draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04.txt   rfc6944.txt 
DNS Extensions Working Group S. Rose Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Rose
Internet-Draft NIST Request for Comments: 6944 NIST
Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, March 11, 2013 Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, April 2013
5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved) 5155, 5702, 5933
Intended status: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expires: September 12, 2013 ISSN: 2070-1721
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-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,
but there is no record of the recommended implementation status of but there is no record of the recommended implementation status of
each algorithm. This document provides an applicability statement on each algorithm. This document provides an applicability statement on
algorithm implementation status for DNSSEC component software. This algorithm implementation status for DNSSEC component software. This
document lists each algorithm's status based on the current document lists each algorithm's status based on the current
reference. In the case that an algorithm is specified without an reference. In the case that an algorithm is specified without an
implementation status, this document assigns one. This document implementation status, this document assigns one. This document
updates RFCs 2536, 2539, 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 is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2013. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6944.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 17 skipping to change at page 2, line 24
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. Status definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Status Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignment Rationale . . . 4 2.2. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignment Rationale . . . 4
2.3. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of 2.4. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating the Status of
Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 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 RFCs 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. become widely used in the future.
This document defines the current implementation status for all This document defines the current implementation status for all
registered algorithms. If the status of algorithms change, this registered algorithms. If the status of algorithms changes, this
document will be replaced with a new one establishing the new status; document will be replaced with a new one establishing the new status;
see Section 2.4. see Section 2.4.
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. Status definitions 2.1. Status Definitions
Must Implement The algorithm MUST be implemented to interoperate Must Implement: The algorithm MUST be implemented to interoperate
with other implementations of this specification. with other implementations of this specification.
Must Not Implement The algorithm MUST NOT be implemented. An Must Not Implement: The algorithm MUST NOT be implemented. An
algorithm with this status has known weaknesses. algorithm with this status has known weaknesses.
Recommended to Implement The algorithm SHOULD be implemented. Recommended to Implement: The algorithm SHOULD be implemented.
Utility and interoperability with other implementations will be Utility and interoperability with other implementations will be
improved when an algorithm with this status is implemented, though improved when an algorithm with this status is implemented, though
there might be occasions where it is reasonable not to implement there might be occasions where it is reasonable not to implement
the algorithm. An implementer must understand and weigh the full the algorithm. An implementer must understand and weigh the full
implications of choosing not to implement this particular implications of choosing not to implement this particular
algorithm. algorithm.
Optional The algorithm MAY be implemented, but that all Optional: The algorithm MAY be implemented, but all implementations
implementations MUST be prepared to interoperate with MUST be prepared to interoperate with implementations that do or
implementations that do or do not implement this algorithm. do not implement this algorithm.
2.2. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignment Rationale 2.2. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignment Rationale
RSASHA1 has an implementation status of Must Implement, consistent
with [RFC4034]. RSAMD5 has an implementation status of Must Not
Implement because of known weaknesses in MD5.
The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to Recommended to Implement 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. older algorithms (e.g., RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness.
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) is an algorithm that may see widespread use due to
the perceived 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. Therefore, compared to the key sizes of algorithms such as RSA. Therefore,
ECDSAP256SHA256 and ECDSAP384SHA384 are Recommended to Implement. 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.
2.3. 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.
skipping to change at page 4, line 47 skipping to change at page 5, line 6
| | | | | | | | | |
| RSASHA1 | RSAMD5 | RSASHA256 | Any | | RSASHA1 | RSAMD5 | RSASHA256 | Any |
| | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | registered | | | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | registered |
| | | -SHA1 | algorithm | | | | -SHA1 | algorithm |
| | | RSASHA512 | not listed in | | | | RSASHA512 | not listed in |
| | | ECDSAP256SHA256 | this table | | | | 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. As noted, any therefore up to the implementer's discretion. As noted, any
algorithm not listed in the table is Optional. As of this writing, algorithm not listed in the table is Optional. As of this writing,
the relevant algorithms are DSASHA1, DH, DSA-NSEC3-SHA1, and GOST- the Optional algorithms are DSASHA1, DH, DSA-NSEC3-SHA1, and GOST-
ECC; but in general, anything not explicitly listed is Optional. ECC, but in general, anything not explicitly listed is Optional.
2.4. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of Existing Entries 2.4. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating the 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.
Because any algorithm not listed in the foregoing table is Optional, Because any algorithm not listed in the foregoing table is Optional,
algorithms entered into the registry using the [RFC6014] procedure algorithms entered into the registry using the [RFC6014] procedure
are automatically Optional. are automatically Optional.
It has turned out to be useful for implementations to refer to a It has turned out to be useful for implementations to refer to a
single document that specifies the implementation status of every single document that specifies the implementation status of every
algorithm. Accordingly, when a new algorithm is to be registered algorithm. Accordingly, when a new algorithm is to be registered
with a status other than Optional, this document shall be made with a status other than Optional, this document shall be made
obsolete by a new document which adds the new algorithm to the table obsolete by a new document that adds the new algorithm to the table
in Section 2.3. Similarly, if the status of any algorithm in the 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 table in Section 2.3 changes, a new document shall make this document
obsolete; that document shall include a replacement of the table in obsolete; that document shall include a replacement of the table in
Section 2.3. This way, the goal of having one authoritative document Section 2.3. This way, the goal of having one authoritative document
to specify all the status values is achieved. 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.
Because this document establishes the implementation status of every Because this document establishes the implementation status of every
algorithm, it should be listed as a reference for the entire algorithm, it has been listed as a reference for the registry itself.
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, though prior description considerations are raised in this document, though prior description
of algorithms as NOT RECOMMENDED (see [RFC4034]) has been recast as of algorithms as NOT RECOMMENDED (see [RFC4034]) has been recast as
Must Not Implement. Must Not Implement.
skipping to change at page 7, line 9 skipping to change at page 7, line 9
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 5.2. Informative References
[ROOTDPS] Ljunggren, F., Okubo, T., Lamb, R., and J. Schlyter, [ROOTDPS] Ljunggren, F., Okubo, T., Lamb, R., and J. Schlyter,
"DNSSEC Practice Statement for the Root Zone KSK "DNSSEC Practice Statement for the Root Zone KSK
Operator", DNS ROOTDPS, May 2010, <http:// Operator", DNS ROOTDPS, May 2010,
www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ <http://www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/
icann-dps-00.txt>. 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
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
48 lines changed or deleted 44 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/