draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00.txt   draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-01.txt 
Network Working Group P. Hoffman Network Working Group P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft VPN Consortium Internet-Draft VPN Consortium
Updates: 2535, 3755, 4034 September 22, 2009 Updates: 2535, 3755, 4034 January 20, 2010
(if approved) (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: March 26, 2010 Expires: July 24, 2010
Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-01
Abstract
This document specifies how DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm
identifiers in the IANA registries are allocated. It changes the
requirement from "standard required" to "RFC required". It does not
change the list of algorithms that are recommended or required for
DNSSEC implementations.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 26, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 24, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Abstract 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 BSD License.
This document specifies how DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
identifiers in the IANA registries are allocated. It changes the Contributions published or made publicly available before November
rule from "standard required" to "RFC required". It does not change 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
the list of algorithms that are recommended or required for DNSSEC material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
implementations. 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.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC2535] specifies that that IANA registry for DNS Security [RFC2535] specifies that that IANA registry for DNS Security
Algorithm Numbers be updated by IETF Standards Action only, with the Algorithm Numbers be updated by IETF Standards Action only, with the
exception of two values 253 and 254. In essence, this means that for exception of two values 253 and 254. In essence, this means that for
an algorithm to get its own entry in the registry, the algorithm must an algorithm to get its own entry in the registry, the algorithm must
be defined in an RFC on Standards Track as defined in [RFC2026]. The be defined in an RFC on the Standards Track as defined in [RFC2026].
rule from RFC 2535 is repeated in [RFC3755] and [RFC4034]. The requirement from RFC 2535 is repeated in [RFC3755] and [RFC4034].
RFC 2535 allows algorithms that are not on standards track to use RFC 2535 allows algorithms that are not on the Standards Track to use
private values 253 and 254 in signatures. In each case, an private values 253 and 254 in signatures. In each case, an
unregistered private name must be included with each use of the unregistered private name must be included with each use of the
algorithm in order to differentiate different algorithms that use the algorithm in order to differentiate different algorithms that use the
value. value.
2. Requirements for Assignments in the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers 2. Requirements for Assignments in the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers
Registry Registry
This document changes the rule for registration from requiring a This document changes the requirement for registration from requiring
Standards Track RFC to requiring a published RFC of any type. There a Standards Track RFC to requiring a published RFC of any type.
are two reasons for relaxing the rule: There are two reasons for relaxing the requirement:
o There are some algorithms that are useful that may not be able to o There are some algorithms that are useful that may not be able to
be in a Standards Track RFC. For example, an algorithm might be be in a Standards Track RFC. For example, an algorithm might be
sponsored by a government and use cryptography that has not been sponsored by a government and use cryptography that has not been
evaluated thoroughly enough to be able to be put on Standards evaluated thoroughly enough to be able to be put on the Standards
Track. Another example is that the algorithm might have an Track. Another example is that the algorithm might have unclear
unclear intellectual property rights situation, and that prevents intellectual property rights that prevents the algorithm from
the algorithm from being put on Standards Track. being put on the Standards Track.
o Although the size of the registry is quite restricted (about 250 o Although the size of the registry is restricted (about 250
entries), new algorithms are proposed relatively rarely. It could entries), new algorithms are proposed infrequently. It could
easily be many decades before there is any reason to consider easily be many decades before there is any reason to consider
restricting the registry again. restricting the registry again.
Some developers will care about the standards level of the RFCs that Some developers will care about the standards level of the RFCs that
are in the registry. The registry should reflect the current are in the registry. The registry should be updated to reflect the
standards level of each algorithm listed. current standards level of each algorithm listed.
Because the size of the registry is smaller than many IETF To address concerns about the registry eventually filling up, the
registries, and because some members of the DNS community have IETF SHOULD re-evaluate the requirements for entry into this registry
expressed concern about the registry eventually filling up, the IETF when approximately 120 of the registry entries have been assigned.
should re-evaluate the requirements for entry into this registry when That evaluation may lead to tighter restrictions or a new mechanism
the registry is about half full. That evaluation may lead to tighter for extending the size of the registry. In order to make this
restrictions or a new mechanism for essentially extending the size of evaluation more likely, IANA is requested to mark about half of the
the registry. currently-available entries as "Reserved" in order to make the timing
for that re-evaluation more apparent.
The private-use values, 253 and 254, are still useful for developers The private-use values, 253 and 254, are still useful for developers
who want to test, in private, algorithms for which there is no RFC. who want to test, in private, algorithms for which there is no RFC.
This document does not change the semantics of those two values. This document does not change the semantics of those two values.
3. Expectations For Implementations 3. Expectations For Implementations
It is important to note that, according to RFC 4034, DNSSEC It is important to note that, according to RFC 4034, DNSSEC
implementations are not expected to include all of the algorithms implementations are not expected to include all of the algorithms
listed in the IANA registry; in fact, RFC 4034 and the IANA registry listed in the IANA registry; in fact, RFC 4034 and the IANA registry
list an algorithm that implementations should not include. This list an algorithm that implementations should not include. This
document does nothing to change the expectation that there will be document does nothing to change the expectation that there will be
items listed in the IANA registry that need not be (and in some items listed in the IANA registry that need not be (and in some
cases, should not be) included in all implementations. cases, should not be) included in all implementations.
There are many reasons why a DNSSEC implementation might not include There are many reasons why a DNSSEC implementation might not include
one or more of the algorithms listed, even those on Standards Track. one or more of the algorithms listed, even those on the Standards
In order to be compliant with the RFC 4034, an implementation only Track. In order to be compliant with the RFC 4034, an implementation
needs to implement the algorithms listed as mandatory to implement in only needs to implement the algorithms listed as mandatory to
that standard, or updates to that standard. This document does implement in that standard, or updates to that standard. This
nothing to change the list of mandatory to implement algorithms in document does nothing to change the list of mandatory to implement
RFC 4034. algorithms in RFC 4034. This document does not change the
requirements for when an algorithm because mandatory to implement.
Such requirements should come in a separate, focused document.
It should be noted that the order of algorithms in the IANA registry It should be noted that the order of algorithms in the IANA registry
does not signify or imply cryptographic strength or preference. does not signify or imply cryptographic strength or preference.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document updates allocation rules for unassigned values in the This document updates allocation requirements for unassigned values
"Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry in the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers"
located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/ registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/
dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml, in the sub-registry titled "DNS Security dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml, in the sub-registry
Algorithm Numbers". The registration procedure for values that were titled "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers". The registration procedure
not assigned before this document is published is "RFC Required". for values that are assigned after this document is published is "RFC
Required".
IANA is requested to mark values 123 through 250 as "Reserved".
IANA is requested to add a textual notation to the "References" IANA is requested to add a textual notation to the "References"
column in the registry that gives the current standards status for column in the registry that gives the current standards status for
each RFC that is listed in the registry. each RFC that is listed in the registry.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
An algorithm described in an RFC that is not on Standards Track may An algorithm described in an RFC that is not on the Standards Track
have weaker security than one that is on standards track; in fact, may have weaker security than one that is on the Standards Track; in
that may be the reason that the algorithm was not allowed on fact, that may be the reason that the algorithm was not allowed on
Standards Track. Note, however, that not being on Standards Track Standards Track. Note, however, that not being on the Standards
does not necessarily mean that an algorithm is weaker. There are Track does not necessarily mean that an algorithm is weaker.
other reasons (such as intellectual property concerns) that can keep Conversely, algorithms that are on the Standards Track should not
algorithms that are widely considered to be strong off of Standards necessarily be considered better than algorithms that are not on the
Track. Standards Track. There are other reasons (such as intellectual
property concerns) that can keep algorithms that are widely
considered to be strong off of Standards Track.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions",
RFC 2535, March 1999. RFC 2535, March 1999.
[RFC3755] Weiler, S., "Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation [RFC3755] Weiler, S., "Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation
Signer (DS)", RFC 3755, May 2004. Signer (DS)", RFC 3755, May 2004.
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 6, line 9
First WG draft. First WG draft.
Clarified the intent of the document in the Abstract by adding "It Clarified the intent of the document in the Abstract by adding "It
does not change the list of algorithms that are recommended or does not change the list of algorithms that are recommended or
required for DNSSEC implementations". required for DNSSEC implementations".
Added to Section 3: "It should be noted that the order of algorithms Added to Section 3: "It should be noted that the order of algorithms
in the IANA registry does not signify or imply cryptographic strength in the IANA registry does not signify or imply cryptographic strength
or preference." or preference."
B.3. Differences between draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00 and
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-01
Various editorial changes and clarifications that came during WG LC.
Asked IANA to mark values 123 through 250 as "Reserved".
In the expectations for implementers, added "This document does not
change the requirements for when an algorithm because mandatory to
implement. Such requirements should come in a separate, focused
document."
Author's Address Author's Address
Paul Hoffman Paul Hoffman
VPN Consortium VPN Consortium
Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
68 lines changed or deleted 94 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.37c. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/