idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 246 lines 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 117: '...he DLV mechanism SHOULD NOT be impleme...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC6840, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2005-05-12) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 9, 2019) is 1660 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) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 4431 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 5074 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DNS Operations W. Mekking 3 Internet-Draft D. Mahoney 4 Updates: 6698, 6840 (if approved) ISC 5 Intended status: Standards Track October 9, 2019 6 Expires: April 11, 2020 8 Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status 9 draft-ietf-dnsop-obsolete-dlv-01 11 Abstract 13 This document obsoletes DNSSEC lookaside validation (DLV) and 14 reclassifies RFCs 4431 and 5074 as Historic. Furthermore, this 15 document updates RFC 6698 by excluding the DLV resource record from 16 certificates, and updates RFC 6840 by excluding the DLV registries 17 from the trust anchor selection. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2020. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction 54 2. Discussion 55 3. Moving DLV to Historic Status 56 3.1. Documents that reference the DLV RFCs 57 3.1.1. Documents that reference RFC 4431 58 3.1.2. Documents that reference RFC 5074 59 4. IANA Considerations 60 5. Security considerations 61 6. Acknowledgements 62 7. Normative References 63 Authors' Addresses 65 1. Introduction 67 DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) was introduced to assist with the 68 adoption of DNSSEC [RFC4033] [RFC4034] [RFC4035] in a time where the 69 root zone and many top level domains (TLDs) were unsigned, to help 70 entities with signed zones under an unsigned parent zone, or that 71 have registrars that don't accept DS records. The root zone is 72 signed since July 2010 and as of May 2019, 1389 out of 1531 TLDs have 73 a secure delegation from the root; thus DLV has served its purpose 74 and can now retire. 76 2. Discussion 78 One could argue that DLV is still useful because there are still some 79 unsigned TLDs and entities under those zones will not benefit from 80 signing their zone. However, keeping the DLV mechanism also has 81 disadvantages: 83 o It reduces the pressure to get the parent zone signed. 85 o It reduces the pressure on registrars to accept DS records. 87 o It complicates validation code. 89 In addition, not every validator actually implements DLV (only BIND 9 90 and Unbound) so even if an entity can use DLV to set up an alternate 91 path to its trust anchor, its effect is limited. Furthermore, there 92 was one well-known DLV registry (dlv.isc.org) and that has been 93 deprecated (replaced with a signed empty zone) on September 30, 2017. 94 With the absence of a well-known DLV registry service it is unlikely 95 that there is a real benefit for the protocol on the Internet 96 nowadays. 98 One other possible reason to keep DLV is to distribute trust anchors 99 for private enterprises. The authors are not aware of any such use 100 of DLV. 102 All things considered it is probably not worth the effort of 103 maintaining the DLV mechanism. 105 3. Moving DLV to Historic Status 107 There are two RFCs that specify DLV: 109 1. RFC 4431 [RFC4431] specifies the DLV resource record. 111 2. RFC 5074 [RFC5074] specifies the DLV mechanism for publishing 112 trust anchors outside the DNS delegation chain and how validators 113 can use them to validate DNSSEC-signed data. 115 This document moves both RFC 4431 [RFC4431] and RFC 5074 [RFC5074] to 116 Historic status. This is a clear signal to implementers that the DLV 117 resource record and the DLV mechanism SHOULD NOT be implemented or 118 deployed. 120 3.1. Documents that reference the DLV RFCs 122 The RFCs that are being moved to Historic status are referenced by a 123 couple of other documents. The sections below describe what changes 124 when the DLV RFCs have been reclassified as Historic. 126 3.1.1. Documents that reference RFC 4431 128 One RFC makes reference to RFC 4431 [RFC4431]. 130 3.1.1.1. RFC 5074 132 RFC 5074 [RFC5074], "DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV)" describes the 133 DLV mechanism itself, and is being moved to Historic status too. 135 3.1.2. Documents that reference RFC 5074 137 Three RFCs make reference to RFC 5074 [RFC5074]. 139 3.1.2.1. RFC 6698 141 RFC 6698, "The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) 142 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA" [RFC6698] specifies: 144 DNSSEC forms certificates (the binding of an identity to a key) by 145 combining a DNSKEY, DS, or DLV resource record with an associated 146 RRSIG record. These records then form a signing chain extending from 147 the client's trust anchors to the RR of interest. 149 This document updates RFC 6698 to exclude the DLV resource record 150 from certificates. 152 3.1.2.2. RFC 6840 154 RFC 6840, "Clarifications and Implementation Notes for DNS Security 155 (DNSSEC)" [RFC6840] says that when trust anchors come from different 156 sources, a validator may choose between them based on the perceived 157 reliability of those sources. But in reality this does not happen in 158 validators (both BIND 9 and Unbound have a option for a DLV trust 159 anchor that can be used solely as a fallback). 161 This document updates RFC 6840 to exclude the DLV registries from the 162 trust anchor selection. 164 3.1.2.3. RFC 8198 166 RFC 8198, "Aggressive Use of DNSSEC-Validated Cache" [RFC8198] only 167 references RFC 5074 because aggressive negative caching was first 168 proposed there. 170 4. IANA Considerations 172 IANA should update the annotation of the DLV RR type (code 32769) to 173 "Obsolete" in the DNS Parameters registry. 175 5. Security considerations 177 When the DLV mechanism goes away, zones that rely on DLV for their 178 validation will be treated as insecure. The chance that this 179 scenario actually occurs is very low, since no well-known DLV 180 registry exists. 182 6. Acknowledgements 184 Ondrej Sury for initial review. 186 7. Normative References 188 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 189 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", 190 RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005, 191 . 193 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 194 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 195 RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005, 196 . 198 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 199 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 200 Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005, 201 . 203 [RFC4431] Andrews, M. and S. Weiler, "The DNSSEC Lookaside 204 Validation (DLV) DNS Resource Record", RFC 4431, 205 DOI 10.17487/RFC4431, February 2006, . 208 [RFC5074] Weiler, S., "DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV)", RFC 5074, 209 DOI 10.17487/RFC5074, November 2007, . 212 [RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication 213 of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) 214 Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698, August 215 2012, . 217 [RFC6840] Weiler, S., Ed. and D. Blacka, Ed., "Clarifications and 218 Implementation Notes for DNS Security (DNSSEC)", RFC 6840, 219 DOI 10.17487/RFC6840, February 2013, . 222 [RFC8198] Fujiwara, K., Kato, A., and W. Kumari, "Aggressive Use of 223 DNSSEC-Validated Cache", RFC 8198, DOI 10.17487/RFC8198, 224 July 2017, . 226 Authors' Addresses 228 Matthijs Mekking 229 ISC 230 Netherlands 232 Email: matthijs@isc.org 234 Dan Mahoney 235 ISC 236 950 Charter St 237 Redwood City, CA 94063 238 USA 240 Email: dmahoney@isc.org