< draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-03.txt		draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-04.txt >
	dnsop W. Kumari		dnsop W. Kumari
	Internet-Draft Google		Internet-Draft Google
	Intended status: Informational O. Gudmundsson		Intended status: Informational O. Gudmundsson
	Expires: August 12, 2014 Shinkuro Inc.		Expires: October 12, 2014 Shinkuro Inc.
	G. Barwood		G. Barwood
	February 8, 2014		April 10, 2014
	Automating DNSSEC delegation trust maintenance		Automating DNSSEC delegation trust maintenance
	draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-03		draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes a method to allow DNS operators to more		This document describes a method to allow DNS operators to more
	easily update DNSSEC Key Signing Keys using DNS as communication		easily update DNSSEC Key Signing Keys using the DNS as communication
	channel. This document does not address the initial configuration of		channel. This document does not address the initial configuration of
	trust anchors for a domain. The technique described is aimed at		trust anchors for a domain. The technique described is aimed at
	delegations in which it is currently hard to move information from		delegations in which it is currently hard to move information from
	the child to parent.		the child to parent.
	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 12, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 12, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 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 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 25 ¶
	2.1. DNS delegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. DNS delegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. Relationship between Parent and Child DNS operator . . . 5		2.2. Relationship between Parent and Child DNS operator . . . 5
	2.2.1. Solution Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.2.1. Solution Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.2.2. DNSSEC key change process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.2.2. DNSSEC key change process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3. CDS / CDNSKEY (Child DS/ Child DNSKEY) record definitions . . 7		3. CDS / CDNSKEY (Child DS/ Child DNSKEY) record definitions . . 7
	3.1. CDS Resource Record Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.1. CDS Resource Record Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.2. CDNSKEY Resource Record Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.2. CDNSKEY Resource Record Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4. Automating DS maintainance with CDS/CDNSKEY records . . . . . 8		4. Automating DS maintainance with CDS/CDNSKEY records . . . . . 8
	4.1. CDS / CDNSKEY processing rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4.1. CDS / CDNSKEY processing rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5. Child's CDS / CDNSKEY Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. Child's CDS / CDNSKEY Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6. Parent side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. Parent side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.1. Detecting a changed CDS / CDNSKEY . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.1. Detecting a changed CDS / CDNSKEY . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.1.1. CDS / CDNSKEY Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.1.1. CDS / CDNSKEY Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.1.2. Other mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.1.2. Other mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.2. Using the new CDS / CDNSKEY records . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.2. Using the new CDS / CDNSKEY records . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.2.1. Parent calculates DS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.2.1. Parent calculates DS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Appendix A. RRR background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Appendix A. RRR background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Appendix B. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Appendix B. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	When a DNS operator first signs their zone, they need to communicate		When a DNS operator first signs their zone, they need to communicate
	their DS record(s) (or DNSKEY(s)) to their parent through some out-		their DS record(s) (or DNSKEY(s)) to their parent through some out-
	of-band method to complete the chain of trust.		of-band method to complete the chain of trust.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 51 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 51 ¶
	[I-D.csync], can be used to maintain other important delegation		[I-D.csync], can be used to maintain other important delegation
	information, such as NS and glue. These two protocols have been kept		information, such as NS and glue. These two protocols have been kept
	as separate solutions because the problems are fundamentally		as separate solutions because the problems are fundamentally
	different, and a combined solution is overly complex.		different, and a combined solution is overly complex.
	This document describes a method for automating maintanance of the		This document describes a method for automating maintanance of the
	delegation trust information, and proposes a polled / periodic		delegation trust information, and proposes a polled / periodic
	trigger for simplicity. Some users may prefer a different trigger,		trigger for simplicity. Some users may prefer a different trigger,
	such as a button on a webpage, a REST interface, DNS NOTIFY, etc.		such as a button on a webpage, a REST interface, DNS NOTIFY, etc.
	These alternate / additional triggers are not discussed in this		These alternate / additional triggers are not discussed in this
	document.		document. This proposal does not include all operations needed for
			the maintenance of DNSSEC key material, specifically the introduction
			or complete removal of all keys. Because of this, alternate
			communications mechanisms must always exist, potentially introducing
			more complexity.
	1.1. Terminology		1.1. Terminology
	The terminology we use is defined in this section		The terminology we use is defined in this section
	Highlighted roles		Highlighted roles
	o Child: "The entity on record that has the delegation of the domain		o Child: "The entity on record that has the delegation of the domain
	from the parent"		from the parent"
	o Parent: "The domain in which the child is registered"		o Parent: "The domain in which the child is registered"
	o Child DNS operator: "The entity that maintains and publishes the		o Child DNS Operator: "The entity that maintains and publishes the
	zone information for the child DNS"		zone information for the child DNS"
	o Parent DNS operator: "The entity that maintains and publishes the		o Parent DNS Operator: "The entity that maintains and publishes the
	zone information for the parent DNS"		zone information for the parent DNS"
	o Parental Agent: "The entity that the child has relationship with,		o Parental Agent: "The entity that the child has relationship with,
	to change its delegation information"		to change its delegation information"
	o Provisioning system: "A system that the operator of the master DNS		o Provisioning system: "A system that the operator of the master DNS
	server operates to maintain the information published in the DNS.		server operates to maintain the information published in the DNS.
	This includes the systems that sign the DNS data"		This includes the systems that sign the DNS data"
	RRR is our shorthand for Registry/Registrar/Registrant model of		RRR is our shorthand for Registry/Registrar/Registrant model of
	skipping to change at page 6, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 34 ¶
	some corporate mechanism; this can range from email to fully-		some corporate mechanism; this can range from email to fully-
	automated operation. The word enterprise above covers all		automated operation. The word enterprise above covers all
	organizations in which the domains are not sold on the open market		organizations in which the domains are not sold on the open market
	and there is some relationship between the entities.		and there is some relationship between the entities.
	2.2.1. Solution Space		2.2.1. Solution Space
	This document is aimed at the cases in which there is an		This document is aimed at the cases in which there is an
	organizational separation of the child and parent.		organizational separation of the child and parent.
	A further complication is when the Child DNS operator is not the		A further complication is when the Child DNS Operator is not the
	Child. There are two common cases of this,		Child. There are two common cases of this,
	a) The Parental Agent (e.g. registrar) handles the DNS operation		a) The Parental Agent (e.g. registrar) handles the DNS operation
	b) A third party takes care of the DNS operation.		b) A third party takes care of the DNS operation.
	If the Parental Agent is the DNS operator, life is much easier; the		If the Parental Agent is the DNS operator, life is much easier; the
	Parental Agent can inject any delegation changes directly into the		Parental Agent can inject any delegation changes directly into the
	Parent's Provisioning system. The techniques described below are not		Parent's Provisioning system. The techniques described below are not
	needed in the case when Parental Agent is the DNS operator.		needed in the case when Parental Agent is the DNS operator.
	skipping to change at page 7, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 10 ¶
	Some parents want the child to express their DNSKEYS in the form of		Some parents want the child to express their DNSKEYS in the form of
	DS records, while others want to receive the DNSKEY records and		DS records, while others want to receive the DNSKEY records and
	calculate the DS records themselves. There is no consensus on which		calculate the DS records themselves. There is no consensus on which
	method is better; both have good reasons to exist. The proposal		method is better; both have good reasons to exist. The proposal
	below can operate with both models, but the child needs to be aware		below can operate with both models, but the child needs to be aware
	of the parental policies.		of the parental policies.
	2.2.2. DNSSEC key change process		2.2.2. DNSSEC key change process
	After a Child DNS operator first signs the zone, there is a need to		After a Child DNS Operator first signs the zone, there is a need to
	interact with the Parent, for example via the delegation account		interact with the Parent, for example via the delegation account
	interface, to "upload / paste-in the zone's DS information". The		interface, to "upload / paste-in the zone's DS information". The
	action of logging in through the delegation account user interface		action of logging in through the delegation account user interface
	authenticates that the user is authorized to change delegation		authenticates that the user is authorized to change delegation
	information for the child published in the parent zone. In the case		information for the child published in the parent zone. In the case
	where the "Child DNS Operator" does not have access to the		where the "Child DNS Operator" does not have access to the
	registration account, the Child needs to perform the action.		registration account, the Child needs to perform the action.
	At a later date, the Child DNS Operator may want to publish a new DS		At a later date, the Child DNS Operator may want to publish a new DS
	record in the parent, either because they are rolling keys, or		record in the parent, either because they are rolling keys, or
	because they want to publish a stand-by key. This involves		because they want to publish a stand-by key. This involves
	performing the same process as before. Furthermore when this is a		performing the same process as before. Furthermore when this is a
	manual process with cut and paste, operational mistakes will happen		manual process with cut and paste, operational mistakes will happen
	-- or worse, the update action is not performed at all.		-- or worse, the update action is not performed at all.
			The Child DNS Operator may also introduce new keys, and can do so
			when old keys exist and can be used. The Child may also remove old
			keys, but we do not support removing all keys. This is to avoid
			making signed zones unsigned.
			The Child may not introduce a new key when no old keys can be used,
			and nor may it remove the last key from the RRSet of the zone apex.
			The Child may not enroll the initial key or introduce a new key when
			there are no old keys that can be used, because there is no way to
			validate the information. [TODO ADD TEXT RE REMOVAL)
	3. CDS / CDNSKEY (Child DS/ Child DNSKEY) record definitions		3. CDS / CDNSKEY (Child DS/ Child DNSKEY) record definitions
	This document specifies two new DNS RRtypes (CDS and CDNSKEY) that		This document specifies two new resource records, CDS and CDNSKEY.
	indicates what the Child wants the parent's DS RRset to contain. It		These records are used to convey, from one zone to it's parent, the
	allows the Child to present DS records and / or DNSKEY records (for		desired contents of the zone's DS resource record set residing in the
	those parents who would rather generate the DS records for their		parent zone.
	children).
	The CDS / CDNSKEY records are published in the child zone and gives		The CDS / CDNSKEY records are published in the child zone and gives
	the child control of what is published for it in the parental zone.		the child control of what is published for it in the parental zone.
	The CDS / CDNSKEY RRset expresses what the child would like the DS		The CDS / CDNSKEY RRset expresses what the child would like the DS
	RRset to look like after the change; it is a "replace" operation, and		RRset to look like after the change; it is a "replace" operation, and
	it is up to the consumer of the records to translate that into the		it is up to the consumer of the records to translate that into the
	appropriate add/delete operations in the registration systems (and in		appropriate add/delete operations in the registration systems (and in
	the case of CDNSKEY, to generate the DS from the DNSKEY). If no CDS		the case of CDNSKEY, to generate the DS from the DNSKEY). If no CDS
	/ CDNSKEY RRset is present in child, this means that no change is		/ CDNSKEY RRset is present in child, this means that no change is
	needed.		needed.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 49 ¶
	Some parents prefer to accept DNSSEC key information in DS format,		Some parents prefer to accept DNSSEC key information in DS format,
	some parents prefer to accept it in DNSKEY format, and calculate the		some parents prefer to accept it in DNSKEY format, and calculate the
	DS record on the child's behalf. Each method has pros and cons, both		DS record on the child's behalf. Each method has pros and cons, both
	technical and policy. This solution is DS vs DNSKEY agnostic, and		technical and policy. This solution is DS vs DNSKEY agnostic, and
	allows operation with either.		allows operation with either.
	If the child knows what the parent prefers, they can publish the		If the child knows what the parent prefers, they can publish the
	parent's preferred record type. If the child does not know (or		parent's preferred record type. If the child does not know (or
	simply chooses to), they can publish both CDS and CDNSKEY. If the		simply chooses to), they can publish both CDS and CDNSKEY. If the
	child publishes both, the two RRsets they SHOULD match in content.		child publishes both, the two RRsets they MUST match in content. The
	The parent should use whichever one they choose, but SHOULD NOT query		parent should use whichever one they choose, but SHOULD NOT query for
	for both and perform consistency checks between the CDS and CDNSKEY		both and perform consistency checks between the CDS and CDNSKEY
	records.		records.
	[Editor note: It is not an error for a child to have published CDS		[Editor note: It is not an error for a child to have published CDS
	records and not have CDNSKEYs that hash to those records, nor for		records and not have CDNSKEYs that hash to those records, nor for
	there to be CDNSKEY records without matching DS records. This is		there to be CDNSKEY records without matching DS records. This is
	because a child might have been publishing CDS records and then the		because a child might have been publishing CDS records and then the
	parent's policy changes to require CDNSKEY records. The child might		parent's policy changes to require CDNSKEY records. The child might
	forget to remove the CDS, etc. This avoids all sorts of error		forget to remove the CDS, etc. This avoids all sorts of error
	conditions / complexity, etc.]		conditions / complexity, etc.]
	4.1. CDS / CDNSKEY processing rules		4.1. CDS / CDNSKEY processing rules
	If there are no CDS / CDNSKEY resource records in the child, this		If there are no CDS / CDNSKEY resource records in the child, this
	signals that no change should be made to the current DS set. This		signals that no change should be made to the current DS set. This
	means that, once the child and parent are in sync, the child DNS		means that, once the child and parent are in sync, the child DNS
	operator MAY remove all CDS records from the zone.		operator SHOULD remove all CDS records from the zone.
	Following acceptance rules are placed on the CDS / CDNSKEY records as		Following acceptance rules are placed on the CDS / CDNSKEY records as
	follows:		follows:
	o Location: "the CDS / CDNSKEY record MUST be at the child zone		o Location: "the CDS / CDNSKEY record MUST be at the child zone
	apex".		apex".
	o Signer: "MUST be signed with a key that is represented in both the		o Signer: "MUST be signed with a key that is represented in both the
	current DNSKEY and DS RRset's."		current DNSKEY and DS RRset's."
	o Continuity: "SHOULD NOT break the current delegation if applied to		o Continuity: "MUST NOT break the current delegation if applied to
	DS RRset"		DS RRset"
	If any these conditions fail the CDS / CDNSKEY record MUST be		If any these conditions fail the CDS / CDNSKEY record MUST be
	ignored.		ignored.
	5. Child's CDS / CDNSKEY Publication		5. Child's CDS / CDNSKEY Publication
	Child DNS Operator SHOULD only publish a CDS or CDNSKEY RRset when it		Child DNS Operator SHOULD only publish a CDS or CDNSKEY RRset when it
	wants to make a change to the DS RRset in the Parent. The CDS /		wants to make a change to the DS RRset in the Parent. In order to be
	CDNSKEY RRset SHOULD be compliant with the rules in Section 4.1.		valid, the CDS / CDNSKEY RRset MUST be compliant with the rules in
	When the Parent DS is "in-sync" with the CDS / CDNSKEY, the Child DNS		Section 4.1. When the Parent DS is "in-sync" with the CDS / CDNSKEY,
	Operator MAY delete the CDS / CDNSKEY RRset(s). Note that if the		the Child DNS Operator SHOULD delete the CDS / CDNSKEY RRset(s).
	child has published a DNSKEY RR in the CDS, it will have to calculate		Note that if the child has published a CDNSKEY RR, the Parent will
	the DS (using the requested digest algorithm) to do the comparison.		have to calculate the DS (using the requested digest algorithm) to do
			the comparison.
	A child MAY publish both CDS and CDNSKEY. If a child chooses to		A child MAY publish both CDS and CDNSKEY. If a child chooses to
	publish both, it SHOULD attempt to maintain consistency (a matching		publish both, it MUST attempt to maintain consistency (a matching CDS
	CDS for each CDNSKEY)		for each CDNSKEY).
	6. Parent side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption		6. Parent side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption
	The CDS / CDNSKEY RRset MAY be used by the Parental Agent to update		The CDS / CDNSKEY RRset SHOULD be used by the Parental Agent to
	the DS RRset in the parent zone. The Parental Agent for this uses a		update the DS RRset in the parent zone. The Parental Agent for this
	tool that understands the CDS / CDNSKEY signing rules from		uses a tool that understands the CDS / CDNSKEY signing rules from
	Section 4.1 so it may not be able to use a standard validator.		Section 4.1 so it may not be able to use a standard validator.
	Parent SHOULD treat the Continuity rule as "MUST".
	The parent MUST choose to accept either CDS or CDNSKEY records, and		The parent MUST choose to accept either CDS or CDNSKEY records, and
	MUST NOT expect there to be both. A parent SHOULD NOT perform a		MUST NOT expect there to be both. A parent SHOULD NOT perform a
	consistency check between CDS and CDNSKEY (other than for		consistency check between CDS and CDNSKEY (other than for
	informational / debugging use).		informational / debugging use).
	6.1. Detecting a changed CDS / CDNSKEY		6.1. Detecting a changed CDS / CDNSKEY
	How the Parental Agent gets the CDS / CDNSKEY record may differ,		How the Parental Agent gets the CDS / CDNSKEY record may differ,
	below are two examples as how this can take place.		below are two examples as how this can take place.
	skipping to change at page 11, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 18 ¶
	6.1.2. Other mechanisms		6.1.2. Other mechanisms
	It is assumed that other mechanisms will be implemented to trigger		It is assumed that other mechanisms will be implemented to trigger
	the parent to look for an updated CDS / CDNSKEY record. As the CDS /		the parent to look for an updated CDS / CDNSKEY record. As the CDS /
	CDNSKEY records are validated with DNSSEC, these mechanisms can be		CDNSKEY records are validated with DNSSEC, these mechanisms can be
	unauthenticated (for example, a child could telephone its parent and		unauthenticated (for example, a child could telephone its parent and
	request that they process the new CDS or CDNSKEY record, an		request that they process the new CDS or CDNSKEY record, an
	unauthenticated POST could be made to a webserver (with rate-		unauthenticated POST could be made to a webserver (with rate-
	limiting), etc.)		limiting), etc.)
	Other documents can specify the trigger conditions.		Other documents can specify the trigger conditions.
	6.2. Using the new CDS / CDNSKEY records		6.2. Using the new CDS / CDNSKEY records
	Regardless of how the Parental Agent detected changes to a CDS /		Regardless of how the Parental Agent detected changes to a CDS /
	CDNSKEY RR, the Parental Agent MUST use a DNSSEC validator to obtain		CDNSKEY RR, the Parental Agent MUST use a DNSSEC validator to obtain
	a validated CDS / CDNSKEY RRset from the Child zone. It would be a		a validated CDS / CDNSKEY RRset from the Child zone. It would be a
	good idea if the Parental Agent checked all NS RRs listed at the		good idea if the Parental Agent checked all NS RRs listed at the
	delegation.		delegation.
	The Parental Agent MUST ensure that old versions of the CDS / CDNSKEY		The Parental Agent MUST ensure that old versions of the CDS / CDNSKEY
	RRset do not overwrite newer versions. This MAY be accomplished by		RRset do not overwrite newer versions. This MAY be accomplished by
	checking that the signature inception in the RRSIG for CDS / CDNSKEY		checking that the signature inception in the RRSIG for CDS / CDNSKEY
	is newer and/or the serial number on the child's SOA is greater.		is newer and/or the serial number on the child's SOA is greater.
	This may require the Parental Agent to maintain some state		This may require the Parental Agent to maintain some state
	information.		information.
	The Parental Agent MAY take extra security measures. For example, to		The Parental Agent MAY take extra security measures. For example, to
	mitigate the possibility that a Child's key signing key has been		mitigate the possibility that a Child's key signing key has been
	compromised, the Parental Agent may, for example, inform (by email or		compromised, the Parental Agent may, for example, inform (by email or
	other methods ) the Child DNS operator of the change. However the		other methods ) the Child DNS Operator of the change. However the
	precise out-of-band measures that a parent zone SHOULD take are		precise out-of-band measures that a parent zone SHOULD take are
	outside the scope of this document.		outside the scope of this document.
	Once the Parental Agent has obtained a valid CDS / CDNSKEY it MAY		Once the Parental Agent has obtained a valid CDS / CDNSKEY it MUST
	double check the publication rules from section 4.1. In particular		double check the publication rules from section 4.1. In particular
	the Parental Agent MUST double check the Continuity rule and do its		the Parental Agent MUST double check the Continuity rule and do its
	best not to invalidate the Child zone. Once checked and if the CDS /		best not to invalidate the Child zone. Once checked and if the CDS /
	CDNSKEY and DS "differ" it may apply the changes to the parent zone.		CDNSKEY and DS "differ" it may apply the changes to the parent zone.
	If the parent consumes CDNSKEY, the parent should calculate the DS		If the parent consumes CDNSKEY, the parent should calculate the DS
	before doing this comparison.		before doing this comparison.
	6.2.1. Parent calculates DS		6.2.1. Parent calculates DS
	There are cases where the Parent wants to calculate the DS record due		There are cases where the Parent wants to calculate the DS record due
	to policy reasons. In this case, the Child publishes CDNSKEY records		to policy reasons. In this case, the Child publishes CDNSKEY records
	containing DNSKEYs.		and the parent calculates the DS records on behalf of the children.
	The parent calculates the DS records on behalf of the children. The
	DNS Parent needs to publish guidelines for the children as to what
	digest algorithms are acceptable in the CDS record.
	When a Parent operates in "calculate DS" mode it can operate in one		When a Parent operates in "calculate DS" mode it can operate in one
	of two sub-modes		of two sub-modes
	full i.e. it only publishes DS records it calculates from DNSKEY		full i.e. it only publishes DS records it calculates from DNSKEY
	records,		records,
	augment i.e. it will make sure there are DS records for the digest		augment i.e. it will make sure there are DS records for the digest
	algorithm(s) it requires(s).		algorithm(s) it requires(s).
	Implications on Parental Agent are that the CDNSKEY and DS are not		IIn the case the parent fetch the CDNSKEY and calculate the DS it MAY
	exactly the same after update thus it needs to take that into		be the case that the DS published in the parent zone is not identical
	consideration when checking CDNSKEY records. Same goes for the Child		with the data in the CDS record made available by the child.
	DNS Operator, it needs to be able to detect that the new DS RRset is
	"equivalent" to the current CDNSKEY RRset, thus it can remove the
	CDNSKEY RRset.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	IANA has assigned RR Type code 59 for CDS. This was done for an		IANA has assigned RR Type code 59 for CDS. This was done for an
	earlier version of this document[I-D.ds-publish] This document is to		earlier version of this document[I-D.ds-publish] This document is to
	become the reference for CDS RRtype.		become the reference for CDS RRtype.
	IANA is requested to assign another RR Type for the CDNSKEY.		IANA is requested to assign another RR Type for the CDNSKEY.
	8. Privacy Considerations		8. Privacy Considerations
	skipping to change at page 13, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 24 ¶
	keys like hold down times, challenge data inclusion etc., ought to be		keys like hold down times, challenge data inclusion etc., ought to be
	used, along with some kind of challenge mechanism. A child cannot		used, along with some kind of challenge mechanism. A child cannot
	use this mechanism to go from signed to unsigned (publishing an empty		use this mechanism to go from signed to unsigned (publishing an empty
	CDS / CDNSKEY RRset means no-change should be made in the parent).		CDS / CDNSKEY RRset means no-change should be made in the parent).
	The CDS RR type should allow for enhanced security by simplifying		The CDS RR type should allow for enhanced security by simplifying
	process. Since rollover is automated, updating a DS RRset by other		process. Since rollover is automated, updating a DS RRset by other
	means may be regarded as unusual and subject to extra security		means may be regarded as unusual and subject to extra security
	checks.		checks.
			As this introduces a new mechanism to update information in the
			parent it MUST be clear who is fetching the records and creating the
			appropriate records in the parent zone. Specifically some operations
			may use other mechanisms than what is described here. For example, a
			registrar may assume that it is maintaining the DNSSEC key
			information in the registry, and may have this cached. If the
			registry is fetching the CDS / CDNSKEY then the registry and
			registrar may have different views of the DNSSEC key material and the
			result of such a situation is unclear. Because of this, this
			mechanism SHOULD NOT be use to bypass intermediaries that might cache
			information and because of that get the wrong state.
	If there is a failure in applying changes in child zone to all DNS		If there is a failure in applying changes in child zone to all DNS
	servers listed in either parent or child NS set it is possible that		servers listed in either parent or child NS set it is possible that
	the Parental agent may get confused either not perform action because		the Parental agent may get confused either not perform action because
	it gets different answers on different checks or CDS validation		it gets different answers on different checks or CDS validation
	fails. In the worst case, Parental Agent performs an action		fails. In the worst case, Parental Agent performs an action
	reversing a prior action but after the child signing system decides		reversing a prior action but after the child signing system decides
	to take the next step in rollover, resulting in a broken delegation.		to take the next step in rollover, resulting in a broken delegation.
	DNS is a loosely coherent distributed database with local caching;		DNS is a loosely coherent distributed database with local caching;
	therefore, it is important to allow old information to expire from		therefore, it is important to allow old information to expire from
	skipping to change at page 13, line 46 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 19 ¶
	security.		security.
	By automating the maintenance of the DNSSEC key information (and		By automating the maintenance of the DNSSEC key information (and
	removing humans from the process) we expect to decrease the number of		removing humans from the process) we expect to decrease the number of
	DNSSEC related outages, which should increase DNSSEC deployment.		DNSSEC related outages, which should increase DNSSEC deployment.
	10. Acknowledgements		10. Acknowledgements
	We would like to thank a large number of folk, including: Mark		We would like to thank a large number of folk, including: Mark
	Andrews, Joe Abley, Jaap Akkerhuis, Roy Arends, Doug Barton, Brian		Andrews, Joe Abley, Jaap Akkerhuis, Roy Arends, Doug Barton, Brian
	Dickinson, Paul Ebersman, Tony Finch, Patrik Faltsrom, Jim Galvin,		Dickinson, Paul Ebersman, Tony Finch, Patrik Faltstrom, Jim Galvin,
	Paul Hoffman, Samir Hussain, Tatuya Jinmei, Olaf Kolkman, Cricket		Paul Hoffman, Samir Hussain, Tatuya Jinmei, Olaf Kolkman, Cricket
	Liu, Stephan Lagerholm, Matt Larson, Marco Sanz, Antoin Verschuren,		Liu, Stephan Lagerholm, Matt Larson, Marco Sanz, Antoin Verschuren,
	Suzanne Woolf, Paul Wouters, Matthijs Meeking, John Dickinson,		Suzanne Woolf, Paul Wouters, Matthijs Meeking, John Dickinson,
	Timothe Litt and Edward Lewis.		Timothe Litt and Edward Lewis.
	Special thanks to Wes Hardaker for contributing significant text and		Special thanks to Wes Hardaker for contributing significant text and
	creating the complementary (CSYNC) solution, and to Paul Hoffman and		creating the complementary (CSYNC) solution, and to Paul Hoffman and
	Mukund Sivaraman for text and review.		Mukund Sivaraman for text and review.
	There were a number of other folk with whom we discussed this,		There were a number of other folk with whom we discussed this,
	skipping to change at page 16, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 29 ¶
	In many RRR cases the Registrar and Registry communicate via		In many RRR cases the Registrar and Registry communicate via
	EPP[RFC5730] and use the EPP DNSSEC extension [RFC5910]. In a number		EPP[RFC5730] and use the EPP DNSSEC extension [RFC5910]. In a number
	of ccTLDs there are other mechanisms in use as well as EPP, but in		of ccTLDs there are other mechanisms in use as well as EPP, but in
	general there seems to be a movement towards EPP usage when DNSSEC is		general there seems to be a movement towards EPP usage when DNSSEC is
	enabled in the TLD.		enabled in the TLD.
	Appendix B. Changes / Author Notes.		Appendix B. Changes / Author Notes.
	[RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ]		[RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ]
			WG-03 to WG-04
			o Large number of comments and changes from Patrik.
	WG-02 to WG-03		WG-02 to WG-03
	o Fixed some references to RFC 5011 - from Samir Hussain.		o Fixed some references to RFC 5011 - from Samir Hussain.
	o Fixed some spelling / typos - from Samir Hussain.		o Fixed some spelling / typos - from Samir Hussain.
	o A number of clarifiations on the meaning on an empty / non-		o A number of clarifiations on the meaning on an empty / non-
	existant CDS RRset - thanks to JINMEI, Tatuya		existant CDS RRset - thanks to JINMEI, Tatuya
	o Be consistent in mentioning both CDS and CDNSKEY throughout the		o Be consistent in mentioning both CDS and CDNSKEY throughout the
End of changes. 32 change blocks.
	51 lines changed or deleted		75 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/