draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-00.txt   draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-01.txt 
DNS Extensions Working Group S. Rose DNS Extensions Working Group S. Rose
Internet-Draft NIST Internet-Draft NIST
Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, January 30, 2012 Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, March 26, 2012
5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved) 5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved)
Intended status: BCP Intended status: BCP
Expires: August 2, 2012 Expires: September 27, 2012
Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm
Implementation Status Implementation Status
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-00 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-01
Abstract Abstract
The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of
cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over
DNS data. There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms DNS data. There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms
that is incomplete in that it lacks the recommended implementation that is incomplete in that it lacks the recommended implementation
status of each algorithm. This document provides an applicability status of each algorithm. This document provides an applicability
statement on algorithm implementation compliance status for DNSSEC statement on algorithm implementation status for DNSSEC component
implementations. This document lists each algorithm's status based software. This document lists each algorithm's status based on the
on the current reference. In the case that an algorithm is specified current reference. In the case that an algorithm is specified
without an implementation status, this document assigns one. without an implementation status, this document assigns one.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 2, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 27, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists . . . . 3 2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists . . . . 3
2.1. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Rationale . . . 3 2.1. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Rationale . . . 3
2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of 2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of
Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033], The Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033],
[RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC4509], [RFC5155], and [RFC5702] uses [RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC4509], [RFC5155], and [RFC5702] uses
digital signatures over DNS data to provide source authentication and digital signatures over DNS data to provide source authentication and
integrity protection. DNSSEC uses an IANA registry to list codes for integrity protection. DNSSEC uses an IANA registry to list codes for
digital signature algorithms (consisting of a cryptographic algorithm digital signature algorithms (consisting of a cryptographic algorithm
and one-way hash function). and one-way hash function).
The original list of algorithm status is found in [RFC4034]. Other The original list of algorithm status is found in [RFC4034]. Other
DNSSEC RFC's have added new algorithms or changed the status of DNSSEC RFC's have added new algorithms or changed the status of
algorithms in the registry. However, implementers must read through algorithms in the registry. However, implementers must read through
all the documents in order to discover which algorithms are all the documents in order to discover which algorithms are
considered wise to implement, which are not, and which algorithms may considered wise to implement, which are not, and which algorithms may
become widely used in the future. This document includes the current become widely used in the future. This document includes the current
compliance status for certain algorithms. implementation status for certain algorithms.
This compliance status indication is only to be considered for This implementation status indication is only to be considered for
implementation, not deployment or operations. Operators are free to implementation, not deployment or operations. Operators are free to
deploy any digital signature algorithm available in implementations deploy any digital signature algorithm available in implementations
or algorithms chosen by local security policies. This status is to or algorithms chosen by local security policies. This status is to
measure compliance to this RFC only. measure compliance to this document only.
This document updates the following: [RFC2536], [RFC2539], [RFC3110], This document updates the following: [RFC2536], [RFC2539], [RFC3110],
[RFC4034], [RFC4398], [RFC5155], [RFC5702], and [RFC5933]. [RFC4034], [RFC4398], [RFC5155], [RFC5702], and [RFC5933].
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document
are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists 2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists
2.1. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Rationale 2.1. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Rationale
The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT. The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT
This is due to the fact that RSA/SHA-1 is a MUST IMPLEMENT. The as major deployments (such as the root zone) use NSEC3 [ROOTDPS].
status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/SHA-512 are also set to RECOMMENDED TO The status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/SHA-512 are also set to RECOMMENDED
IMPLEMENT as it is believed that these algorithms will replace an TO IMPLEMENT as it is believed that these algorithms will replace an
older algorithm (e.g. RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness in older algorithm (e.g. RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness in
its hash algorithm (SHA-1). its hash algorithm (SHA-1) as well as seen in major deployments.
All other algorithms used in DNSSEC specified without an
implementation status are currently set to OPTIONAL.
2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table 2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table
The DNSSEC algorithm implementation status table is listed below. The DNSSEC algorithm implementation status table is listed below.
Only the algorithms already specified for use with DNSSEC (at the Only the algorithms already specified for use with DNSSEC (at the
time of writing) are listed. time of writing) are listed.
+------------+------------+-----------------+-------------+ +------------+------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| MUST | MUST NOT | RECOMMENDED | OPTIONAL | | MUST | MUST NOT | RECOMMENDED | OPTIONAL |
| IMPLEMENT | IMPLEMENT | TO IMPLEMENT | | | IMPLEMENT | IMPLEMENT | TO IMPLEMENT | |
+------------+------------+-----------------+-------------+ +------------+------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| | | | | | | | | |
| RSASHA1 | RSAMD5 | RSASHA256 | DSASHA1 | | RSASHA1 | RSAMD5 | RSASHA256 | DSASHA1 |
| | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | DH | | | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | DH |
| | | -SHA1 | DSA-NSEC3 | | | | -SHA1 | DSA-NSEC3-SHA1 |
| | | RSASHA512 | -SHA1 | | | | RSASHA512 | GOST-ECC |
| | | | GOST-ECC | | | | | ECDSAP256SHA256 |
| | | | | | | | | ECDSAP384SHA384 |
+------------+------------+-----------------+-------------+ +------------+------------+-----------------+-------------------+
This table does not list the Reserved values in the IANA registry This table does not list the Reserved values in the IANA registry
table or the values for INDIRECT (252), PRIVATE (253) and PRIVATEOID table or the values for INDIRECT (252), PRIVATE (253) and PRIVATEOID
(254). These values may relate to more than one algorithm and are (254). These values may relate to more than one algorithm and are
therefore up to the implementer's discretion. Their implementation therefore up to the implementer's discretion. Their implementation
(or lack thereof) therefore cannot be included when judging (or lack thereof) therefore cannot be included when judging
compliance to this document. compliance to this document.
2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of Existing Entries 2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of Existing Entries
[RFC6014] establishes a parallel procedure for adding a registry [RFC6014] establishes a parallel procedure for adding a registry
entry for a new algorithm other than a standards track document. entry for a new algorithm other than a standards track document.
Algorithms entered into the registry using that procedure are to be Algorithms entered into the registry using that procedure are to be
considered OPTIONAL for implementation purposes. Specifications that considered OPTIONAL for implementation purposes. Specifications that
follow this path do not need to obsolete or update this document. follow this path do not need to obsolete or update this document.
Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with a compliance Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with a
status SHALL entail obsolescing this document and replacing the implementation status other than OPTIONAL SHALL entail obsolescing
registry table (with the new algorithm entry). Altering the status this document and replacing the table in Section 2.2 (with the new
column value of any existing algorithm in the registry SHALL entail algorithm entry). Altering the status column value of any existing
obsolescing this document and replacing the registry table. algorithm in the registry SHALL entail obsolescing this document and
replacing the table in Section 2.2 above.
This document cannot be updated, only made obsolete and replaced by a This document cannot be updated, only made obsolete and replaced by a
successor document. successor document.
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
This document lists the implementation status of cryptographic This document lists the implementation status of cryptographic
algorithms used with DNSSEC. These algorithms are maintained in an algorithms used with DNSSEC. These algorithms are maintained in an
IANA registry. There are no changes to the registry in this IANA registry. There are no changes to the registry in this
document. However this document asks to be listed as a reference for document. However this document asks to be listed as a reference for
the entire registry. the entire registry.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document replaces the Domain Name System (DNS) Security This document lists, and in some cases assigns, the implementation
Algorithm Numbers registry. It is not meant to be a discussion on status of cryptographic algorithms used with DNSSEC. It is not meant
algorithm superiority. No new security considerations are raised in to be a discussion on algorithm superiority. No new security
this document. considerations are raised in this document.
5. Normative References 5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System [RFC2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System
(DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999. (DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999.
[RFC2539] Eastlake, D., "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the [RFC2539] Eastlake, D., "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the
Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999. Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999.
skipping to change at page 6, line 18 skipping to change at page 6, line 20
and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702, and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702,
October 2009. October 2009.
[RFC5933] Dolmatov, V., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of GOST [RFC5933] Dolmatov, V., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of GOST
Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records
for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, July 2010. for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, July 2010.
[RFC6014] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier [RFC6014] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier
Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, November 2010. Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, November 2010.
5.2. Informative References
[ROOTDPS] Ljunggren, F., Okubo, T., Lamb, R., and J. Schlyter,
"DNSSEC Practice Statement for the Root Zone KSK
Operator", DNS ROOTDPS, May 2010, <http://
www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/
icann-dps-00.txt>.
Author's Address Author's Address
Scott Rose Scott Rose
NIST NIST
100 Bureau Dr. 100 Bureau Dr.
Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Gaithersburg, MD 20899
USA USA
Phone: +1-301-975-8439 Phone: +1-301-975-8439
EMail: scottr.nist@gmail.com EMail: scottr.nist@gmail.com
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
38 lines changed or deleted 54 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/