draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-01.txt		draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-02.txt
	DNSOP W. Hardaker		DNSOP W. Hardaker
	Internet-Draft Sparta, Inc.		Internet-Draft Sparta, Inc.
	Intended status: Informational September 3, 2008		Intended status: Informational February 12, 2009
	Expires: March 7, 2009		Expires: August 16, 2009
	Requirements for Management of Name Servers for the DNS		Requirements for Management of Name Servers for the DNS
	draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-01.txt		draft-ietf-dnsop-name-server-management-reqs-02.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
	aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts.
	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."
	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 7, 2009.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 16, 2009.
			Copyright Notice
			Copyright (c) 2009 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.
	Abstract		Abstract
	Management of name servers for the Domain Name Service (DNS) has		Management of name servers for the Domain Name Service (DNS) has
	traditionally been done using vendor-specific monitoring,		traditionally been done using vendor-specific monitoring,
	configuration and control methods. Although some service monitoring		configuration and control methods. Although some service monitoring
	platforms can test the functionality of the DNS itself there is not a		platforms can test the functionality of the DNS itself there is not a
	interoperable way to manage (monitor, control and configure) the		interoperable way to manage (monitor, control and configure) the
	internal aspects of a name server itself.		internal aspects of a name server itself.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 42		skipping to change at page 2, line 50
	4. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.1. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.1. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.2. Integrity Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.2. Integrity Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.3. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.3. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.4. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.4. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.5. Solution Impacts on Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.5. Solution Impacts on Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5. Other Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5. Other Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.1. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5.1. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.1.1. Vendor Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.1.1. Vendor Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5.1.2. Extension Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.1.2. Extension Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5.1.3. Namespace Collision Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.1.3. Name-Space Collision Protection . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Appendix A. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Appendix A. Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	A.1. Non-Standard Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		A.1. Non-Standard Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	A.2. Redundancy Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		A.2. Redundancy Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	A.3. DNSSEC Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		A.3. DNSSEC Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Management of name servers for the Domain Name Service (DNS)		Management of name servers for the Domain Name Service (DNS)
	[RFC1034] [RFC1035] has traditionally been done using vendor-specific		[RFC1034] [RFC1035] has traditionally been done using vendor-specific
	monitoring, configuration and control methods. Although some service		monitoring, configuration and control methods. Although some service
	monitoring platforms can test the functionality of the DNS itself		monitoring platforms can test the functionality of the DNS itself
	there is not a interoperable way to manage (monitor, control and		there is not a interoperable way to manage (monitor, control and
	configure) the internal aspects of a name server itself.		configure) the internal aspects of a name server itself.
	skipping to change at page 7, line 37		skipping to change at page 7, line 37
	o Slave Servers		o Slave Servers
	o Recursive Servers		o Recursive Servers
	The management solution SHOULD support all of these types of name		The management solution SHOULD support all of these types of name
	servers as they are all equally important. Note that "Recursive		servers as they are all equally important. Note that "Recursive
	Servers" can be further broken down by the security sub-roles they		Servers" can be further broken down by the security sub-roles they
	might implement, as defined in section 2 of [RFC4033]. These sub-		might implement, as defined in section 2 of [RFC4033]. These sub-
	roles are also important to support within any management solution.		roles are also important to support within any management solution.
	The requirements in this document explicitly exclude dealing with		As stated earlier, the management of stub resolvers is considered out
	management of stub resolvers. Management of stub resolvers is		of scope for this documents.
	considered specifically out of scope of this document.
	3. Management Operation Types		3. Management Operation Types
	Management operations can traditionally be broken into four		Management operations can traditionally be broken into four
	categories:		categories:
	o Control		o Control
	o Configuration		o Configuration
	o Health and Monitoring
			o Health and Monitoring
	o Alarms and Events		o Alarms and Events
	This section discusses requirements for each of these four management		This section discusses requirements for each of these four management
	types in detail.		types in detail.
	3.1. Control Requirements		3.1. Control Requirements
	The management solution MUST be capable of performing basic service		The management solution MUST be capable of performing basic service
	control operations.		control operations.
	skipping to change at page 13, line 21		skipping to change at page 13, line 21
	5.1.2. Extension Identification		5.1.2. Extension Identification
	It MUST be possible for a management station to understand which		It MUST be possible for a management station to understand which
	parts of returned data are specific to a given vendor or other		parts of returned data are specific to a given vendor or other
	standardized extension. The data returned needs to be appropriately		standardized extension. The data returned needs to be appropriately
	marked through the use of name spaces or similar mechanisms to ensure		marked through the use of name spaces or similar mechanisms to ensure
	that the base management model data can be logically separated from		that the base management model data can be logically separated from
	extension data without needing to understand the extension data		extension data without needing to understand the extension data
	itself.		itself.
	5.1.3. Namespace Collision Protection		5.1.3. Name-Space Collision Protection
	It MUST be possible to protect against multiple extensions		It MUST be possible to protect against multiple extensions
	conflicting with each other. The use of name-space protection		conflicting with each other. The use of name-space protection
	mechanisms for communicated management variables is common practice		mechanisms for communicated management variables is common practice
	to protect against problems. Name-space identification techniques		to protect against problems. Name-space identification techniques
	also frequently solve the "Extension Identification" requirement		also frequently solve the "Extension Identification" requirement
	discussed in Section 5.1.2 as well.		discussed in Section 5.1.2 as well.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	skipping to change at page 14, line 27		skipping to change at page 14, line 27
	In particular, the following team members contributed significantly		In particular, the following team members contributed significantly
	to the text in the document:		to the text in the document:
	Stephane Bortzmeyer		Stephane Bortzmeyer
	Stephen Morris		Stephen Morris
	Phil Regnauld		Phil Regnauld
	Further editing contributions and wording suggestions were made by:		Further editing contributions and wording suggestions were made by:
	Alfred Hines.		Alfred Hoenes.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",		[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
	STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.		STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
	[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and		[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
	specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.		specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
	skipping to change at page 18, line 4		skipping to change at line 758
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Wes Hardaker		Wes Hardaker
	Sparta, Inc.		Sparta, Inc.
	P.O. Box 382		P.O. Box 382
	Davis, CA 95617		Davis, CA 95617
	US		US
	Phone: +1 530 792 1913		Phone: +1 530 792 1913
	Email: ietf@hardakers.net		Email: ietf@hardakers.net
	Full Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
	This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
	contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
	retain all their rights.
	This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
	"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
	OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
	THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
	Intellectual Property
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
	made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
	on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
	found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
	specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
	http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
	The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
	copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
	rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
	this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
	ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
End of changes. 12 change blocks.
	16 lines changed or deleted		24 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/