< draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-00.txt		draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-01.txt >
	DNS Extensions Working Group S. Rose		DNS Extensions Working Group S. Rose
	Internet-Draft NIST		Internet-Draft NIST
	Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, January 30, 2012		Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, March 26, 2012
	5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved)		5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved)
	Intended status: BCP		Intended status: BCP
	Expires: August 2, 2012		Expires: September 27, 2012
	Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm		Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm
	Implementation Status		Implementation Status
	draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-00		draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of		The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of
	cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over		cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over
	DNS data. There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms		DNS data. There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms
	that is incomplete in that it lacks the recommended implementation		that is incomplete in that it lacks the recommended implementation
	status of each algorithm. This document provides an applicability		status of each algorithm. This document provides an applicability
	statement on algorithm implementation compliance status for DNSSEC		statement on algorithm implementation status for DNSSEC component
	implementations. This document lists each algorithm's status based		software. This document lists each algorithm's status based on the
	on the current reference. In the case that an algorithm is specified		current reference. In the case that an algorithm is specified
	without an implementation status, this document assigns one.		without an implementation status, this document assigns one.
	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.
	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 2, 2012.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 27, 2012.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2012 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 ¶
	2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists . . . . 3		2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists . . . . 3
	2.1. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Rationale . . . 3		2.1. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Rationale . . . 3
	2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of		2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of
	Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
			5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
			5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033],		The Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033],
	[RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC4509], [RFC5155], and [RFC5702] uses		[RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC4509], [RFC5155], and [RFC5702] uses
	digital signatures over DNS data to provide source authentication and		digital signatures over DNS data to provide source authentication and
	integrity protection. DNSSEC uses an IANA registry to list codes for		integrity protection. DNSSEC uses an IANA registry to list codes for
	digital signature algorithms (consisting of a cryptographic algorithm		digital signature algorithms (consisting of a cryptographic algorithm
	and one-way hash function).		and one-way hash function).
	The original list of algorithm status is found in [RFC4034]. Other		The original list of algorithm status is found in [RFC4034]. Other
	DNSSEC RFC's have added new algorithms or changed the status of		DNSSEC RFC's have added new algorithms or changed the status of
	algorithms in the registry. However, implementers must read through		algorithms in the registry. However, implementers must read through
	all the documents in order to discover which algorithms are		all the documents in order to discover which algorithms are
	considered wise to implement, which are not, and which algorithms may		considered wise to implement, which are not, and which algorithms may
	become widely used in the future. This document includes the current		become widely used in the future. This document includes the current
	compliance status for certain algorithms.		implementation status for certain algorithms.
	This compliance status indication is only to be considered for		This implementation status indication is only to be considered for
	implementation, not deployment or operations. Operators are free to		implementation, not deployment or operations. Operators are free to
	deploy any digital signature algorithm available in implementations		deploy any digital signature algorithm available in implementations
	or algorithms chosen by local security policies. This status is to		or algorithms chosen by local security policies. This status is to
	measure compliance to this RFC only.		measure compliance to this document only.
	This document updates the following: [RFC2536], [RFC2539], [RFC3110],		This document updates the following: [RFC2536], [RFC2539], [RFC3110],
	[RFC4034], [RFC4398], [RFC5155], [RFC5702], and [RFC5933].		[RFC4034], [RFC4398], [RFC5155], [RFC5702], and [RFC5933].
	1.1. Requirements Language		1.1. Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
	"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document		"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document
	are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists		2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists
	2.1. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Rationale		2.1. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Rationale
	The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT.		The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT
	This is due to the fact that RSA/SHA-1 is a MUST IMPLEMENT. The		as major deployments (such as the root zone) use NSEC3 [ROOTDPS].
	status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/SHA-512 are also set to RECOMMENDED TO		The status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/SHA-512 are also set to RECOMMENDED
	IMPLEMENT as it is believed that these algorithms will replace an		TO IMPLEMENT as it is believed that these algorithms will replace an
	older algorithm (e.g. RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness in		older algorithm (e.g. RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness in
	its hash algorithm (SHA-1).		its hash algorithm (SHA-1) as well as seen in major deployments.
			All other algorithms used in DNSSEC specified without an
			implementation status are currently set to OPTIONAL.
	2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table		2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table
	The DNSSEC algorithm implementation status table is listed below.		The DNSSEC algorithm implementation status table is listed below.
	Only the algorithms already specified for use with DNSSEC (at the		Only the algorithms already specified for use with DNSSEC (at the
	time of writing) are listed.		time of writing) are listed.
	+------------+------------+-----------------+-------------+		+------------+------------+-----------------+-------------------+
	| MUST | MUST NOT | RECOMMENDED | OPTIONAL |		| MUST | MUST NOT | RECOMMENDED | OPTIONAL |
	| IMPLEMENT | IMPLEMENT | TO IMPLEMENT | |		| IMPLEMENT | IMPLEMENT | TO IMPLEMENT | |
	+------------+------------+-----------------+-------------+		+------------+------------+-----------------+-------------------+
	| | | | |		| | | | |
	| RSASHA1 | RSAMD5 | RSASHA256 | DSASHA1 |		| RSASHA1 | RSAMD5 | RSASHA256 | DSASHA1 |
	| | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | DH |		| | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | DH |
	| | | -SHA1 | DSA-NSEC3 |		| | | -SHA1 | DSA-NSEC3-SHA1 |
	| | | RSASHA512 | -SHA1 |		| | | RSASHA512 | GOST-ECC |
	| | | | GOST-ECC |		| | | | ECDSAP256SHA256 |
	| | | | |		| | | | ECDSAP384SHA384 |
	+------------+------------+-----------------+-------------+		+------------+------------+-----------------+-------------------+
	This table does not list the Reserved values in the IANA registry		This table does not list the Reserved values in the IANA registry
	table or the values for INDIRECT (252), PRIVATE (253) and PRIVATEOID		table or the values for INDIRECT (252), PRIVATE (253) and PRIVATEOID
	(254). These values may relate to more than one algorithm and are		(254). These values may relate to more than one algorithm and are
	therefore up to the implementer's discretion. Their implementation		therefore up to the implementer's discretion. Their implementation
	(or lack thereof) therefore cannot be included when judging		(or lack thereof) therefore cannot be included when judging
	compliance to this document.		compliance to this document.
	2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of Existing Entries		2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of Existing Entries
	[RFC6014] establishes a parallel procedure for adding a registry		[RFC6014] establishes a parallel procedure for adding a registry
	entry for a new algorithm other than a standards track document.		entry for a new algorithm other than a standards track document.
	Algorithms entered into the registry using that procedure are to be		Algorithms entered into the registry using that procedure are to be
	considered OPTIONAL for implementation purposes. Specifications that		considered OPTIONAL for implementation purposes. Specifications that
	follow this path do not need to obsolete or update this document.		follow this path do not need to obsolete or update this document.
	Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with a compliance		Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with a
	status SHALL entail obsolescing this document and replacing the		implementation status other than OPTIONAL SHALL entail obsolescing
	registry table (with the new algorithm entry). Altering the status		this document and replacing the table in Section 2.2 (with the new
	column value of any existing algorithm in the registry SHALL entail		algorithm entry). Altering the status column value of any existing
	obsolescing this document and replacing the registry table.		algorithm in the registry SHALL entail obsolescing this document and
			replacing the table in Section 2.2 above.
	This document cannot be updated, only made obsolete and replaced by a		This document cannot be updated, only made obsolete and replaced by a
	successor document.		successor document.
	3. IANA Considerations		3. IANA Considerations
	This document lists the implementation status of cryptographic		This document lists the implementation status of cryptographic
	algorithms used with DNSSEC. These algorithms are maintained in an		algorithms used with DNSSEC. These algorithms are maintained in an
	IANA registry. There are no changes to the registry in this		IANA registry. There are no changes to the registry in this
	document. However this document asks to be listed as a reference for		document. However this document asks to be listed as a reference for
	the entire registry.		the entire registry.
	4. Security Considerations		4. Security Considerations
	This document replaces the Domain Name System (DNS) Security		This document lists, and in some cases assigns, the implementation
	Algorithm Numbers registry. It is not meant to be a discussion on		status of cryptographic algorithms used with DNSSEC. It is not meant
	algorithm superiority. No new security considerations are raised in		to be a discussion on algorithm superiority. No new security
	this document.		considerations are raised in this document.
	5. Normative References		5. References
			5.1. Normative References
	[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.
	[RFC2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System		[RFC2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System
	(DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999.		(DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999.
	[RFC2539] Eastlake, D., "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the		[RFC2539] Eastlake, D., "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the
	Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999.		Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 20 ¶
	and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702,		and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702,
	October 2009.		October 2009.
	[RFC5933] Dolmatov, V., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of GOST		[RFC5933] Dolmatov, V., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of GOST
	Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records		Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records
	for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, July 2010.		for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, July 2010.
	[RFC6014] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier		[RFC6014] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier
	Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, November 2010.		Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, November 2010.
			5.2. Informative References
			[ROOTDPS] Ljunggren, F., Okubo, T., Lamb, R., and J. Schlyter,
			"DNSSEC Practice Statement for the Root Zone KSK
			Operator", DNS ROOTDPS, May 2010, <http://
			www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/
			icann-dps-00.txt>.
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Scott Rose		Scott Rose
	NIST		NIST
	100 Bureau Dr.		100 Bureau Dr.
	Gaithersburg, MD 20899		Gaithersburg, MD 20899
	USA		USA
	Phone: +1-301-975-8439		Phone: +1-301-975-8439
	EMail: scottr.nist@gmail.com		EMail: scottr.nist@gmail.com
End of changes. 16 change blocks.
	38 lines changed or deleted		54 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/