idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC5155, but the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this. -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC5702, but the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to use 'NOT RECOMMENDED' as an RFC 2119 keyword, but does not include the phrase in its RFC 2119 key words list. (Using the creation date from RFC2536, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1997-09-10) (Using the creation date from RFC2539, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1997-06-02) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (March 11, 2013) is 4057 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DNS Extensions Working Group S. Rose 3 Internet-Draft NIST 4 Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, March 11, 2013 5 5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved) 6 Intended status: Standards Track 7 Expires: September 12, 2013 9 Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm 10 Implementation Status 11 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-04 13 Abstract 15 The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of 16 cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over 17 DNS data. There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms 18 but there is no record of the recommended implementation status of 19 each algorithm. This document provides an applicability statement on 20 algorithm implementation status for DNSSEC component software. This 21 document lists each algorithm's status based on the current 22 reference. In the case that an algorithm is specified without an 23 implementation status, this document assigns one. This document 24 updates RFCs 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, 5155, 5702, and 5933. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2013. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists . . . . 3 64 2.1. Status definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2.2. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignment Rationale . . . 4 66 2.3. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 2.4. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of 68 Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 78 1. Introduction 80 The Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033], 81 [RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC4509], [RFC5155], and [RFC5702] uses 82 digital signatures over DNS data to provide source authentication and 83 integrity protection. DNSSEC uses an IANA registry to list codes for 84 digital signature algorithms (consisting of a cryptographic algorithm 85 and one-way hash function). 87 The original list of algorithm status is found in [RFC4034]. Other 88 DNSSEC RFC's have added new algorithms or changed the status of 89 algorithms in the registry. However, implementers must read through 90 all the documents in order to discover which algorithms are 91 considered wise to implement, which are not, and which algorithms may 92 become widely used in the future. 94 This document defines the current implementation status for all 95 registered algorithms. If the status of algorithms change, this 96 document will be replaced with a new one establishing the new status; 97 see Section 2.4. 99 This document updates the following: [RFC2536], [RFC2539], [RFC3110], 100 [RFC4034], [RFC4398], [RFC5155], [RFC5702], and [RFC5933]. 102 1.1. Requirements Language 104 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 105 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 106 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 108 2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists 110 2.1. Status definitions 112 Must Implement The algorithm MUST be implemented to interoperate 113 with other implementations of this specification. 115 Must Not Implement The algorithm MUST NOT be implemented. An 116 algorithm with this status has known weaknesses. 118 Recommended to Implement The algorithm SHOULD be implemented. 119 Utility and interoperability with other implementations will be 120 improved when an algorithm with this status is implemented, though 121 there might be occasions where it is reasonable not to implement 122 the algorithm. An implementer must understand and weigh the full 123 implications of choosing not to implement this particular 124 algorithm. 126 Optional The algorithm MAY be implemented, but that all 127 implementations MUST be prepared to interoperate with 128 implementations that do or do not implement this algorithm. 130 2.2. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignment Rationale 132 The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to Recommended to Implement 133 as many deployments use NSEC3. The status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/ 134 SHA-512 are also set to Recommended to Implement as major deployments 135 (such as the root zone) use these algorithms [ROOTDPS]. It is 136 believed that RSA/SHA-256 or RSA/SHA-512 algorithms will replace 137 older algorithms (e.g. RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness. 139 Likewise, ECDSA with the two identified curves (ECDSAP256SHA256 and 140 ECDSAP384SHA384) are algorithms that may see widespread use due to 141 the perceived similar level of security offered with smaller key size 142 compared to the key sizes of algorithms such as RSA. Therefore, 143 ECDSAP256SHA256 and ECDSAP384SHA384 are Recommended to Implement. 145 All other algorithms used in DNSSEC specified without an 146 implementation status are currently set to Optional. 148 2.3. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table 150 The DNSSEC algorithm implementation status table is listed below. 151 Only the algorithms already specified for use with DNSSEC at the time 152 of writing are listed. 154 +------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+ 155 | Must | Must Not | Recommended | Optional | 156 | Implement | Implement | to Implement | | 157 +------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+ 158 | | | | | 159 | RSASHA1 | RSAMD5 | RSASHA256 | Any | 160 | | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | registered | 161 | | | -SHA1 | algorithm | 162 | | | RSASHA512 | not listed in | 163 | | | ECDSAP256SHA256 | this table | 164 | | | ECDSAP384SHA384 | | 165 +------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+ 167 This table does not list the Reserved values in the IANA registry 168 table or the values for INDIRECT (252), PRIVATE (253) and PRIVATEOID 169 (254). These values may relate to more than one algorithm and are 170 therefore up to the implementer's discretion. As noted, any 171 algorithm not listed in the table is Optional. As of this writing, 172 the relevant algorithms are DSASHA1, DH, DSA-NSEC3-SHA1, and GOST- 173 ECC; but in general, anything not explicitly listed is Optional. 175 2.4. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of Existing Entries 177 [RFC6014] establishes a parallel procedure for adding a registry 178 entry for a new algorithm other than a standards track document. 179 Because any algorithm not listed in the foregoing table is Optional, 180 algorithms entered into the registry using the [RFC6014] procedure 181 are automatically Optional. 183 It has turned out to be useful for implementations to refer to a 184 single document that specifies the implementation status of every 185 algorithm. Accordingly, when a new algorithm is to be registered 186 with a status other than Optional, this document shall be made 187 obsolete by a new document which adds the new algorithm to the table 188 in Section 2.3. Similarly, if the status of any algorithm in the 189 table in Section 2.3 changes, a new document shall make this document 190 obsolete; that document shall include a replacement of the table in 191 Section 2.3. This way, the goal of having one authoritative document 192 to specify all the status values is achieved. 194 This document cannot be updated, only made obsolete and replaced by a 195 successor document. 197 3. IANA Considerations 199 This document lists the implementation status of cryptographic 200 algorithms used with DNSSEC. These algorithms are maintained in an 201 IANA registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers. 202 Because this document establishes the implementation status of every 203 algorithm, it should be listed as a reference for the entire 204 registry. 206 4. Security Considerations 208 This document lists, and in some cases assigns, the implementation 209 status of cryptographic algorithms used with DNSSEC. It is not meant 210 to be a discussion on algorithm superiority. No new security 211 considerations are raised in this document, though prior description 212 of algorithms as NOT RECOMMENDED (see [RFC4034]) has been recast as 213 Must Not Implement. 215 5. References 216 5.1. Normative References 218 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 219 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 221 [RFC2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System 222 (DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999. 224 [RFC2539] Eastlake, D., "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the 225 Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999. 227 [RFC3110] Eastlake, D., "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain 228 Name System (DNS)", RFC 3110, May 2001. 230 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 231 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", 232 RFC 4033, March 2005. 234 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 235 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 236 RFC 4034, March 2005. 238 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 239 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 240 Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. 242 [RFC4398] Josefsson, S., "Storing Certificates in the Domain Name 243 System (DNS)", RFC 4398, March 2006. 245 [RFC4509] Hardaker, W., "Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer 246 (DS) Resource Records (RRs)", RFC 4509, May 2006. 248 [RFC5155] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS 249 Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of 250 Existence", RFC 5155, March 2008. 252 [RFC5702] Jansen, J., "Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY 253 and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702, 254 October 2009. 256 [RFC5933] Dolmatov, V., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of GOST 257 Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records 258 for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, July 2010. 260 [RFC6014] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier 261 Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, November 2010. 263 5.2. Informative References 265 [ROOTDPS] Ljunggren, F., Okubo, T., Lamb, R., and J. Schlyter, 266 "DNSSEC Practice Statement for the Root Zone KSK 267 Operator", DNS ROOTDPS, May 2010, . 271 Author's Address 273 Scott Rose 274 NIST 275 100 Bureau Dr. 276 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 277 USA 279 Phone: +1-301-975-8439 280 EMail: scottr.nist@gmail.com