< draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-00.txt   draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-01.txt >
DNSOP G. Huston DNSOP G. Huston
Internet-Draft J. Damas Internet-Draft J. Damas
Intended status: Standards Track APNIC Intended status: Standards Track APNIC
Expires: June 14, 2018 W. Kumari Expires: August 16, 2018 W. Kumari
Google Google
December 11, 2017 February 12, 2018
A Sentinel for Detecting Trusted Keys in DNSSEC A Sentinel for Detecting Trusted Keys in DNSSEC
draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-00.txt draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-01
Abstract Abstract
The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) were developed to provide origin The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) were developed to provide origin
authentication and integrity protection for DNS data by using digital authentication and integrity protection for DNS data by using digital
signatures. These digital signatures can be verified by building a signatures. These digital signatures can be verified by building a
chain of trust starting from a trust anchor and proceeding down to a chain of trust starting from a trust anchor and proceeding down to a
particular node in the DNS. This document specifies a mechanism that particular node in the DNS. This document specifies a mechanism that
will allow an end user to determine the trusted key state of the will allow an end user to determine the trusted key state of the
resolvers that handle the user's DNS queries. resolvers that handle that user's DNS queries.
There is an example / toy implementation of this at http://www.ksk-
test.net .
[ This document is being collaborated on in Github at:
https://github.com/APNIC-Labs/draft-kskroll-sentinel.. The most
recent version of the document, open issues, etc should all be
available here. The authors (gratefully) accept pull requests. Text
in square brackets will be removed before publication. ]
[ NOTE: This version uses the labels "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-<tag-
index>", "kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-<tag-index>"; older versions of
this document used "_is-ta-<tag-index>", "_not-ta-<tag-index>". ]
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 https://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 16, 2018.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 14, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Sentinel Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Sentinel Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Sentinel Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Sentinel Test Result Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Sentinel Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Sentinel Test Result Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033], [RFC4034] and The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033], [RFC4034] and
[RFC4035] were developed to provide origin authentication and [RFC4035] were developed to provide origin authentication and
integrity protection for DNS data by using digital signatures. integrity protection for DNS data by using digital signatures.
DNSSEC uses Key Tags to efficiently match signatures to the keys from DNSSEC uses Key Tags to efficiently match signatures to the keys from
which they are generated. The Key Tag is a 16-bit value computed which they are generated. The Key Tag is a 16-bit value computed
from the RDATA portion of a DNSKEY RR using a formula not unlike a from the RDATA portion of a DNSKEY RR using a formula not unlike a
ones-complement checksum. RRSIG RRs contain a Key Tag field whose ones-complement checksum. RRSIG RRs contain a Key Tag field whose
skipping to change at page 3, line 11 skipping to change at page 3, line 21
strongly preferred if configurations of DNSSEC-validating resolvers strongly preferred if configurations of DNSSEC-validating resolvers
enabled this mechanism by default, allowing for local configuration enabled this mechanism by default, allowing for local configuration
directives to disable this mechanism if desired. directives to disable this mechanism if desired.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
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. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
2. Sentinel Mechanism Address Record: Throughout this document we use the term Address
Record (AR) to mean an A or AAAA record. We are using example.com,
AAAA records and the IPv6 documentation prefix (2001:DB8::/32) as
examples; these are only examples - A records (or CNAMES), other IPs,
other domains work just as well. [Ed note: There was some earlier
confusion on this, being explicit! ]
2. Use Case
[Ed note: This is currently towards the front of the document; we
will make it an appendix at publication time, but until then it is
worth having up front, as it makes the rest of the document much
easier to understand ]
This section provides a non-normative example of how the sentinel
mechanism could be used, and what each participant does. It is
provided in a conversational tone to be easier to follow.
Alice is in charge of the DNS root KSK (Key Signing Key), and would
like to roll / replace the key with a new one. She publishes the new
KSK, but would like to be able to predict / measure what the impact
will be before removing/revoking the old key. The current KSK has a
key ID of 1111, the new KSK has a key ID of 2222
Bob, Charlie, Dave, Ed are all users. They use the DNS recursive
resolvers supplied by their ISPs. They would like to confirm that
their ISPs have picked up the new KSK and will not break. Bob's ISP
does not perform validation. Charlie's ISP does validate, but the
resolvers have not yet been upgraded to support sentinel. Dave and
Ed's resolvers have been upgraded to support sentinel; Dave's
resolver has the new KSK, Ed's resolver hasn't managed to install the
2222 KSK in its trust store yet.
Geoff is a researcher, and would like to both provide a means for
Bob, Charlie, Dave and Ed to be able to perform tests, and also would
like to be able to perform Internet wide measurements of what the
impact will be (and report this back to Alice).
Geoff sets an authoritative DNS server for example.com, and also a
webserver (www.example.com). He adds 3 AAAA records to example.com:
invalid IN AAAA 2001:DB8::1
kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-2222 IN AAAA 2001:DB8::1
kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-2222 IN AAAA 2001:DB8::1
Geoff then DNSSEC signs the example.com zone, and intentionally makes
the invalid.example.com record invalid/bogus (for example, by editing
the signed zone and entering garbage for the signature). Geoff also
configures his webserver to listen on 2001:DB8::1 and serve a
resource (for example, a 1x1 GIF, 1x1.gif) for all of these names.
The webserver also serves a webpage (www.example.com) which contains
links to these 3 resources (http://invalid.example.com/1x1.gif,
http://kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-2222.example.com/1x1.gif,
http://kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-2222.example.com/1x1.gif).
Geoff then asks Bob, Charlie, Dave and Ed to browse to
www.example.com. Using the methods described in this document, the
users can figure out what their fate will be when the 1111 KSK is
removed.
Bob is not using a validating resolver. This means that he will be
able to resolve invalid.example.com (and fetch the 1x1 GIF) - this
tells him that the KSK roll does not affect him, and so he will be
OK.
Charlie's resolvers are validating, but they have not been upgraded
to support the KSK sentinel mechanism. Charlie will not be able to
fetch the http://invalid.example.com/1x1.gif resource (the
invalid.example.com record is bogus, and none of his resolvers will
resolve it). He is able to fetch both of the other resources - from
this he knows (see the logic below) that he is using legacy, non-
validating resolvers. The KSK sentinel method cannot provided him
with a definitive answer.
Dave's resolvers implement the sentinel method, and have picked up
the new KSK. For the same reason as Charlie, he cannot fetch the
"invalid" resource. His resolver resolves the kskroll-sentinel-is-
ta-2222.example.com name normally (it contacts the example.com
authoritative servers, etc); as it supports the sentinel mechanism,
just before Dave's recursive server send the reply to Dave's stub, it
performs the KSK Sentinel check (see below). The QNAME starts with
"kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-", and the recursive resolver does indeed
have a key with the Key ID of 2222 in its root trust store. This
means that that this part of the KSK Sentinel check passes (it is
true that 2222 is in the Trust Anchor store), and the recursive
resolver replies normally (with the answer provided by the
authoritative server). Dave's recursive resolver then resolves the
kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-2222.example.com name. Once again, it
performs the normal resolution process, but because it implements KSK
Sentinel (and the QNAME starts with "kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-"), just
before sending the reply, it performs the KSK Sentinel check. As it
has 2222 in it's trust anchor store, the "Is this *not* a trust
anchor" is false, and so the recursive resolver does not reply with
the answer from the authoritative server - instead, it replies with a
SERVFAIL (note that replying with SERVFAIL instead of the original
answer is the only mechanism that KSK Sentinel uses). This means
that Dave cannot fetch "invalid", he can fetch "kskroll-sentinel-is-
ta-2222", but he cannot fetch "kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-2222". From
this, Dave knows that he is behind an upgraded, validating resolver,
which has successfully installed the new, 2222 KSK. Dave has nothing
to worry about - he will be fine with the old (1111) KSK is removed.
Now for Ed. Just like Charlie and Dave, Ed cannot fetch the
"invalid" record. This tells him that his resolvers are validating.
When his (upgraded) resolver performs the KSK Sentinel check for
"kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-2222", it does *not* have the (new, 2222) KSK
in it's trust anchor store. This means check fails, and Ed's
recursive resolver converts the (valid) 2001:DB8::1 answer into a
SERVFAIL error response. It performs the same check for kskroll-
sentinel-not-ta-2222.example.com; as it does not have the 2222 KSK,
it is true that this is not a trust anchor for it, and so it replies
normally. This means that Ed cannot fetch the "invalid" resource, he
also cannot fetch the "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-2222" resource, but he
can fetch the "kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-2222" resource. This tells Ed
that his resolvers have not installed the new KSK, and, when the old
KSK is removed, his DNS will break.
Geoff would like to do a large scale test and provide the information
back to Alice. He uses some mechanism (such as an advertising
network) to cause a large number of users to attempt to resolve the 3
resources, and then analyzes the results of the tests to determine
what percentage of users will be affected by the KSK rollover event.
The above description is a simplified example - it is not anticipated
that Bob, Charlie, Dave and Ed will actually look for the absence or
presence of web resources; instead, the webpage that they load would
likely contain JavaScript (or similar) which displays the result of
the tests. An example of this is at http://www.ksk-test.net. This
KSK mechanism does not rely on the web - this method can equally be
used by trying to resolve the names (for example, using 'dig') and
checking which result in a SERVFAIL.
[ Note that the KSK Sentinel mechanism measures a very different
(and, in our opinion, much more useful!) metric than RFC8145 --
RFC8145 relied on resolvers reporting the list of keys that they have
-- this doesn't reflect what the *user* impact of the KSK roll will
be. As we cannot get perfect visibility into all resolvers, we will
have to aim for "do the least harm", not "do no harm" ]
3. Sentinel Mechanism
DNSSEC-Validating resolvers that implement this mechanism MUST be DNSSEC-Validating resolvers that implement this mechanism MUST be
performing validation of responses in accordance with the DNSSEC performing validation of responses in accordance with the DNSSEC
response validation specification [RFC4035]. response validation specification [RFC4035].
This sentinel mechanism makes use of 2 special labels, "_is-ta-<tag- This sentinel mechanism makes use of 2 special labels, "kskroll-
index>." (intended to be used in a query where the response can sentinel-is-ta-<tag-index>." (intended to be used in a query where
answer the question: Is this the key tag a trust anchor which the the response can answer the question: Is this the key tag a trust
validating DNS resolver is currently trusting?) and "_not-ta-<tag- anchor which the validating DNS resolver is currently trusting?) and
index>." (intended to be used in a query where the response can "kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-<tag-index>." (intended to be used in a
answer the question: Is this the key tag of a key that is NOT in the query where the response can answer the question: Is this the key tag
resolver's current trust store?). The use of the positive question of a key that is NOT in the resolver's current trust store?). The
and its inverse allows for queries to detect whether resolvers use of the positive question and its inverse allows for queries to
support this sentinel mechanism. detect whether resolvers support this sentinel mechanism. Note that
the test is "Is there a key with this KeyID in the resolver's current
trust store for the DNS root", not "Is there any key with this KeyID
in the trust store", nor "Was a key with this KeyID used to validate
this query?". [This is still an active discussion on the DNSOP list
]
If the outcome of the DNSSEC validation process on the response RRset If the outcome of the DNSSEC validation process on the response RRset
indicates that the response RRset is authentic, and if the left-most indicates that the response RRset is authentic, and if the left-most
label of the original query name matches the template "_is-ta-<tag- label of the original query name matches the template "kskroll-
index>.", then the following rule should be applied to the response: sentinel-is-ta-<tag-index>.", then the following rule should be
If the resolver has placed a Root Zone Key Signing Key with tag index applied to the response: If the resolver has placed a Root Zone Key
value matching the value specified in the query into the local Signing Key with tag index value matching the value specified in the
resolver's store of trusted keys, then the resolver should return a query into the local resolver's store of trusted keys, then the
response indicating that the response contains authenticated data resolver should return a response indicating that the response
according to section 5.8 of [RFC6840]. Otherwise, the resolver MUST contains authenticated data according to section 5.8 of [RFC6840].
return RCODE 2 (server failure). Note that the <tag-index> is Otherwise, the resolver MUST return RCODE 2 (server failure). Note
specified in the DNS label using hexadecimal notation. that the <tag-index> is specified in the DNS label using hexadecimal
notation.
If the outcome of the DNSSEC validation process aplied to the If the outcome of the DNSSEC validation process applied to the
response RRset indicates that the response RRset is authentic, and if response RRset indicates that the response RRset is authentic, and if
the left-most label of the original query name matches the template the left-most label of the original query name matches the template
"_not-ta-<tag-index>.", then the following rule should be applied to "kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-<tag-index>.", then the following rule
the response: If the resolver has not placed a Root Zone Key Signing should be applied to the response: If the resolver has not placed a
Key with tag index value matching the value specified in the query Root Zone Key Signing Key with tag index value matching the value
into the local resolver's store of trusted keys, then the resolver specified in the query into the local resolver's store of trusted
should return a response indicating that the response contains keys, then the resolver should return a response indicating that the
authenticated data according to section 5.8 of [RFC6840]. Otherwise, response contains authenticated data according to section 5.8 of
the resolver MUST return RCODE 2 (server failure). Note that the [RFC6840]. Otherwise, the resolver MUST return RCODE 2 (server
<tag-index> is specified in the DNS label using hexadecimal notation. failure). Note that the <tag-index> is specified in the DNS label
using hexadecimal notation.
In all other cases the resolver MUST NOT alter the outcome of the DNS In all other cases the resolver MUST NOT alter the outcome of the DNS
response validation process. response validation process.
This mechanism is to be applied only by resolvers that are performing This mechanism is to be applied only by resolvers that are performing
DNSSEC validation, and applies only to RRset responses to an A or DNSSEC validation, and applies only to RRset responses to an A or
AAAA query (Query Type value 1 or 28) where the resolver has AAAA query (Query Type value 1 or 28) where the resolver has
authenticated the response RRset according to the DNSSEC validation authenticated the response RRset according to the DNSSEC validation
process and where the query name contains either of the labels process and where the query name contains either of the labels
described in this section as its left-most label. In this case, the described in this section as its left-most label. In this case, the
resolver is to perform an additional test following the conventional resolver is to perform an additional test following the conventional
validation function, as described in this section. The result of validation function, as described in this section. The result of
this additional test determines whether the resolver will alter its this additional test determines whether the resolver will alter its
response that would've indicated that the RRset is authentic to a response that would have indicated that the RRset is authentic to a
response that indicates DNSSEC validation failure via the use of response that indicates DNSSEC validation failure via the use of
RCODE 2. RCODE 2.
3. Sentinel Processing 4. Sentinel Processing
This proposed test that uses the sentinel detection mechanism This proposed test that uses the sentinel detection mechanism
described in this document is based on the use of three DNS names described in this document is based on the use of three DNS names
that have three distinct DNS resolution behaviours. The test is that have three distinct DNS resolution behaviours. The test is
intended to allow a user to determine the state of their DNS intended to allow a user to determine the state of their DNS
resolution system, and, in particular, whether or not they are using resolution system, and, in particular, whether or not they are using
validating DNS resolvers that have picked up an incoming trust anchor validating DNS resolvers that have picked up an incoming trust anchor
as a trusted key in a root zone KSK roll scenario. as a trusted key in a root zone KSK roll scenario.
The name format can be defined in a number of ways, and no name form The name format can be defined in a number of ways, and no name form
is intrinsically better than any other in terms of the test itself. is intrinsically better than any other in terms of the test itself.
The critical aspect of the DNS names used in any such test is that The critical aspect of the DNS names used in any such test is that
they contain the specified label for either the positive and negative they contain the specified label for either the positive and negative
test as the left-most label in the query name. test as the left-most label in the query name.
The sentinel detection process is envisaged to use a test with three The sentinel detection process is envisaged to use a test with three
query names: query names:
a. a query name containing the left-most label "_is-ta-<tag- a. a query name containing the left-most label "kskroll-sentinel-is-
index>.". This corresponds to a a validly-signed RRset in the ta-<tag-index>.". This corresponds to a a validly-signed RRset
zone, so that responses associated with queried names in this in the zone, so that responses associated with queried names in
zone can be authenticated by a DNSSEC-validating resolver. Any this zone can be authenticated by a DNSSEC-validating resolver.
validly-signed DNS zone can be used for this test. Any validly-signed DNS zone can be used for this test.
b. a query name containing the left-most label "_not-ta-<tag- b. a query name containing the left-most label "kskroll-sentinel-
index>.". This is also a validly-signed name. Any validly- not-ta-<tag-index>.". This is also a validly-signed name. Any
signed DNS zone can be used for this test. validly-signed DNS zone can be used for this test.
c. a third query name that is signed with a DNSSEC signature that c. a third query name that is signed with a DNSSEC signature that
cannot be validated (i.e. the corresponding RRset is not signed cannot be validated (i.e. the corresponding RRset is not signed
with a valid RRSIG record). with a valid RRSIG record).
The responses received from queries to resolve each of these names The responses received from queries to resolve each of these names
would allow us to infer a trust key state of the resolution would allow us to infer a trust key state of the resolution
environment. To describe this process of classification, we can environment. To describe this process of classification, we can
classify resolvers into four distinct behavior types, for which we classify resolvers into four distinct behavior types, for which we
will use the labels: "Vnew", "Vold", "Vleg", and "nonV". These will use the labels: "Vnew", "Vold", "Vleg", and "nonV". These
labels correspond to resolver behaviour types as follows: labels correspond to resolver behaviour types as follows:
o Vnew: A DNSSEC-Validating resolver that is configured to implement o Vnew: A DNSSEC-Validating resolver that is configured to implement
this mechanism has loaded the nominated key into its local trusted this mechanism has loaded the nominated key into its local trusted
key store will respond with an A or AAAA RRset response for "_is- key store will respond with an A or AAAA RRset response for
ta" queries, SERVFAIL for "_not-ta" queries and SERVFAIL for the "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta" queries, SERVFAIL for "kskroll-sentinel-
invalidly signed name queries. not-ta" queries and SERVFAIL for the invalidly signed name
queries.
o Vold: A DNSSEC-Validating resolver that is configured to implement o Vold: A DNSSEC-Validating resolver that is configured to implement
this mechanism that has not loaded the nominated key into its this mechanism that has not loaded the nominated key into its
local trusted key store will respond with an SERVFAIL for "_is-ta" local trusted key store will respond with an SERVFAIL for
queries, an A or AAAA RRset response for "_not-ta" queries and "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta" queries, an A or AAAA RRset response for
SERVFAIL for the invalidly signed name queries. "kskroll-sentinel-not-ta" queries and SERVFAIL for the invalidly
signed name queries.
o Vleg: A DNSSEC-Validating resolver that does not implement this o Vleg: A DNSSEC-Validating resolver that does not implement this
mechanism will respond with an A or AAAA RRSET response for "_is- mechanism will respond with an A or AAAA RRSET response for
ta", an A record response for "_not-ta" and SERVFAIL for the "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta", an A record response for "kskroll-
invalid name. sentinel-not-ta" and SERVFAIL for the invalid name.
o nonV: A non-DNSSEC-Validating resolver will respond with an A o nonV: A non-DNSSEC-Validating resolver will respond with an A
record response for "_is-ta", an A record response for "_not-ta" record response for "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta", an A record response
and an A record response for the invalid name. for "kskroll-sentinel-not-ta" and an A record response for the
invalid name.
Given the clear delineation amongst these three cases, if a client Given the clear delineation amongst these three cases, if a client
directs these three queries to a simple resolver, the variation in directs these three queries to a simple resolver, the variation in
response to the three queries should allow the client to determine response to the three queries should allow the client to determine
the category of the resolver, and if it supports this mechanism, the category of the resolver, and if it supports this mechanism,
whether or not it has loaded a particular key into its local trusted whether or not it has loaded a particular key into its local trusted
key stash. key stash.
+-------------+----------+-----------+------------+ +-------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| Type\Query | _is-ta | _not-ta | invalid | | Type\Query | is-ta | not-ta | invalid |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------------+ +-------------+----------+-----------+------------+
| Vnew | A | SERVFAIL | SERVFAIL | | Vnew | A | SERVFAIL | SERVFAIL |
| Vold | SERVFAIL | A | SERVFAIL | | Vold | SERVFAIL | A | SERVFAIL |
| Vleg | A | A | SERVFAIL | | Vleg | A | A | SERVFAIL |
| nonV | A | A | A | | nonV | A | A | A |
+-------------+----------+-----------+------------+ +-------------+----------+-----------+------------+
A "Vnew" response pattern says that the nominated key is trusted by A "Vnew" response pattern says that the nominated key is trusted by
the resolver and has been loaded into its local trusted key stash. A the resolver and has been loaded into its local trusted key stash. A
"Vold" response pattern says that the nominated key is not yet "Vold" response pattern says that the nominated key is not yet
trusted by the resolver in its own right. A "Vleg" response pattern trusted by the resolver in its own right. A "Vleg" response pattern
is indeterminate, and a "nonV" response pattern indicates that the is indeterminate, and a "nonV" response pattern indicates that the
resolver does not perform DNSSEC validation. resolver does not perform DNSSEC validation.
4. Sentinel Test Result Considerations 5. Sentinel Test Result Considerations
The description in the previous section describes a simple situation The description in the previous section describes a simple situation
where the test queries were being passed to a single recursive where the test queries were being passed to a single recursive
resolver that directly queried authoritative name servers, including resolver that directly queried authoritative name servers, including
the root servers. the root servers.
There is also the common case where the end client is configured to There is also the common case where the end client is configured to
use multiple resolvers. In these cases the SERVFAIL responses from use multiple resolvers. In these cases the SERVFAIL responses from
one resolver will prompt the end client to repeat the query against one resolver will prompt the end client to repeat the query against
one of the other configured resolvers. one of the other configured resolvers.
skipping to change at page 6, line 47 skipping to change at page 10, line 22
If the validating resolver has a forwarding configuration, and uses If the validating resolver has a forwarding configuration, and uses
the CD flag on all forwarded queries, then this resolver is acting in the CD flag on all forwarded queries, then this resolver is acting in
a manner that is identical to a standalone resolver. The same a manner that is identical to a standalone resolver. The same
consideration applies if any one one of the forwarder targets is a consideration applies if any one one of the forwarder targets is a
non-validating resolver. Similarly, if all the forwarder targets do non-validating resolver. Similarly, if all the forwarder targets do
not apply this trusted key mechanism, the same considerations apply. not apply this trusted key mechanism, the same considerations apply.
A more complex case is where the following conditions all hold: A more complex case is where the following conditions all hold:
both the validating resolver and the forwarder target resolver o both the validating resolver and the forwarder target resolver
support this trusted key sentinel mechanism, and support this trusted key sentinel mechanism, and
the local resolver's queries do not have the CD bit set, and o the local resolver's queries do not have the CD bit set, and
the trusted key state differs between the forwarding resolver and
o the trusted key state differs between the forwarding resolver and
the forwarder target resolver the forwarder target resolver
then either the outcome is indeterminate validating ("Vleg"), or a then either the outcome is indeterminate validating ("Vleg"), or a
case of mixed signals (SERVFAIL in all three responses), which is case of mixed signals (SERVFAIL in all three responses), which is
similarly an indeterminate response with respect to the trusted key similarly an indeterminate response with respect to the trusted key
state. state.
5. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document describes a mechanism to allow users to determine the This document describes a mechanism to allow users to determine the
trust state of root zone key signing keys in the DNS resolution trust state of root zone key signing keys in the DNS resolution
system that they use. system that they use.
The mechanism does not require resolvers to set otherwise The mechanism does not require resolvers to set otherwise
unauthenticated responses to be marked as authenticated, and does not unauthenticated responses to be marked as authenticated, and does not
alter the security properties of DNSSEC with respect to the alter the security properties of DNSSEC with respect to the
interpretation of the authenticity of responses that are so marked. interpretation of the authenticity of responses that are so marked.
The mechanism does not require any further significant processing of The mechanism does not require any further significant processing of
DNS responses, and queries of the form described in this document do DNS responses, and queries of the form described in this document do
not impose any additional load that could be exploited in an attack not impose any additional load that could be exploited in an attack
over the the normal DNSSEC validation processing load. over the the normal DNSSEC validation processing load.
6. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
[Note to IANA, to be removed prior to publication: there are no IANA [Note to IANA, to be removed prior to publication: there are no IANA
considerations stated in this version of the document.] considerations stated in this version of the document.]
7. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
This document has borrowed extensively from [RFC8145] for the This document has borrowed extensively from [RFC8145] for the
introductory text, and the authors would like to acknowledge and introductory text, and the authors would like to acknowledge and
thank the authors of that document both for some text excerpts and thank the authors of that document both for some text excerpts and
for the more general stimulation of thoughts about monitoring the for the more general stimulation of thoughts about monitoring the
progress of a roll of the Key Signing Key of the Root Zone of the progress of a roll of the Key Signing Key of the Root Zone of the
DNS. DNS.
8. References The authors would like the especially thank Joe Abley, Mehmet Akcin,
Mark Andrews, Richard Barnes, Ray Bellis, Stephane Bortzmeyer, David
Conrad, Ralph Dolmans, Steinar Haug, Bob Harold, Wes Hardaker, Paul
Hoffman, Matt Larson, Edward Lewis, George Michaelson, Benno
Overeinder, Matthew Pounsett, Andreas Schulze, Mukund Sivaraman, Petr
Spacek. Andrew Sullivan, Paul Vixie, Duane Wessels and Paul Wouters
for their helpful feedback.
8.1. Normative References [TODO: Add people who have contributed!]
9. Change Log
Note that this document is being worked on in GitHub - see Abstract.
The below is mainly large changes, and is not authoritative.
From -00 to 01:
o Added a conversational description of how the system is intended
to work.
o Clarification that this is for the root.
o Changed the label template from _is-ta-<tag> to kskroll-sentinel-
is-ta-<tag-index>. This is because BIND (at least) will not allow
records which start with an underscore to have address records
(CNAMEs, yes, A/AAAA no). Some browsers / operating systems also
will not fetch resources from names which start with an
underscore.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005, 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005, <https://www.rfc-
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>. editor.org/info/rfc4033>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005, RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005, Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC6840] Weiler, S., Ed. and D. Blacka, Ed., "Clarifications and [RFC6840] Weiler, S., Ed. and D. Blacka, Ed., "Clarifications and
Implementation Notes for DNS Security (DNSSEC)", RFC 6840, Implementation Notes for DNS Security (DNSSEC)", RFC 6840,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6840, February 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6840, February 2013, <https://www.rfc-
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6840>. editor.org/info/rfc6840>.
8.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC8145] Wessels, D., Kumari, W., and P. Hoffman, "Signaling Trust [RFC8145] Wessels, D., Kumari, W., and P. Hoffman, "Signaling Trust
Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", RFC
RFC 8145, DOI 10.17487/RFC8145, April 2017, 8145, DOI 10.17487/RFC8145, April 2017, <https://www.rfc-
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8145>. editor.org/info/rfc8145>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Geoff Huston Geoff Huston
Email: gih@apnic.net Email: gih@apnic.net
URI: http://www.apnic.net URI: http://www.apnic.net
Joao Silva Damas Joao Silva Damas
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
87 lines changed or deleted 281 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/