< draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements-02.txt   draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements-03.txt >
DNSOP P. Wallstrom DNSOP P. Wallstrom
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Intended status: Best Current Practice J. Schlyter Intended status: Best Current Practice J. Schlyter
Expires: March 23, 2017 Kirei AB Expires: April 29, 2017 Kirei AB
September 19, 2016 October 26, 2016
DNS Delegation Requirements DNS Delegation Requirements
draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements-02 draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements-03
Abstract Abstract
This document outlines a set of requirements on a well-behaved DNS This document outlines a set of requirements on a well-behaved DNS
delegation of a domain name. A large number of tools have been delegation of a domain name. A large number of tools have been
developed to test DNS delegations, but each tool uses a different set developed to test DNS delegations, but each tool uses a different set
of requirements for what is a correct setup for a delegated domain of requirements for what is a correct setup for a delegated domain
name. However, there are few requirements on how to set up DNS in name. However, there are few requirements on how to set up DNS in
order to just make the delegation work. In order to have a well- order to just make the delegation work. In order to have a well-
behaved delegation that is robust to failures and also makes DNS behaved delegation that is robust to failures and also makes DNS
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 March 23, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
2.2. The domain MUST have a parent domain . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. The domain MUST have a parent domain . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. The domain MUST have at least one working name server . . 5 2.3. The domain MUST have at least one working name server . . 5
3. Address requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Address requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Name server address MUST be globally routable . . . . . . 5 3.1. Name server address MUST be globally routable . . . . . . 5
3.2. The IP address of a name server MUST be delegated by IANA 6 3.2. The IP address of a name server MUST be delegated by IANA 6
4. Connectivity requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Connectivity requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. All name servers MUST have UDP connectivity over port 53 7 4.1. All name servers MUST have UDP connectivity over port 53 7
4.2. All name servers MUST have TCP connectivity over port 53 7 4.2. All name servers MUST have TCP connectivity over port 53 7
5. Name server requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Name server requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Authoritative name servers SHOULD NOT be recursive . . . 7 5.1. Authoritative name servers SHOULD NOT be recursive . . . 7
5.2. Name servers SHOULD support ENS0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. Name servers SHOULD support EDNS0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Name servers MUST process QNAME case insensitive . . . . 8 5.3. Name servers MUST process QNAME case insensitive . . . . 8
6. Consistency requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Consistency requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. All name servers SHOULD respond with the same SOA serial 6.1. All name servers SHOULD respond with the same SOA serial
number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. All name servers SHOULD respond with the same SOA RNAME . 9 6.2. All name servers SHOULD respond with the same SOA RNAME . 9
6.3. All name servers SHOULD respond with the same SOA 6.3. All name servers SHOULD respond with the same SOA
parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4. All name servers MUST respond with the same NS RR Set . . 9 6.4. All name servers MUST respond with the same NS RR Set . . 9
7. Delegation requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Delegation requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. The delegation SHOULD contain at least two name servers . 9 7.1. The delegation SHOULD contain at least two name servers . 9
skipping to change at page 7, line 41 skipping to change at page 7, line 41
To ensure consistency in DNS, an authoritative name server SHOULD NOT To ensure consistency in DNS, an authoritative name server SHOULD NOT
be configured to do recursive lookups. Also, open recursive be configured to do recursive lookups. Also, open recursive
resolvers are considered bad Internet practice due to their resolvers are considered bad Internet practice due to their
capability of assisting in large scale DDoS attacks. The capability of assisting in large scale DDoS attacks. The
introduction to [RFC5358] elaborates on mixing recursor and introduction to [RFC5358] elaborates on mixing recursor and
authoritative functionality. Section 2.5 of [RFC2870] have very authoritative functionality. Section 2.5 of [RFC2870] have very
specific requirement on disabling recursion functionality on root specific requirement on disabling recursion functionality on root
name servers. name servers.
5.2. Name servers SHOULD support ENS0 5.2. Name servers SHOULD support EDNS0
EDNS0 is a mechanism to announce capabilities of a DNS EDNS0 is a mechanism to announce capabilities of a DNS
implementation, and is now basically required by any new implementation, and is now basically required by any new
functionality in DNS such as DNSSEC. Initially standardized in functionality in DNS such as DNSSEC. Initially standardized in
[RFC2671] and later updated by [RFC6891], EDNS0 is a mechanism to [RFC2671] and later updated by [RFC6891], EDNS0 is a mechanism to
announce capabilities of a DNS implementation. announce capabilities of a DNS implementation.
5.3. Name servers MUST process QNAME case insensitive 5.3. Name servers MUST process QNAME case insensitive
The DNS standards require that name servers treat names with case The DNS standards require that name servers treat names with case
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 6 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/