idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-02.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 109: '... 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 25, 2010) is 5198 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 25, 2010 5 (if approved) 6 Intended status: Standards Track 7 Expires: July 29, 2010 9 Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC 10 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-02 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 29, 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 any number of reasons, an 94 algorithm might not have been evaluated thoroughly enough to be 95 able to be put on the Standards Track. Another example is that 96 the algorithm might have unclear intellectual property rights that 97 prevents the algorithm from being put on the Standards Track. 99 o Although the size of the registry is restricted (about 250 100 entries), new algorithms are proposed infrequently. It could 101 easily be many decades before there is any reason to consider 102 restricting the registry again. 104 Some developers will care about the standards level of the RFCs that 105 are in the registry. The registry should be updated to reflect the 106 current standards level of each algorithm listed. 108 To address concerns about the registry eventually filling up, the 109 IETF SHOULD re-evaluate the requirements for entry into this registry 110 when approximately 120 of the registry entries have been assigned. 111 That evaluation may lead to tighter restrictions or a new mechanism 112 for extending the size of the registry. In order to make this 113 evaluation more likely, IANA is requested to mark about half of the 114 currently-available entries as "Reserved" in order to make the timing 115 for that re-evaluation more apparent. 117 The private-use values, 253 and 254, are still useful for developers 118 who want to test, in private, algorithms for which there is no RFC. 119 This document does not change the semantics of those two values. 121 3. Expectations For Implementations 123 It is important to note that, according to RFC 4034, DNSSEC 124 implementations are not expected to include all of the algorithms 125 listed in the IANA registry; in fact, RFC 4034 and the IANA registry 126 list an algorithm that implementations should not include. This 127 document does nothing to change the expectation that there will be 128 items listed in the IANA registry that need not be (and in some 129 cases, should not be) included in all implementations. 131 There are many reasons why a DNSSEC implementation might not include 132 one or more of the algorithms listed, even those on the Standards 133 Track. In order to be compliant with the RFC 4034, an implementation 134 only needs to implement the algorithms listed as mandatory to 135 implement in that standard, or updates to that standard. This 136 document does nothing to change the list of mandatory to implement 137 algorithms in RFC 4034. This document does not change the 138 requirements for when an algorithm becomes mandatory to implement. 139 Such requirements should come in a separate, focused document. 141 It should be noted that the order of algorithms in the IANA registry 142 does not signify or imply cryptographic strength or preference. 144 4. IANA Considerations 146 This document updates allocation requirements for unassigned values 147 in the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" 148 registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ 149 dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml, in the sub-registry 150 titled "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers". The registration procedure 151 for values that are assigned after this document is published is "RFC 152 Required". 154 IANA is requested to mark values 123 through 250 as "Reserved". 156 IANA is requested to add a textual notation to the "References" 157 column in the registry that gives the current standards status for 158 each RFC that is listed in the registry. 160 5. Security Considerations 162 An algorithm described in an RFC that is not on the Standards Track 163 may have weaker security than one that is on the Standards Track; in 164 fact, that may be the reason that the algorithm was not allowed on 165 Standards Track. Note, however, that not being on the Standards 166 Track does not necessarily mean that an algorithm is weaker. 167 Conversely, algorithms that are on the Standards Track should not 168 necessarily be considered better than algorithms that are not on the 169 Standards Track. There are other reasons (such as intellectual 170 property concerns) that can keep algorithms that are widely 171 considered to be strong off of Standards Track. 173 6. References 175 6.1. Normative References 177 [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", 178 RFC 2535, March 1999. 180 [RFC3755] Weiler, S., "Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation 181 Signer (DS)", RFC 3755, May 2004. 183 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 184 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 185 RFC 4034, March 2005. 187 6.2. Informative References 189 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 190 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 192 Appendix A. Experimental and Documentation Values 194 During the early discussion of this document, it was proposed that 195 maybe there should be a small number of values reserved for 196 "experimental" purposes. This proposal was not included in this 197 document because of the long history in the IETF of experimental 198 values that became permanent. That is, a developer would release 199 (maybe "experimentally") a version of software that had the 200 experimental value associated with a particular extension, 201 competitors would code their systems to test interoperability, and 202 then no one wanted to change the values in their software to the 203 "real" value that was later assigned. 205 There was also a proposal that IANA should reserve two values to be 206 used in documentation only, similar to the way that "example.com" has 207 been reserved as a domain name. That proposal was also not included 208 in this document because all values need to be associated with some 209 algorithm, and there is no problem with having examples that point to 210 commonly-deployed algorithms. 212 Appendix B. Change History 214 This section is to be removed before publication as an RFC. 216 B.1. Differences between draft-hoffman-dnssec-alg-allocation-00 and -01 218 A few editorial nits that really should have been caught in the -00. 220 Added the section on "Expectations For Implementations" to clarify 221 that this document is not changing any such expectations or updating 222 that part of RFC 4034. 224 B.2. Differences between draft-hoffman-dnssec-alg-allocation-01 and 225 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00 227 First WG draft. 229 Clarified the intent of the document in the Abstract by adding "It 230 does not change the list of algorithms that are recommended or 231 required for DNSSEC implementations". 233 Added to Section 3: "It should be noted that the order of algorithms 234 in the IANA registry does not signify or imply cryptographic strength 235 or preference." 237 B.3. Differences between draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-00 and 238 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-01 240 Various editorial changes and clarifications that came during WG LC. 242 Asked IANA to mark values 123 through 250 as "Reserved". 244 In the expectations for implementers, added "This document does not 245 change the requirements for when an algorithm because mandatory to 246 implement. Such requirements should come in a separate, focused 247 document." 249 B.4. Differences between draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-01 and 250 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-alg-allocation-02 252 Reworded the first bullet in Section 2 to remove "government". 254 Author's Address 256 Paul Hoffman 257 VPN Consortium 259 Email: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org