DNS Extensions Working Group                            J. Schlyter, Ed.

Updates: RFC 2535, RFC TCR (if
approved)
Expires: May 26, June 3, 2004

                        DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format
                  draft-ietf-dnsext-nsec-rdata-00.txt
                  draft-ietf-dnsext-nsec-rdata-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 26, June 3, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document defines updates the NSEC resource record RDATA format
   to cover all type codes.

Table of Contents

   1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.    The NSEC Resource Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.1   NSEC RDATA Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1.1 The Next Domain Name Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1.2 The List of Type Bit Map(s) Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1.3 Inclusion of Wildcard Names in NSEC RDATA  . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.2   The NSEC RR Presentation Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.3   NSEC RR Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.    IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.    Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
         Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
         Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6  7
         Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6  7
   A.    Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
         Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . .  8

1. Introduction

   The NSEC [3] [5] Resource Record (RR) is used for authenticated proof of
   the non-existence of DNS owner names and types.  The RDATA format for
   the NSEC RR, as described in RFC 2535 [2], had a limitation in that,
   without using a yet undefined extension mechanism, the the RDATA
   could only carry information about the existence of the first 127
   types.

   To prevent the introduction of an extension mechanism into a deployed
   base of DNSSEC aware servers and resolvers, once the first 127 type
   codes are allocated, this document redefines the wire format of the
   "Type Bit Map" field in the NSEC RDATA to cover the full RR type
   space.

   This document introduces a new format for the type bit map.  The
   properties of the type bit map format are that it can cover the full
   possible range of typecodes; that it is relatively economic in the
   amount of space it uses for the common case of a few types with an
   owner name; that it can represent owner names with all possible type
   present in packets of approximately 8.5 kilobytes; that the
   representation is simple to implement. Efficient searching of the
   type bitmap for the presence of certain types is not a requirement.

   For convenience and completeness this document presents the syntax
   and semantics for the NSEC RR based on the specification in RFC 2535
   [2] and as updated by RFC TCR [3], [5], thereby not introducing changes
   except for the syntax of the type bit map.

   [Editors note: this is the text that is to be copied into
   draft-ietf-dnssec-dnssec-records]

   This document updates RFC 2535 [2] and RFC TCR [3]. [5].

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].

2. The NSEC Resource Record

   The NSEC resource record lists two separate things: the owner name of
   the next authoritative RRset in the canonical ordering of the zone,
   and the set of RR types present at the NSEC RR's owner name.  The
   complete set of NSEC RRs in a zone both indicate which authoritative
   RRsets exist in a zone and also form a chain of authoritative owner
   names in the zone.  This information is used to provide authenticated
   denial of existence for DNS data, as described in RFC 2535 [2].

   The type value for the NSEC RR is 47.

   The NSEC RR RDATA format is class independent. independent and defined for all
   classes.

   The NSEC RR has no special TTL requirements.

2.1 NSEC RDATA Wire Format

   The RDATA of the NSEC RR is as shown below:

                        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   /                      Next Domain Name                         /
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   /                   List of Type Bit Map(s)                     /
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

2.1.1 The Next Domain Name Field

   The Next Domain Name field contains the owner name of the next
   authoritative RRset in the canonical ordering of the zone. The value
   of the Next Domain Name field in the last NSEC record in the zone is
   the name of the zone apex (the owner name of the zone's SOA RR).

   A sender MUST NOT use DNS name compression on the Next Domain Name
   field when transmitting an NSEC RR.  A receiver which receives an
   NSEC RR containing a compressed Next Domain Name field SHOULD
   decompress the field value.

   Owner names of RRsets not authoritative for the given zone (such as
   glue records) MUST NOT be listed in the Next Domain Name unless at
   least one authoritative RRset exists at the same owner name.

2.1.2 The List of Type Bit Map(s) Field

   The List of Type Bit Map(s) Field identifies the RRset types which
   exist at the NSEC RR's owner name and uses a simple windowed bitmap
   encoding.  It is a logical extension to the encoding used by NXT [2]
   and is designed to be both efficient and easy to implement without
   errors.

   The RR type space is split into into 256 window blocks. blocks, each representing
   the low-order 8 bits of the 16-bit RR type space. Each block that has
   at least one active RR type is encoded using a window single octet window
   number (from 0 to 255), a single octet bitmap length octet (from 1 to 32)
   indicating the number of octets used for the window block's bitmap,
   and a bitmap (covering up to 256 type codes) in network bit order (similar to NXT). 32 octets (256 bits) of bitmap.

   Blocks
   with no types are present MUST NOT be included.  Trailing zero octets in the bitmap MUST be removed. Blocks is presented NSEC RR RDATA in increasing numerical
   order.

   "|" denotes concatenation

   	NSEC RDATA

   Type Bit Map(s) Field = ( Window Block # | Bitmap Length | Bitmap ) +

   A zone MUST NOT generate an NSEC

   Each bitmap encodes the low-order 8 bits of RR types within the
   window block, in network bit order.  The first bit is bit 0.  For
   window block 0, bit 1 corresponds to RR type 1 (A), bit 2 corresponds
   to RR type 2 (NS), and so forth.  For window block 1, bit 1
   corresponds to RR type 257, bit 2 to RR type 258.  If a bit is set to
   1, it indicates that an RRset of that type is present for any domain name the NSEC
   RR's owner name.  If a bit is set to 0, it indicates that only
   holds glue records. no RRset of
   that type is present for the NSEC RR's owner name.

   Bits representing pseudo-RR types Meta-TYPEs or QTYPEs as specified in RFC 2929 [3]
   (section 3.1) or within the range reserved for assignment only to
   QTYPEs and Meta-TYPEs MUST be set to 0, since they do not appear in
   zone data.  If encountered, they must be ignored upon reading.

   Blocks with no types present MUST NOT be included.  Trailing zero
   octets in the bitmap MUST be omitted.  The length of each block's
   bitmap is determined by the type code with the largest numerical
   value, within that block, among the set of RR types present at the
   NSEC RR's owner name.  Trailing zero octets not specified MUST be
   interpretted as zero octets.

2.1.3 Inclusion of Wildcard Names in NSEC RDATA

   If a wildcard owner name appears in a zone, the wildcard label ("*")
   is treated as a literal symbol and is treated the same as any other
   owner name for purposes of generating NSEC RRs. Wildcard owner names
   appear in the Next Domain Name field without any wildcard expansion.
   RFC 2535 [2] describes the impact of wildcards on authenticated
   denial of existence.

2.2 The NSEC RR Presentation Format

   The presentation format of the RDATA portion is as follows:

   The Next Domain Name field is represented as a domain name.

   The List of Type Bit Map field Map(s) Field is represented either as a sequence of RR
   type
   mnemonics or as a sequence of unsigned decimal integers denoting mnemonics.  When the
   RR type codes. mnemonic is not known, the TYPE
   representation as described in RFC 3597 [4] (section 5) MUST be used.

2.3 NSEC RR Example

   The following NSEC RR identifies the RRsets associated with
   alfa.example.com. and identifies the next authoritative name after
   alfa.example.com.

   alfa.example.com. 86400 IN NSEC host.example.com. A MX RRSIG NSEC TYPE1234

   The first four text fields specify the name, TTL, Class, and RR type
   (NSEC).  The entry host.example.com. is the next authoritative name
   after alfa.example.com. in canonical order. The A, MX, RRSIG and NSEC
   mnemonics indicate there are A, MX, RRSIG and RRSIG, NSEC and TYPE1234 RRsets
   associated with the name alfa.example.com.

   The RDATA section of the NSEC RR above would be encoded as:

         0x04 'h'  'o'  's'  't'
         0x07 'e'  'x'  'a'  'm'  'p'  'l'  'e'
         0x03 'c'  'o'  'm'  0x00
         0x00 0x06 0x40 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x03
         0x04 0x1b 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
         0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
         0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
         0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x20

   Assuming that the resolver can authenticate this NSEC record, it
   could be used to prove that beta.example.com does not exist, or could
   be used to prove there is no AAAA record associated with
   alfa.example.com.  Authenticated denial of existence is discussed in
   RFC 2535 [2].

3. IANA Considerations

   This document introduces no new IANA considerations, because all of
   the protocol parameters used in this document have already been
   assigned by RFC TCR [3]. [5].

4. Security Considerations

   The change introducted here does not affect security, since it only
   updates the RDATA format and encoding.

Normative References

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

   [2]  Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
        2535, March 1999.

   [3]  Eastlake, D., Brunner-Williams, E. and B. Manning, "Domain Name
        System (DNS) IANA Considerations", BCP 42, RFC 2929, September
        2000.

   [4]  Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR)
        Types", RFC 3597, September 2003.

   [5]  Weiler, S., "Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation
        Signer", draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-2535typecode-change-05 (work
        in progress), October 2003.

Informational References

   [4]
   [6]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD
        13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [5]

   [7]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
        specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

Author's Address

   Jakob Schlyter (editor)
   Karl Gustavsgatan 15
   Goteborg  SE-411 25
   Sweden

   EMail: jakob@schlyter.se

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

   The encoding described in this document was initially proposed by
   Mark Andrews.  Other encodings where proposed by David Blacka and
   Michael Graff.

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.