idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 110: '... IETF SHOULD re-evaluate the require...' -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4034, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2535, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3755, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC2535, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1997-07-24) -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 20, 2010) is 5210 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2535 (Obsoleted by RFC 4033, RFC 4034, RFC 4035) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3755 (Obsoleted by RFC 4033, RFC 4034, RFC 4035) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Hoffman 3 Internet-Draft VPN Consortium 4 Updates: 2535, 3755, 4034 January 20, 2010 5 (if approved) 6 Intended status: Standards Track 7 Expires: July 24, 2010 9 Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC 10 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-01 12 Abstract 14 This document specifies how DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm 15 identifiers in the IANA registries are allocated. It changes the 16 requirement from "standard required" to "RFC required". It does not 17 change the list of algorithms that are recommended or required for 18 DNSSEC implementations. 20 Status of this Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 27 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 28 Drafts. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 36 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 38 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 39 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 24, 2010. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the BSD License. 58 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 59 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 60 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 61 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 62 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 63 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 64 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 65 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 66 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 67 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 68 than English. 70 1. Introduction 72 [RFC2535] specifies that that IANA registry for DNS Security 73 Algorithm Numbers be updated by IETF Standards Action only, with the 74 exception of two values 253 and 254. In essence, this means that for 75 an algorithm to get its own entry in the registry, the algorithm must 76 be defined in an RFC on the Standards Track as defined in [RFC2026]. 77 The requirement from RFC 2535 is repeated in [RFC3755] and [RFC4034]. 79 RFC 2535 allows algorithms that are not on the Standards Track to use 80 private values 253 and 254 in signatures. In each case, an 81 unregistered private name must be included with each use of the 82 algorithm in order to differentiate different algorithms that use the 83 value. 85 2. Requirements for Assignments in the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers 86 Registry 88 This document changes the requirement for registration from requiring 89 a Standards Track RFC to requiring a published RFC of any type. 90 There are two reasons for relaxing the requirement: 92 o There are some algorithms that are useful that may not be able to 93 be in a Standards Track RFC. For example, an algorithm might be 94 sponsored by a government and use cryptography that has not been 95 evaluated thoroughly enough to be able to be put on the Standards 96 Track. Another example is that the algorithm might have unclear 97 intellectual property rights that prevents the algorithm from 98 being put on the Standards Track. 100 o Although the size of the registry is restricted (about 250 101 entries), new algorithms are proposed infrequently. It could 102 easily be many decades before there is any reason to consider 103 restricting the registry again. 105 Some developers will care about the standards level of the RFCs that 106 are in the registry. The registry should be updated to reflect the 107 current standards level of each algorithm listed. 109 To address concerns about the registry eventually filling up, the 110 IETF SHOULD re-evaluate the requirements for entry into this registry 111 when approximately 120 of the registry entries have been assigned. 112 That evaluation may lead to tighter restrictions or a new mechanism 113 for extending the size of the registry. In order to make this 114 evaluation more likely, IANA is requested to mark about half of the 115 currently-available entries as "Reserved" in order to make the timing 116 for that re-evaluation more apparent. 118 The private-use values, 253 and 254, are still useful for developers 119 who want to test, in private, algorithms for which there is no RFC. 120 This document does not change the semantics of those two values. 122 3. Expectations For Implementations 124 It is important to note that, according to RFC 4034, DNSSEC 125 implementations are not expected to include all of the algorithms 126 listed in the IANA registry; in fact, RFC 4034 and the IANA registry 127 list an algorithm that implementations should not include. This 128 document does nothing to change the expectation that there will be 129 items listed in the IANA registry that need not be (and in some 130 cases, should not be) included in all implementations. 132 There are many reasons why a DNSSEC implementation might not include 133 one or more of the algorithms listed, even those on the Standards 134 Track. In order to be compliant with the RFC 4034, an implementation 135 only needs to implement the algorithms listed as mandatory to 136 implement in that standard, or updates to that standard. This 137 document does nothing to change the list of mandatory to implement 138 algorithms in RFC 4034. This document does not change the 139 requirements for when an algorithm because mandatory to implement. 140 Such requirements should come in a separate, focused document. 142 It should be noted that the order of algorithms in the IANA registry 143 does not signify or imply cryptographic strength or preference. 145 4. IANA Considerations 147 This document updates allocation requirements for unassigned values 148 in the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" 149 registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ 150 dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml, in the sub-registry 151 titled "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers". The registration procedure 152 for values that are assigned after this document is published is "RFC 153 Required". 155 IANA is requested to mark values 123 through 250 as "Reserved". 157 IANA is requested to add a textual notation to the "References" 158 column in the registry that gives the current standards status for 159 each RFC that is listed in the registry. 161 5. Security Considerations 163 An algorithm described in an RFC that is not on the Standards Track 164 may have weaker security than one that is on the Standards Track; in 165 fact, that may be the reason that the algorithm was not allowed on 166 Standards Track. Note, however, that not being on the Standards 167 Track does not necessarily mean that an algorithm is weaker. 168 Conversely, algorithms that are on the Standards Track should not 169 necessarily be considered better than algorithms that are not on the 170 Standards Track. There are other reasons (such as intellectual 171 property concerns) that can keep algorithms that are widely 172 considered to be strong off of Standards Track. 174 6. References 176 6.1. Normative References 178 [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", 179 RFC 2535, March 1999. 181 [RFC3755] Weiler, S., "Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation 182 Signer (DS)", RFC 3755, May 2004. 184 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 185 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 186 RFC 4034, March 2005. 188 6.2. Informative References 190 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 191 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 193 Appendix A. Experimental and Documentation Values 195 During the early discussion of this document, it was proposed that 196 maybe there should be a small number of values reserved for 197 "experimental" purposes. This proposal was not included in this 198 document because of the long history in the IETF of experimental 199 values that became permanent. That is, a developer would release 200 (maybe "experimentally") a version of software that had the 201 experimental value associated with a particular extension, 202 competitors would code their systems to test interoperability, and 203 then no one wanted to change the values in their software to the 204 "real" value that was later assigned. 206 There was also a proposal that IANA should reserve two values to be 207 used in documentation only, similar to the way that "example.com" has 208 been reserved as a domain name. That proposal was also not included 209 in this document because all values need to be associated with some 210 algorithm, and there is no problem with having examples that point to 211 commonly-deployed algorithms. 213 Appendix B. Change History 215 This section is to be removed before publication as an RFC. 217 B.1. Differences between draft-hoffman-dnssec-alg-allocation-00 and -01 219 A few editorial nits that really should have been caught in the -00. 221 Added the section on "Expectations For Implementations" to clarify 222 that this document is not changing any such expectations or updating 223 that part of RFC 4034. 225 B.2. Differences between draft-hoffman-dnssec-alg-allocation-01 and 226 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00 228 First WG draft. 230 Clarified the intent of the document in the Abstract by adding "It 231 does not change the list of algorithms that are recommended or 232 required for DNSSEC implementations". 234 Added to Section 3: "It should be noted that the order of algorithms 235 in the IANA registry does not signify or imply cryptographic strength 236 or preference." 238 B.3. Differences between draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00 and 239 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-01 241 Various editorial changes and clarifications that came during WG LC. 243 Asked IANA to mark values 123 through 250 as "Reserved". 245 In the expectations for implementers, added "This document does not 246 change the requirements for when an algorithm because mandatory to 247 implement. Such requirements should come in a separate, focused 248 document." 250 Author's Address 252 Paul Hoffman 253 VPN Consortium 255 Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org