< draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09.txt   draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-10.txt >
Network Working Group J. Laganier Network Working Group J. Laganier
Internet-Draft Luminate Wireless, Inc. Internet-Draft Luminate Wireless, Inc.
Obsoletes: 5205 (if approved) January 31, 2016 Obsoletes: 5205 (if approved) August 4, 2016
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: August 3, 2016 Expires: February 5, 2017
Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extension Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name System (DNS) Extension
draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-09 draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-10
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a new resource record (RR) for the Domain This document specifies a resource record (RR) for the Domain Name
Name System (DNS), and how to use it with the Host Identity Protocol System (DNS), and how to use it with the Host Identity Protocol
(HIP). This RR allows a HIP node to store in the DNS its Host (HIP). This RR allows a HIP node to store in the DNS its Host
Identity (HI, the public component of the node public-private key Identity (HI, the public component of the node public-private key
pair), Host Identity Tag (HIT, a truncated hash of its public key), pair), Host Identity Tag (HIT, a truncated hash of its public key),
and the Domain Names of its rendezvous servers (RVSs). This document and the Domain Names of its rendezvous servers (RVSs). This document
obsoletes RFC5205. obsoletes RFC5205.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 3, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 5, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
4.2. Initiating Connections Based on DNS Names . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Initiating Connections Based on DNS Names . . . . . . . . 8
5. HIP RR Storage Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. HIP RR Storage Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. HIT Length Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. HIT Length Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. PK Algorithm Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. PK Algorithm Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. PK Length Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. PK Length Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. HIT Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.4. HIT Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Public Key Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.5. Public Key Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6. Rendezvous Servers Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.6. Rendezvous Servers Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. HIP RR Presentation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. HIP RR Presentation Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Attacker Tampering with an Insecure HIP RR . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Attacker Tampering with an Insecure HIP RR . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Hash and HITs Collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2. Hash and HITs Collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.3. DNSSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.3. DNSSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5205 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 5205 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies a new resource record (RR) for the Domain This document specifies a resource record (RR) for the Domain Name
Name System (DNS) [RFC1034], and how to use it with the Host Identity System (DNS) [RFC1034], and how to use it with the Host Identity
Protocol (HIP) [RFC7401]. This RR allows a HIP node to store in the Protocol (HIP) [RFC7401]. This RR allows a HIP node to store in the
DNS its Host Identity (HI, the public component of the node public- DNS its Host Identity (HI, the public component of the node public-
private key pair), Host Identity Tag (HIT, a truncated hash of its private key pair), Host Identity Tag (HIT, a truncated hash of its
HI), and the Domain Names of its rendezvous servers (RVSs) HI), and the Domain Names of its rendezvous servers (RVSs)
[I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis]. [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis].
Currently, most of the Internet applications that need to communicate Currently, most of the Internet applications that need to communicate
with a remote host first translate a domain name (often obtained via with a remote host first translate a domain name (often obtained via
user input) into one or more IP addresses. This step occurs prior to user input) into one or more IP addresses. This step occurs prior to
communication with the remote host, and relies on a DNS lookup. communication with the remote host, and relies on a DNS lookup.
With HIP, IP addresses are intended to be used mostly for on-the-wire With HIP, IP addresses are intended to be used mostly for on-the-wire
communication between end hosts, while most Upper Layer Protocols communication between end hosts, while most Upper Layer Protocols
(ULP) and applications use HIs or HITs instead (ICMP might be an (ULP) and applications use HIs or HITs instead (ICMP might be an
example of an ULP not using them). Consequently, we need a means to example of an ULP not using them). Consequently, we need a means to
translate a domain name into an HI. Using the DNS for this translate a domain name into an HI. Using the DNS for this
translation is pretty straightforward: We define a new HIP resource translation is pretty straightforward: We define a HIP resource
record. Upon query by an application or ULP for a name to IP address record. Upon query by an application or ULP for a name to IP address
lookup, the resolver would then additionally perform a name to HI lookup, the resolver would then additionally perform a name to HI
lookup, and use it to construct the resulting HI to IP address lookup, and use it to construct the resulting HI to IP address
mapping (which is internal to the HIP layer). The HIP layer uses the mapping (which is internal to the HIP layer). The HIP layer uses the
HI to IP address mapping to translate HIs and HITs into IP addresses HI to IP address mapping to translate HIs and HITs into IP addresses
and vice versa. and vice versa.
The HIP specification [RFC7401] specifies the HIP base exchange The HIP specification [RFC7401] specifies the HIP base exchange
between a HIP Initiator and a HIP Responder based on a four-way between a HIP Initiator and a HIP Responder based on a four-way
handshake involving a total of four HIP packets (I1, R1, I2, and R2). handshake involving a total of four HIP packets (I1, R1, I2, and R2).
skipping to change at page 3, line 36 skipping to change at page 3, line 36
The HIP Rendezvous Extension [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis] allows a HIP The HIP Rendezvous Extension [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis] allows a HIP
node to be reached via the IP address(es) of a third party, the node to be reached via the IP address(es) of a third party, the
node's rendezvous server (RVS). An Initiator willing to establish a node's rendezvous server (RVS). An Initiator willing to establish a
HIP association with a Responder served by an RVS would typically HIP association with a Responder served by an RVS would typically
initiate a HIP base exchange by sending the I1 packet initiating the initiate a HIP base exchange by sending the I1 packet initiating the
exchange towards the RVS IP address rather than towards the Responder exchange towards the RVS IP address rather than towards the Responder
IP address. Consequently, we need a means to find the name of a IP address. Consequently, we need a means to find the name of a
rendezvous server for a given host name. rendezvous server for a given host name.
This document introduces the new HIP DNS resource record to store the This document introduces the HIP DNS resource record to store the
Rendezvous Server (RVS), Host Identity (HI), and Host Identity Tag Rendezvous Server (RVS), Host Identity (HI), and Host Identity Tag
(HIT) information. (HIT) information.
2. Conventions Used in This Document 2. Conventions Used in This Document
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Usage Scenarios 3. Usage Scenarios
skipping to change at page 4, line 32 skipping to change at page 4, line 32
The HIP RR is class independent. The HIP RR is class independent.
When a HIP node wants to initiate communication with another HIP When a HIP node wants to initiate communication with another HIP
node, it first needs to perform a HIP base exchange to set up a HIP node, it first needs to perform a HIP base exchange to set up a HIP
association towards its peer. Although such an exchange can be association towards its peer. Although such an exchange can be
initiated opportunistically, i.e., without prior knowledge of the initiated opportunistically, i.e., without prior knowledge of the
Responder's HI, by doing so both nodes knowingly risk man-in-the- Responder's HI, by doing so both nodes knowingly risk man-in-the-
middle attacks on the HIP exchange. To prevent these attacks, it is middle attacks on the HIP exchange. To prevent these attacks, it is
recommended that the Initiator first obtains the HI of the Responder, recommended that the Initiator first obtains the HI of the Responder,
and then initiates the exchange. This can be done, for example, and then initiates the exchange. This can be done, for example,
through manual configuration or DNS lookups. Hence, a new HIP RR is through manual configuration or DNS lookups. Hence, a HIP RR is
introduced. introduced.
When a HIP node is frequently changing its IP address(es), the When a HIP node is frequently changing its IP address(es), the
natural DNS latency for propagating changes may prevent it from natural DNS latency for propagating changes may prevent it from
publishing its new IP address(es) in the DNS. For solving this publishing its new IP address(es) in the DNS. For solving this
problem, the HIP Architecture [RFC4423] introduces rendezvous servers problem, the HIP Architecture [RFC4423] introduces rendezvous servers
(RVSs) [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis]. A HIP host uses a rendezvous (RVSs) [I-D.ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis]. A HIP host uses a rendezvous
server as a rendezvous point to maintain reachability with possible server as a rendezvous point to maintain reachability with possible
HIP Initiators while moving [RFC5206]. Such a HIP node would publish HIP Initiators while moving [RFC5206]. Such a HIP node would publish
in the DNS its RVS domain name(s) in a HIP RR, while keeping its RVS in the DNS its RVS domain name(s) in a HIP RR, while keeping its RVS
skipping to change at page 10, line 48 skipping to change at page 10, line 48
In addition, this document similarly defines the public key format of In addition, this document similarly defines the public key format of
type ECDSA as the algorithm-specific portion of the DNSKEY RR RDATA type ECDSA as the algorithm-specific portion of the DNSKEY RR RDATA
for ECDSA [RFC6605], i.e, all of the DNSKEY RR DATA after the first for ECDSA [RFC6605], i.e, all of the DNSKEY RR DATA after the first
four octets, corresponding to the same portion of the DNSKEY RR that four octets, corresponding to the same portion of the DNSKEY RR that
must be specified by documents that define a DNSSEC algorithm. must be specified by documents that define a DNSSEC algorithm.
5.6. Rendezvous Servers Format 5.6. Rendezvous Servers Format
The Rendezvous Servers field indicates one or more variable length The Rendezvous Servers field indicates one or more variable length
wire-encoded domain names of rendezvous server(s), as described in wire-encoded domain names of rendezvous server(s), concatenated, and
Section 3.3 of RFC 1035 [RFC1035]. The wire-encoded format is self- encoded as described in Section 3.3 of RFC 1035 [RFC1035]: "<domain-
describing, so the length is implicit. The domain names MUST NOT be name> is a domain name represented as a series of labels, and
compressed. The rendezvous server(s) are listed in order of terminated by a label with zero length". Since the wire-encoded
preference (i.e., first rendezvous server(s) are preferred), defining format is self-describing, the length of each domain-name is
an implicit order amongst rendezvous servers of a single RR. When implicit: The zero length label termination serves as a separator
multiple HIP RRs are present at the same owner name, this implicit between multiple rendezvous server domain names concatenated in the
order of rendezvous servers within an RR MUST NOT be used to infer a Rendezvous Servers field of a same HIP RR. Since the length of the
preference order between rendezvous servers stored in different RRs. other portion of the RR's RRDATA is known, and the overall length of
the RR's RDATA is also known (RDLENGTH), all the length information
necessary to parse the HIP RR is available.
The domain names MUST NOT be compressed. The rendezvous server(s)
are listed in order of preference (i.e., first rendezvous server(s)
are preferred), defining an implicit order amongst rendezvous servers
of a single RR. When multiple HIP RRs are present at the same owner
name, this implicit order of rendezvous servers within an RR MUST NOT
be used to infer a preference order between rendezvous servers stored
in different RRs.
6. HIP RR Presentation Format 6. HIP RR Presentation Format
This section specifies the representation of the HIP RR in a zone This section specifies the representation of the HIP RR in a zone
master file. master file.
The HIT length field is not represented, as it is implicitly known The HIT length field is not represented, as it is implicitly known
thanks to the HIT field representation. thanks to the HIT field representation.
The PK algorithm field is represented as unsigned integers. The PK algorithm field is represented as unsigned integers.
The HIT field is represented as the Base16 encoding [RFC4648] (a.k.a. The HIT field is represented as the Base16 encoding [RFC4648] (a.k.a.
hex or hexadecimal) of the HIT. The encoding MUST NOT contain hex or hexadecimal) of the HIT. The encoding MUST NOT contain
whitespaces to distinguish it from the public key field. whitespaces to distinguish it from the public key field.
The Public Key field is represented as the Base64 encoding [RFC4648] The Public Key field is represented as the Base64 encoding of the
of the public key. The encoding MUST NOT contain whitespace(s) to public key, as defined in Section 4 of [RFC4648]. The encoding MUST
distinguish it from the Rendezvous Servers field. NOT contain whitespace(s) to distinguish it from the Rendezvous
Servers field.
The PK length field is not represented, as it is implicitly known The PK length field is not represented, as it is implicitly known
thanks to the Public key field representation containing no thanks to the Public key field representation containing no
whitespaces. whitespaces.
The Rendezvous Servers field is represented by one or more domain The Rendezvous Servers field is represented by one or more domain
name(s) separated by whitespace(s). name(s) separated by whitespace(s). These whitespace(s) are only
used in the HIP RR representation format, and are not part of the HIP
RR wire format.
The complete representation of the HIP record is: The complete representation of the HIP record is:
IN HIP ( pk-algorithm IN HIP ( pk-algorithm
base16-encoded-hit base16-encoded-hit
base64-encoded-public-key base64-encoded-public-key
rendezvous-server[1] rendezvous-server[1]
... ...
rendezvous-server[n] ) rendezvous-server[n] )
skipping to change at page 14, line 14 skipping to change at page 14, line 30
based solely on a HIT retrieved from the DNS, but SHOULD rather use based solely on a HIT retrieved from the DNS, but SHOULD rather use
HI-based authentication. HI-based authentication.
8.3. DNSSEC 8.3. DNSSEC
In the absence of DNSSEC, the HIP RR is subject to the threats In the absence of DNSSEC, the HIP RR is subject to the threats
described in RFC 3833 [RFC3833]. described in RFC 3833 [RFC3833].
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to replace references to [RFC5205] by references to [RFC5205], obsoleted by this document, made the following definition
this document in the the DNS RR type code registry. and reservation in the IANA Registry for DNS RR Types:
IANA is requested to allocate the following algorithm type in the Value Type
IPSECKEY RR [RFC4025] registry: ----- ----
55 HIP
[IANA-TBD] is ECDSA This document updates the IANA Registry for DNS RR Types by replacing
references to [RFC5205] by references to this document.
As [RFC5205], this document reuses the Algorithm Types defined by
[RFC4025] for the IPSEC KEY RR. Presently defined values are shown
here for reference only:
Value Description
----- --------------------------------------------------------
1 A DSA key is present, in the format defined in [RFC2536]
2 A RSA key is present, in the format defined in [RFC3110]
IANA is requested to make the following Algorithm Type reservation
and definition in the IANA Registry for the IPSECKEY RR [RFC4025]
Algorithm Types:
Value Description
-------- -----------
TBD-IANA An ECDSA key is present, in the format defined in [RFC6605]
10. Contributors 10. Contributors
Pekka Nikander co-authored an earlier, experimental version of this Pekka Nikander co-authored an earlier, experimental version of this
specification [RFC5205]. specification [RFC5205].
11. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
As usual in the IETF, this document is the result of a collaboration As usual in the IETF, this document is the result of a collaboration
between many people. The authors would like to thank the author between many people. The authors would like to thank the author
skipping to change at page 17, line 18 skipping to change at page 18, line 18
o Extended DNS HIP RR to support for Host Identities based on o Extended DNS HIP RR to support for Host Identities based on
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA). Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA).
o Clarified that new query must be made when the time that passed o Clarified that new query must be made when the time that passed
since a RR was retrieved exceeds the TTL of the RR. since a RR was retrieved exceeds the TTL of the RR.
o Added considerations related to multiple HIP RRs being associated o Added considerations related to multiple HIP RRs being associated
with a single name. with a single name.
o Clarified that the Base64 encoding in use is as per Section 4 of
[RFC4648].
o Clarified the wire format when more than one rendezvous servers
are defined in one RR.
o Clarified that "whitespace" is used as the delimiter in the human-
readable representation of the RR but is not part of the wire
format.
Author's Address Author's Address
Julien Laganier Julien Laganier
Luminate Wireless, Inc. Luminate Wireless, Inc.
Cupertino, CA Cupertino, CA
USA USA
EMail: julien.ietf@gmail.com EMail: julien.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 79 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/