draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-03.txt   draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04.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, June 12, 2012 Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, March 11, 2013
5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved) 5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved)
Intended status: BCP Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: December 14, 2012 Expires: September 12, 2013
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-03 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04
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 lacks the recommended implementation status of each algorithm. but there is no record of the recommended implementation status of
This document provides an applicability statement on algorithm each algorithm. This document provides an applicability statement on
implementation status for DNSSEC component software. This document algorithm implementation status for DNSSEC component software. This
lists each algorithm's status based on the current reference. In the document lists each algorithm's status based on the current
case that an algorithm is specified without an implementation status, reference. In the case that an algorithm is specified without an
this document assigns one. This document updates RFCs 2536, 2539, implementation status, this document assigns one. This document
3110, 4034, 4398, 5155, 5702, and 5933. updates RFCs 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, 5155, 5702, and 5933.
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 December 14, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
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. Status definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignment Rationale . . . 4
2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of 2.3. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of
Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
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.
implementation status for certain algorithms.
This implementation status indication is only to be considered for This document defines the current implementation status for all
implementation, not deployment or operations. Operators are free to registered algorithms. If the status of algorithms change, this
deploy any digital signature algorithm available in implementations document will be replaced with a new one establishing the new status;
or algorithms chosen by local security policies. This status is to see Section 2.4.
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", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document 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. Status definitions
The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT Must Implement The algorithm MUST be implemented to interoperate
with other implementations of this specification.
Must Not Implement The algorithm MUST NOT be implemented. An
algorithm with this status has known weaknesses.
Recommended to Implement The algorithm SHOULD be implemented.
Utility and interoperability with other implementations will be
improved when an algorithm with this status is implemented, though
there might be occasions where it is reasonable not to implement
the algorithm. An implementer must understand and weigh the full
implications of choosing not to implement this particular
algorithm.
Optional The algorithm MAY be implemented, but that all
implementations MUST be prepared to interoperate with
implementations that do or do not implement this algorithm.
2.2. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignment Rationale
The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to Recommended to Implement
as many deployments use NSEC3. The status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/ as many deployments use NSEC3. The status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/
SHA-512 are also set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT as major deployments SHA-512 are also set to Recommended to Implement as major deployments
(such as the root zone) use these algorithms [ROOTDPS]. It is (such as the root zone) use these algorithms [ROOTDPS]. It is
believed that RSA/SHA-256 or RSA/SHA-512 algorithms will replace believed that RSA/SHA-256 or RSA/SHA-512 algorithms will replace
older algorithms (e.g. RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness or older algorithms (e.g. RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness.
these recommended algorithms are seen in major deployments.
Likewise, ECDSA with the two identified curves (ECDSAP256SHA256 and Likewise, ECDSA with the two identified curves (ECDSAP256SHA256 and
ECDSAP384SHA384) are algorithms that may see widespread use due to ECDSAP384SHA384) are algorithms that may see widespread use due to
the precieved similar level of security offered with smaller key size the perceived similar level of security offered with smaller key size
compared to the key sizes of algorithms such as RSA. compared to the key sizes of algorithms such as RSA. Therefore,
ECDSAP256SHA256 and ECDSAP384SHA384 are Recommended to Implement.
All other algorithms used in DNSSEC specified without an All other algorithms used in DNSSEC specified without an
implementation status are currently set to OPTIONAL. implementation status are currently set to Optional.
2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table 2.3. 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
time of writing) are listed. 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 | Any |
| | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | DH | | | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | registered |
| | | -SHA1 | DSA-NSEC3-SHA1 | | | | -SHA1 | algorithm |
| | | RSASHA512 | GOST-ECC | | | | RSASHA512 | not listed in |
| | | ECDSAP256SHA256 | | | | | ECDSAP256SHA256 | this table |
| | | ECDSAP384SHA384 | | | | | 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. As noted, any
(or lack thereof) therefore cannot be included when judging algorithm not listed in the table is Optional. As of this writing,
compliance to this document. the relevant algorithms are DSASHA1, DH, DSA-NSEC3-SHA1, and GOST-
ECC; but in general, anything not explicitly listed is Optional.
2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of Existing Entries 2.4. 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 Because any algorithm not listed in the foregoing table is Optional,
considered OPTIONAL for implementation purposes. Specifications that algorithms entered into the registry using the [RFC6014] procedure
follow this path do not need to obsolete or update this document. are automatically Optional.
Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with an It has turned out to be useful for implementations to refer to a
implementation status other than OPTIONAL SHALL entail making this single document that specifies the implementation status of every
document obsolete and replacing the table in Section 2.2 (with the algorithm. Accordingly, when a new algorithm is to be registered
new algorithm entry). Altering the status value of any existing with a status other than Optional, this document shall be made
algorithm in the registry SHALL entail making this document obsolete obsolete by a new document which adds the new algorithm to the table
and replacing the table in Section 2.2 above. in Section 2.3. Similarly, if the status of any algorithm in the
table in Section 2.3 changes, a new document shall make this document
obsolete; that document shall include a replacement of the table in
Section 2.3. This way, the goal of having one authoritative document
to specify all the status values is achieved.
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 at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers. IANA registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers.
There are no changes to the registry in this document. However this Because this document establishes the implementation status of every
document asks to be listed as a reference for the entire registry. algorithm, it should be listed as a reference for the entire
registry.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document lists, and in some cases assigns, the implementation This document lists, and in some cases assigns, the implementation
status of cryptographic algorithms used with DNSSEC. It is not meant status of cryptographic algorithms used with DNSSEC. It is not meant
to be a discussion on algorithm superiority. No new security to be a discussion on algorithm superiority. No new security
considerations are raised in this document. considerations are raised in this document, though prior description
of algorithms as NOT RECOMMENDED (see [RFC4034]) has been recast as
Must Not Implement.
5. References 5. References
5.1. Normative 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.
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
62 lines changed or deleted 88 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/