draft-ietf-dnsext-signed-nonexistence-requirements-00.txt   draft-ietf-dnsext-signed-nonexistence-requirements-01.txt 
Network Working Group B. Laurie Network Working Group B. Laurie
Internet-Draft Nominet Internet-Draft Nominet
Expires: March 24, 2005 R. Loomis Expires: March 2, 2005 R. Loomis
SAIC SAIC
September 23, 2004 September 2004
Requirements related to DNSSEC Signed Proof of Non-Existence Requirements related to DNSSEC Signed Proof of Non-Existence
draft-ietf-dnsext-signed-nonexistence-requirements-00 draft-ietf-dnsext-signed-nonexistence-requirements-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668. RFC 3668.
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 24, 2005. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 2, 2005.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract Abstract
DNSSEC-bis uses the NSEC record to provide authenticated denial of DNSSEC-bis uses the NSEC record to provide authenticated denial of
existence of RRsets. NSEC also has the side-effect of permitting existence of RRsets. NSEC also has the side-effect of permitting
zone enumeration, even if zone transfers have been forbidden. zone enumeration, even if zone transfers have been forbidden.
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
15. Minimisation of Asymmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 15. Minimisation of Asymmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
16. Minimisation of Client Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 16. Minimisation of Client Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
17. Completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 17. Completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
18. Purity of Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 18. Purity of Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
19. Replay Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 19. Replay Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
20. Compatibility with NSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 20. Compatibility with NSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
21. Compatibility with NSEC II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 21. Compatibility with NSEC II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
22. Compatibility with NSEC III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 22. Compatibility with NSEC III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
23. Coexistence with NSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 23. Coexistence with NSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
24. Coexistence with NSEC II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 24. Coexistence with NSEC II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
25. Coexistence with NSEC III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 25. Protocol Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
26. Allow Partially Signed Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 26. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
27. Protocol Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 27. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
28. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 28. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
29. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 29. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
30. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 30. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
31. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 30.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
32. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 30.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
32.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
32.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
NSEC records allow trivial enumeration of zones - a situation that NSEC records allow trivial enumeration of zones - a situation that
has existed for several years but which has recently been raised as a has existed for several years but which has recently been raised as a
significant concern for DNSSECbis deployment in several zones. significant concern for DNSSECbis deployment in several zones.
Alternate proposals have been made that make zone enumeration more Alternate proposals have been made that make zone enumeration more
difficult, and some previous proposals to modify DNSSEC had related difficult, and some previous proposals to modify DNSSEC had related
requirements/desirements that are relevant to the discussion. In requirements/desirements that are relevant to the discussion. In
addition the original designs for NSEC/NXT records were based on addition the original designs for NSEC/NXT records were based on
skipping to change at page 9, line 23 skipping to change at page 9, line 23
22. Compatibility with NSEC III 22. Compatibility with NSEC III
NSEC++ should differ from NSEC as little as possible whilst achieving NSEC++ should differ from NSEC as little as possible whilst achieving
other requirements. other requirements.
Contributor: Alex Bligh Contributor: Alex Bligh
23. Coexistence with NSEC 23. Coexistence with NSEC
NSEC++ should be designed to coexist with NSEC.
Contributor: Ed Lewis
24. Coexistence with NSEC II
NSEC++ should be optional, allowing NSEC to be used instead. NSEC++ should be optional, allowing NSEC to be used instead.
Contributor: Alex Bligh Contributor: Ed Lewis, Alex Bligh
25. Coexistence with NSEC III 24. Coexistence with NSEC II
NSEC++ should not impose extra work on those content with NSEC. NSEC++ should not impose extra work on those content with NSEC.
Contributor: Ed Lewis Contributor: Ed Lewis
26. Allow Partially Signed Zones 25. Protocol Design
NSEC++ should allow partially signed zones.
Contributor: Alex Bligh
27. Protocol Design
A good security protocol would allow signing the nonexistence of some A good security protocol would allow signing the nonexistence of some
selected names without revealing anything about other names. selected names without revealing anything about other names.
Contributor: Dan Bernstein Contributor: Dan Bernstein
28. Process 26. Process
Clearly not all of these requirements can be met. Therefore the next Clearly not all of these requirements can be met. Therefore the next
phase of this document will be to either prioritise them or narrow phase of this document will be to either prioritise them or narrow
them down to a non-contradictory set, which should then allow us to them down to a non-contradictory set, which should then allow us to
judge proposals on the basis of their fit. judge proposals on the basis of their fit.
29. Acknowledgements 27. Acknowledgements
30. Requirements notation 28. Requirements notation
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].
31. Security Considerations 29. Security Considerations
There are currently no security considerations called out in this There are currently no security considerations called out in this
draft. There will be security considerations in the choice of which draft. There will be security considerations in the choice of which
requirements will be implemented, but there are no specific security requirements will be implemented, but there are no specific security
requirements during the requirements collection process. requirements during the requirements collection process.
32. References 30. References
32.1 Normative References 30.1 Normative References
[dnssecbis-protocol] [dnssecbis-protocol]
"DNSSECbis Protocol Definitions", BCP XX, RFC XXXX, Some "DNSSECbis Protocol Definitions", BCP XX, RFC XXXX, Some
Month 2004. Month 2004.
32.2 Informative References 30.2 Informative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[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.
[RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and [RFC2418] Bradner, S., "IETF Working Group Guidelines and
Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998. Procedures", BCP 25, RFC 2418, September 1998.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/