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/