSKEY_Z_A
                            DNSKEY_Z_B         DNSKEY_Z_B
     DNSKEY_K_A             DNSKEY_K_A         DNSKEY_K_B
     RRSIG_K_A(DNSKEY)      RRSIG_K_A(DNSKEY)  RRSIG_K_A(DNSKEY)
                            RRSIG_K_B(DNSKEY)  RRSIG_K_B(DNSKEY)
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------
          redelegation                 |   post migration      |
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Parent:
              NS_B                           NS_B
              DS_A DS_B                      DS_B
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Child at A:        Child at B:           Child at B:

     SOA_A1             SOA_B0                SOA_B1
     RRSIG_Z_A(SOA)     RRSIG_Z_B(SOA)        RRSIG_Z_B(SOA)

     NS_A               NS_B                  NS_B
     NS_B               RRSIG_Z_B(NS)         RRSIG_Z_B(NS)
     RRSIG_Z_A(NS)

     DNSKEY_Z_A         DNSKEY_Z_A
     DNSKEY_Z_B         DNSKEY_Z_B            DNSKEY_Z_B
     DNSKEY_K_A         DNSKEY_K_B            DNSKEY_K_B
     RRSIG_K_A(DNSKEY)  RRSIG_K_B(DNSKEY)     RRSIG_K_B(DNSKEY)

    ------------------------------------------------------------

   Figure 15: An alternative rollover approach for cooperating operators





Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 76]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


Appendix E.  Summary of Changes from RFC 4641

   This document differs from RFC 4641 [RFC4641] in the following ways:

   o  Applied the errata from
      http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4641

   o  RSA/SHA256 is being recommended in addition to RSA/SHA1.

   o  Complete rewrite of Section 3.4.2 removing the table and
      suggesting a keysize of 1024 for keys in use for less than 8
      years, issued up to at least 2015.

   o  Removed the KSK for high level zones consideration.

   o  Added text on Algorithm Rollover.

   o  Added text on Changing (non cooperating) DNS Registrars.

   o  Significant rewrite of Section 3 whereby the argument is made that
      the timescales for rollovers are made purely on operational
      arguments.

   o  Added Section 5.

   o  Introduced Single Type Signing Scheme terminology and made the
      arguments for the choice of a Single Type Signing Scheme more
      explicit.

   o  Added a section about Stand-by keys





















Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 77]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


Appendix F.  Document Editing History

   [To be removed prior to publication as an RFC]

F.1.  draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641-00

   Version 0 was differs from RFC 4641 in the following ways.

   o  Status of this memo appropriate for I-D

   o  TOC formatting differs.

   o  Whitespaces, linebreaks, and pagebreaks may be slightly different
      because of xml2rfc generation.

   o  References slightly reordered.

   o  Applied the errata from
      http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4641

   o  Inserted trivial "IANA considerations" section.

   In other words it should not contain substantive changes in content
   as intended by the working group for the original RFC 4641.

F.2.  version 0->1

   Cryptography details rewritten.  (See http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/svn/
   rfc4641bis/trunk/open-issues/cryptography_flawed)

   o  Reference to NIST 800-90 added

   o  RSA/SHA256 is being recommended in addition to RSA/SHA1.

   o  Complete rewrite of Section 3.4.2 removing the table and
      suggesting a keysize of 1024 for keys in use for less than 8
      years, issued up to at least 2015.

   o  Replaced the reference to Schneiers' applied cryptography with a
      reference to RFC 4949.

   o  Removed the KSK for high level zones consideration

   Applied some differentiation with respect of the use of a KSK for
   parent or trust anchor relation http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/svn/
   rfc4641bis/trunk/open-issues/differentiation_trustanchor_parent

   http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/svn/rfc4641bis/trunk/open-issues/



Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 78]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   rollover_assumptions

   Added Section 4.1.4 as suggested by Jelte Jansen in http://
   www.nlnetlabs.nl/svn/rfc4641bis/trunk/open-issues/Key_algorithm_roll

   Added Section 4.3.5.2 Issue identified by Antoin Verschuren http://
   www.nlnetlabs.nl/svn/rfc4641bis/trunk/open-issues/
   non-cooperative-registrars

   In Appendix A: ZSK does not necessarily sign the DNSKEY RRset.

F.3.  version 1->2

   o  Significant rewrite of Section 3 whereby the argument is made that
      the timescales for rollovers are made purely on operational
      arguments hopefully resolving http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/svn/
      rfc4641bis/trunk/open-issues/discussion_of_timescales

   o  Added Section 5 based on http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/svn/rfc4641bis/
      trunk/open-issues/NSEC-NSEC3

   o  Added a reference to draft-morris-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing
      [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing] for the quantitative analysis
      on keyrolls

   o  Updated Section 4.3.5 to reflect that the problem occurs when
      changing DNS operators, and not DNS registrars, also added the
      table indicating the redelegation procedure.  Added text about the
      fact that implementations will dismiss keys that fail to validate
      at some point.

   o  Updated a number of references.

F.4.  version 2->3

   o  Added bulleted list to serve as an introduction on the decision
      tree in Section 3.

   o  In section Section 3.1:

      *  tried to motivate that key length is not a strong motivation
         for KSK ZSK split (based on http://www.educatedguesswork.org/
         2009/10/on_the_security_of_zsk_rollove.html)

      *  Introduced Common Signing Key terminology and made the
         arguments for the choice of a Common Signing Key more explicit.





Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 79]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


      *  Moved the SEP flag considerations to its own paragraph

   o  In a few places in the document, but section Section 4 in
      particular the comments from Patrik Faltstrom (On Mar 24, 2010) on
      the clarity on the roles of the registrant, dns operator,
      registrar and registry was addressed.

   o  Added some terms based on http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/svn/rfc4641bis/
      trunk/open-issues/timing_terminology

   o  Added paragraph 2 and clarified the second but last paragraph of
      Section 3.2.2.

   o  Clarified the table and some text in Section 4.1.4.  Also added
      some text on what happens when the algorithm rollover also
      involves a roll from NSEC to NSEC3.

   o  Added a paragraph about rolling KSKs that are also configured as
      trust anchors in Section 4.1.2

   o  Added Section 4.1.3.

   o  Added Section 4.4.2 to address issue "Signature_validity"

F.5.  version 3->4

   o  Stephen Morris submitted a large number of language, style and
      editorial nits.

   o  Section 4.1.4 improved based on comments from Olafur Gudmundsson
      and Ondrej Sury.

   o  Tried to improve consistency of notation in the various rollover
      figures

F.6.  version 4->5

   o  Improved consistency of notation

   o  Matthijs Mekking provided substantive feedback on algorithm
      rollover and suggested the content of the subsections of
      Section 4.1.4 and the content of the figures in Appendix C

F.7.  version 5->6

   o  More improved consistency of notation and some other nits





Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 80]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


   o  Review of Rickard Bellgrim

   o  Review of Sebastian Castro

   o  Added a section about Stand-by keys

   o  Algorithm rollover: Conservative or Liberal Approach

   o  Added a reference to NSEC3 hash performance report

   o  More clarifications on the topic of non cooperating operators

F.8.  version 6->7

   o  Fixed minor nits.

   o  Clarified the Double DS Rollover in Changing DNS Operator
      sections.

   o  Adjusted STSS Rollover Figures.

   o  Remove the ZSK RRSIGs over DNSKEY RRset in Figures.

   o  Added text: second variety on STSS Double DS Rollover.

   o  Reviewed by Antoin Verschuren, Marc Lampo, George Barwood.

F.9.  version 7->8

   o  Signatures over DNSKEY RRset does not need to be propagated in the
      new RRSIGS step.

F.10.  version 8->9

   o  Peter Koch and Stephen Morris review

   o  Editorial changes

   o  Added Appendix D for clarifying the alternative approach on
      rollover for cooperating operators.

   o  Added a paragraph to explain the rollover described in the figure
      in a bit more detail, in Section 4.3.5.








Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 81]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


F.11.  version 9->10

   o  Final nits

   o  Symbolic references

F.12.  version 10->11

   o  More review (Alfred Hoenes, Marc Lampo, Miek Gieben, Stephen
      Morris)

   o  Style, language and layout changes to improve consistency and
      resolving ambiguity and removing duplicate sentences.

   o  More clarifications

   o  Small restructuring of paragraphs that fit better in other
      sections

F.13.  version 11->12

   o  WG chairs review

F.14.  version 12->13

   o  Fixed editors name (Miek Gieben)

   o  Review Yuri Schaeffer, Ed Lewis

   o  IESG, Gen-ART, secdir reviews

F.15.  Subversion information

   www.nlnetlabs.nl/svn/rfc4641bis/

   $Id: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis.xml 127 2012-08-30 10:02:15Z matje $















Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 82]

Internet-Draft   DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2  September 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Olaf M. Kolkman
   NLnet Labs
   Science Park 400
   Amsterdam  1098 XH
   The Netherlands

   Email: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl
   URI:   http://www.nlnetlabs.nl


   W. (Matthijs) Mekking
   NLnet Labs
   Science Park 400
   Amsterdam  1098 XH
   The Netherlands

   Email: matthijs@nlnetlabs.nl
   URI:   http://www.nlnetlabs.nl


   R. (Miek) Gieben
   SIDN Labs
   Meander 501
   Arnhem  6825 MD
   The Netherlands

   Email: miek.gieben@sidn.nl
   URI:   http://www.sidn.nl





















Kolkman, et al.          Expires March 15, 2013                [Page 83]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/