DNS Extensions Working Group                                     S. Rose
Internet-Draft                                                      NIST
Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398,                     June 12, 2012                    March 11, 2013
5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved)
Intended status: BCP Standards Track
Expires: December 14, 2012 September 12, 2013

    Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm
                         Implementation Status


   The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of
   cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over
   DNS data.  There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms
   that lacks
   but there is no record of the recommended implementation status of
   each algorithm.  This document provides an applicability statement on
   algorithm implementation status for DNSSEC component software.  This
   document lists each algorithm's status based on the current
   reference.  In the case that an algorithm is specified without an
   implementation status, this document assigns one.  This document
   updates RFCs 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, 5155, 5702, and 5933.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 14, 2012. September 12, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 2013 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

   2.  The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists  . . . . 3
     2.1.  Status definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Assignment Rationale  . . . 3
     2.2. 4
     2.3.  DNSSEC Implementation Status Table  . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     2.4.  Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of
           Existing Entries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5

   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

   5.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
     5.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
     5.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7

1.  Introduction

   The Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033],
   [RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC4509], [RFC5155], and [RFC5702] uses
   digital signatures over DNS data to provide source authentication and
   integrity protection.  DNSSEC uses an IANA registry to list codes for
   digital signature algorithms (consisting of a cryptographic algorithm
   and one-way hash function).

   The original list of algorithm status is found in [RFC4034].  Other
   DNSSEC RFC's have added new algorithms or changed the status of
   algorithms in the registry.  However, implementers must read through
   all the documents in order to discover which algorithms are
   considered wise to implement, which are not, and which algorithms may
   become widely used in the future.

   This document includes defines the current implementation status for certain all
   registered algorithms.

   This implementation  If the status indication is only to be considered for
   implementation, not deployment or operations.  Operators are free to
   deploy any digital signature algorithm available in implementations
   or of algorithms chosen by local security policies.  This status is to
   measure compliance to change, this
   document only. will be replaced with a new one establishing the new status;
   see Section 2.4.

   This document updates the following: [RFC2536], [RFC2539], [RFC3110],
   [RFC4034], [RFC4398], [RFC5155], [RFC5702], and [RFC5933].

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists

2.1.  Status definitions

   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

   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 Assignement Assignment Rationale

   The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT Recommended to Implement
   as many deployments use NSEC3.  The status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/
   SHA-512 are also set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT Recommended to Implement as major deployments
   (such as the root zone) use these algorithms [ROOTDPS].  It is
   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
   these recommended algorithms are seen in major deployments. weakness.

   Likewise, ECDSA with the two identified curves (ECDSAP256SHA256 and
   ECDSAP384SHA384) are algorithms that may see widespread use due to
   the precieved perceived similar level of security offered with smaller key size
   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
   implementation status are currently set to OPTIONAL.

2.2. Optional.

2.3.  DNSSEC Implementation Status Table

   The DNSSEC algorithm implementation status table is listed below.
   Only the algorithms already specified for use with DNSSEC (at at the time
   of writing) writing are listed.

    |    MUST    Must    |  MUST NOT  Must Not  |    RECOMMENDED    Recommended    |      OPTIONAL      Optional     |
    |  IMPLEMENT  Implement | IMPLEMENT Implement  |   TO IMPLEMENT   to Implement    |                   |
    |            |            |                   |                   |
    |   RSASHA1  |   RSAMD5   |   RSASHA256       |   DSASHA1   Any             |
    |            |            |   RSASHA1-NSEC3   |   DH   registered      |
    |            |            |    -SHA1          |   DSA-NSEC3-SHA1   algorithm       |
    |            |            |   RSASHA512       |   GOST-ECC   not listed in   |
    |            |            |   ECDSAP256SHA256 |   this table      |
    |            |            |   ECDSAP384SHA384 |                   |

   This table does not list the Reserved values in the IANA registry
   table or the values for INDIRECT (252), PRIVATE (253) and PRIVATEOID
   (254).  These values may relate to more than one algorithm and are
   therefore up to the implementer's discretion.  Their implementation
   (or lack thereof) therefore cannot be included when judging
   compliance to  As noted, any
   algorithm not listed in the table is Optional.  As of this document.

2.3. writing,
   the relevant algorithms are DSASHA1, DH, DSA-NSEC3-SHA1, and GOST-
   ECC; but in general, anything not explicitly listed is Optional.

2.4.  Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of Existing Entries

   [RFC6014] establishes a parallel procedure for adding a registry
   entry for a new algorithm other than a standards track document.
   Because any algorithm not listed in the foregoing table is Optional,
   algorithms entered into the registry using that the [RFC6014] procedure
   are automatically Optional.

   It has turned out to be
   considered OPTIONAL useful for implementation purposes.  Specifications that
   follow this path do not need implementations to refer to obsolete or update this document.

   Adding a newly specified
   single document that specifies the implementation status of every
   algorithm.  Accordingly, when a new algorithm is to the registry be registered
   with an
   implementation a status other than OPTIONAL SHALL entail making Optional, this document shall be made
   obsolete and replacing by a new document which adds the new algorithm to the table
   in Section 2.2 (with the
   new algorithm entry).  Altering 2.3.  Similarly, if the status value of any existing algorithm in the registry SHALL entail making
   table in Section 2.3 changes, a new document shall make this document obsolete
   and replacing
   obsolete; that document shall include a replacement of the table in
   Section 2.2 above. 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
   successor document.

3.  IANA Considerations

   This document lists the implementation status of cryptographic
   algorithms used with DNSSEC.  These algorithms are maintained in an
   IANA registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers.
   There are no changes to the registry in this document.  However
   Because this document asks to establishes the implementation status of every
   algorithm, it should be listed as a reference for the entire

4.  Security Considerations

   This document lists, and in some cases assigns, the implementation
   status of cryptographic algorithms used with DNSSEC.  It is not meant
   to be a discussion on algorithm superiority.  No new security
   considerations are raised in this document. document, though prior description
   of algorithms as NOT RECOMMENDED (see [RFC4034]) has been recast as
   Must Not Implement.

5.  References
5.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC2536]  Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System
              (DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999.

   [RFC2539]  Eastlake, D., "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the
              Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999.

   [RFC3110]  Eastlake, D., "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain
              Name System (DNS)", RFC 3110, May 2001.

   [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.

   [RFC4398]  Josefsson, S., "Storing Certificates in the Domain Name
              System (DNS)", RFC 4398, March 2006.

   [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.

   [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.

   [RFC6014]  Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier
              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://

Author's Address

   Scott Rose
   100 Bureau Dr.
   Gaithersburg, MD  20899

   Phone: +1-301-975-8439
   EMail: scottr.nist@gmail.com