< draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-05.txt		draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-06.txt >
	dnsop W. Kumari		dnsop W. Kumari
	Internet-Draft Google		Internet-Draft Google
	Intended status: Informational O. Gudmundsson		Intended status: Informational O. Gudmundsson
	Expires: October 13, 2014 Shinkuro Inc.		Expires: October 16, 2014 Shinkuro Inc.
	G. Barwood		G. Barwood
	April 11, 2014		April 14, 2014
	Automating DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance		Automating DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance
	draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-05		draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-06
	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 the 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.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶
	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 October 13, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 16, 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 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 23 ¶
	1.2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5. CDS / CDNSKEY Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. CDS / CDNSKEY Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6. Parent Side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6. Parent Side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.1. Detecting a Changed CDS / CDNSKEY . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.1. Detecting a Changed CDS / CDNSKEY . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	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.
	Each time the child changes/rolls the key that is represented in the		Each time the child changes the key that is represented in the
	parent, the new and/or deleted key information has to be communicated		parent, the updated and/or deleted key information has to be
	to the parent and in the parent's zone. How this information is sent		communicated to the parent and published in the parent's zone. How
	to the parent depends on the relationship the child has with the		this information is sent to the parent depends on the relationship
	parent. In many cases this is a manual process, and not an easy one.		the child has with the parent. In many cases this is a manual
	For each key roll, there may be up to two interactions with the		process, and not an easy one. For each key roll, there may be up to
	parent. Any manual process is susceptible to mistakes and/or errors.		two interactions with the parent. Any manual process is susceptible
	In addition, due to the annoyance factor of the process, operators		to mistakes and/or errors. In addition, due to the annoyance factor
	may avoid performing key rollovers or skip needed steps to publish		of the process, operators may avoid performing key rollovers or skip
	the new DS at the parent.		needed steps to publish the new DS at the parent.
	DNSSEC provides data integrity to information published in DNS; thus		DNSSEC provides data integrity to information published in DNS; thus
	DNS publication can be used to automate maintenance of delegation		DNS publication can be used to automate maintenance of delegation
	information. This document describes a method to automate		information. This document describes a method to automate
	publication of subsequent DS records, after the initial one has been		publication of subsequent DS records, after the initial one has been
	published.		published.
	Readers are expected to be familiar with DNSSEC, including [RFC4033],		Readers are expected to be familiar with DNSSEC, including [RFC4033],
	[RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC5011] and [RFC6781].		[RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC5011] and [RFC6781].
	skipping to change at page 7, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 4 ¶
	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.
	In the case of a third party DNS operator, the Child either needs to		In the case of a third party DNS operator, the Child either needs to
	relay changes in DNS delegation or give the Child DNS Operator access		relay changes in DNS delegation or give the Child DNS Operator access
	to its delegation/registration account.		to its delegation/registration account.
	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. This solution is
	below can operate with both models, but the child needs to be aware		DS vs DNSKEY agnostic, and allows operation with either.
	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
	skipping to change at page 7, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 30 ¶
	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		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		when old keys exist and can be used. The Child may also remove old
	keys, but this document does not support removing all keys. This is		keys, but this document does not support removing all keys. This is
	to avoid making signed zones unsigned. The Child may not enroll the		to avoid making signed zones unsigned. The Child may not enroll the
	initial key or introduce a new key when there are no old keys that		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.		can be used (without some additional, out of band, validation of the
			keys), because there is no way to validate the information.
	3. CDS / CDNSKEY (Child DS/ Child DNSKEY) Record Definitions		3. CDS / CDNSKEY (Child DS/ Child DNSKEY) Record Definitions
	This document specifies two new resource records, CDS and CDNSKEY.		This document specifies two new resource records, CDS and CDNSKEY.
	These records are used to convey, from one zone to it's parent, the		These records are used to convey, from one zone to its parent, the
	desired contents of the zone's DS resource record set residing in the		desired contents of the zone's DS resource record set residing in the
	parent zone.		parent zone.
	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
	skipping to change at page 8, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 23 ¶
	for the CDS record via expert review [I-D.ds-publish]. CDS uses the		for the CDS record via expert review [I-D.ds-publish]. CDS uses the
	same registries as DS for its fields.		same registries as DS for its fields.
	No special processing is performed by authoritative servers or by		No special processing is performed by authoritative servers or by
	revolvers, when serving or resolving. For all practical purposes CDS		revolvers, when serving or resolving. For all practical purposes CDS
	is a regular RR type.		is a regular RR type.
	3.2. CDNSKEY Resource Record Format		3.2. CDNSKEY Resource Record Format
	The wire and presentation format of the CDNSKEY ("Child DNSKEY")		The wire and presentation format of the CDNSKEY ("Child DNSKEY")
	record is identical to the DNSKEY record. CDNSKEY uses the same		record is identical to the DNSKEY record. IANA has allocated RR code
			TBA1 for the CDS record via expert review. CDNSKEY uses the same
	registries as DNSKEY for its fields.		registries as DNSKEY for its fields.
	No special processing is performed by authoritative servers or by		No special processing is performed by authoritative servers or by
	revolvers, when serving or resolving. For all practical purposes		revolvers, when serving or resolving. For all practical purposes
	CDNSKEY is a regular RR type.		CDNSKEY is a regular RR type.
	4. Automating DS Maintainance With CDS/CDNSKEY records		4. Automating DS Maintainance With CDS/CDNSKEY records
	CDS/CDNSKEY records are intended to be "consumed" by delegation trust		CDS/CDNSKEY records are intended to be "consumed" by delegation trust
	maintainers. The use of CDS/CDNSKEY is optional.		maintainers. The use of CDS/CDNSKEY is optional.
	Some parents prefer to accept DNSSEC key information in DS format,
	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
	technical and policy. This solution is DS vs DNSKEY agnostic, and
	allows operation with either.
	The child SHOULD publish both CDS and CDNSKEY records. If the child		The child SHOULD publish both CDS and CDNSKEY records. If the child
	knows which the parent consumes, it MAY choose to only publish that		knows which the parent consumes, it MAY choose to only publish that
	record type (for example, some children wish the parent to publish a		record type (for example, some children wish the parent to publish a
	DS, but they wish to keep the DNSKEY "hidden" until needed). If the		DS, but they wish to keep the DNSKEY "hidden" until needed). If the
	child publishes both, the two RRsets MUST match in content. The		child publishes both, the two RRsets MUST match in content. The
	parent should use whichever one they choose, but MUST NOT query for		parent should use whichever one they choose, but MUST NOT query for
	both and perform consistency checks between the CDS and CDNSKEY		both and perform consistency checks between the CDS and CDNSKEY
	records.		records.
	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 SHOULD remove all CDS records from the zone.		operator MAY 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: "MUST 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. CDS / CDNSKEY Publication		5. CDS / CDNSKEY Publication
	Child DNS Operator SHOULD only publish a CDS or CDNSKEY RRset when it		Child DNS Operator publishes a CDS and / or CDNSKEY RRset. In order
	wants to make a change to the DS RRset in the Parent. In order to be		to be valid, the CDS / CDNSKEY RRset MUST be compliant with the rules
	valid, the CDS / CDNSKEY RRset MUST be compliant with the rules in		in Section 4.1. When the Parent DS is "in-sync" with the CDS /
	Section 4.1. When the Parent DS is "in-sync" with the CDS / CDNSKEY,		CDNSKEY, the Child DNS Operator MAY delete the CDS / CDNSKEY
	the Child DNS Operator SHOULD delete the CDS / CDNSKEY RRset(s).		RRset(s); the child can determine if this is the case by quering for
	Note that if the child has published a CDNSKEY RR, the Parent will		DS records in the parent. Note that if the child has published a
	have to calculate the DS (using the requested digest algorithm) to do		CDNSKEY RR, the Parent will have to calculate the DS (using the
	the comparison.		requested digest algorithm) to do the comparison.
	6. Parent Side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption		6. Parent Side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption
	The CDS / CDNSKEY RRset SHOULD be used by the Parental Agent to		The CDS / CDNSKEY RRset SHOULD be used by the Parental Agent to
	update the DS RRset in the parent zone. The Parental Agent for this		update the DS RRset in the parent zone. The Parental Agent for this
	uses a 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.
	The parent MUST choose to accept either CDS or CDNSKEY records (based		The parent MUST choose to accept either CDS or CDNSKEY records (based
	upon local policy), and MUST NOT expect there to be both. A parent		upon local policy), and MUST NOT expect there to be both. A parent
	skipping to change at page 10, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 24 ¶
	In either case the Parental Agent MAY apply additional rules that		In either case the Parental Agent MAY apply additional rules that
	defer the acceptance of a CDS / CDNSKEY change, these rules may		defer the acceptance of a CDS / CDNSKEY change, these rules may
	include a condition that the CDS / CDNSKEY remains in place and valid		include a condition that the CDS / CDNSKEY remains in place and valid
	for some time period before it is accepted. It may be appropriate in		for some time period before it is accepted. It may be appropriate in
	the "Pushing" case to assume that the Child is ready and thus accept		the "Pushing" case to assume that the Child is ready and thus accept
	changes without delay.		changes without delay.
	6.1.1. CDS / CDNSKEY Polling		6.1.1. CDS / CDNSKEY Polling
	This is the only defined use of CDS / CDNSKEY in this document.		This is the only defined use of CDS / CDNSKEY in this document.
	There are limits to the saleability of polling techniques, thus some		There are limits to the scaleability of polling techniques, thus some
	other mechanism is likely to be specified later that addresses CDS /		other mechanism is likely to be specified later that addresses CDS /
	CDNSKEY usage in the situation where polling does not scale to.		CDNSKEY usage in the situation where polling does not scale to.
	Having said that Polling will work in many important cases like		Having said that Polling will work in many important cases like
	enterprises, universities, small TLDs etc. In many regulatory		enterprises, universities, small TLDs etc. In many regulatory
	environments the registry is prohibited from talking to the		environments the registry is prohibited from talking to the
	registrant. In most of these cases the registrant has a business		registrant. In most of these cases the registrant has a business
	relationship with the registrar, and so the registrar can offer this		relationship with the registrar, and so the registrar can offer this
	as a service.		as a service.
	If the CDS / CDNSKEY RRset does not exist, the Parental Agent MUST		If the CDS / CDNSKEY RRset does not exist, the Parental Agent MUST
	skipping to change at page 11, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 8 ¶
	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 SHOULD use a DNSSEC validator to
	a validated CDS / CDNSKEY RRset from the Child zone.		obtain a validated CDS / CDNSKEY RRset from the Child zone. The only
			exception to this is if the parent perfoms some additional validation
			on the data to confirm that it is the "correct" ket. This behavior
			is NOT RECOMMENDED.
	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
	skipping to change at page 12, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 15 ¶
	In the case the parent fetch the CDNSKEY and calculate the DS it MAY		In the case the parent fetch the CDNSKEY and calculate the DS it MAY
	be the case that the DS published in the parent zone is not identical		be the case that the DS published in the parent zone is not identical
	with the data in the CDS record made available by the child.		with the data in the CDS record made available by the child.
	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, and to
			replace TBA1 with this value (currntly 60 is still free, it would be
			nice if that were assigned...)
	8. Privacy Considerations		8. Privacy Considerations
	All of the information handled / transmitted by this protocol is		All of the information handled / transmitted by this protocol is
	public information published in the DNS.		public information published in the DNS.
	9. Security Considerations		9. Security Considerations
	This work is for the normal case; when things go wrong there is only		This work is for the normal case; when things go wrong there is only
	so much that automation can fix.		so much that automation can fix.
	skipping to change at page 13, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 26 ¶
	registrar may assume that it is maintaining the DNSSEC key		registrar may assume that it is maintaining the DNSSEC key
	information in the registry, and may have this cached. If the		information in the registry, and may have this cached. If the
	registry is fetching the CDS / CDNSKEY then the registry and		registry is fetching the CDS / CDNSKEY then the registry and
	registrar may have different views of the DNSSEC key material and the		registrar may have different views of the DNSSEC key material and the
	result of such a situation is unclear. Because of this, this		result of such a situation is unclear. Because of this, this
	mechanism SHOULD NOT be use to bypass intermediaries that might cache		mechanism SHOULD NOT be use to bypass intermediaries that might cache
	information and because of that get the wrong state.		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 because it gets different
	it gets different answers on different checks or CDS validation		answers on different checks or CDS validation fails. In the worst
	fails. In the worst case, Parental Agent performs an action		case, the Parental Agent performs an action reversing a prior action
	reversing a prior action but after the child signing system decides		but after the child signing system decides to take the next step in
	to take the next step in rollover, resulting in a broken delegation.		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
	caches before deleting DS or DNSKEY records. Similarly, it is		caches before deleting DS or DNSKEY records. Similarly, it is
	important to allow new records to propagate through the DNS before		important to allow new records to propagate through the DNS before
	use, see [RFC6781] and [I-D.key-time]		use, see [RFC6781] and [I-D.key-time]
	It is common practice for users to outsource their DNS hosting to a		It is common practice for users to outsource their DNS hosting to a
	3rd party DNS provider. In order for that provider to be able to		3rd party DNS provider. In order for that provider to be able to
	maintain the DNSSEC information some users give the provider their		maintain the DNSSEC information some users give the provider their
	skipping to change at page 16, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 18 ¶
	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-05 to WG-06
			o Consensus (according to me!) was that mail thread said "Child MAY
			remove the CDS record". Changed to accomodate.
			o "The proposal below can operate with both models, but the child
			needs to be aware of the parental policies." - removed "but the
			child needs to be aware of the parental policies.". This is no
			longer true, as we suggest publishing both CDS and CDSNKEY.
			o Added: "without some additional out of band process" to "The Child
			may not enroll the initial key or introduce a new key when there
			are no old keys that can be used (without some additional, out of
			band, validation of the keys), because there is no way to validate
			the information."
			o Added a bit to the IANA section, requesting that TBA1 be replaced
			with the IANA allocated code.
			o Removed" Some parents prefer to accept DNSSEC key information in
			DS format, 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 technical and policy. This solution is DS vs
			DNSKEY agnostic, and allows operation with either." from Section 4
			as it is covered in Section 2.2.1
			o Remove a bunch of comments from the XML. I was getting tired of
			scrolling past them. If the authors need them back, they are in
			SVN commit 47.
	WG-04 to WG-05		WG-04 to WG-05
	o More comments from Patrik, Paul and Ed.		o More comments from Patrik, Paul and Ed.
	o Many nits and fixes from Matthijs Mekking.		o Many nits and fixes from Matthijs Mekking.
	o Outstanding question: Should we remove the "Child SHOULD remove		o Outstanding question: Should we remove the "Child SHOULD remove
	the CDS record" text? Mail sent to list.		the CDS record" text? Mail sent to list.
	WG-03 to WG-04		WG-03 to WG-04
End of changes. 20 change blocks.
	47 lines changed or deleted		77 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/