idnits 2.17.1 draft-peetterr-dnsop-parent-side-auth-types-00.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (24 September 2020) is 1310 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 informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 8499 (Obsoleted by RFC 9499) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 dnsop P. van Dijk 3 Internet-Draft PowerDNS 4 Intended status: Standards Track P. Spacek 5 Expires: 28 March 2021 CZNIC 6 24 September 2020 8 Parent-side authoritative DNS records for enhanced delegation 9 draft-peetterr-dnsop-parent-side-auth-types-00 11 Abstract 13 A DNS RRtype numeric range that behaves like DS is reserved. This 14 means: being authoritative on the parent side of a delegation; being 15 signed by the parent; being provided along with delegations by the 16 parent. If this document had become an RFC five years ago, deploying 17 new types (along the lines of NS2/NS2T, DSPKI or various other 18 imagined things like DNS ('signed delegation NS')) would be easier to 19 deploy and experiment with today. 21 Status of This Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 March 2021. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 45 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 46 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 47 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 48 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 49 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 50 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2. Document work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 5. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 5.1. Authoritative server changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 5.2. Validating resolver changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 5.3. Stub resolver changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 5.4. Zone validator changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 5.5. Domain registry changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 Appendix A. Document history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 1. Introduction 75 [RFC4035] defines the DS Resource Record, as a type with the special 76 property that it lives at the parent side of a delegation, unlike any 77 other record (if we can briefly ignore NSEC living on both sides of a 78 delegation as an extra special case). In various conversations and 79 posted drafts in DPRIVE and DNSOP, a need to publish other kinds of 80 data parent-side has been identified. Some drafts simply proposed a 81 new type, assuming that authoritative DNS servers and registry 82 operations would eventually follow along; other drafts have tried to 83 shoehorn new kinds of data into the DS record. If, when DS was 84 defined, or at any time since then, a range of RRtype numbers would 85 have been specified to have the same behaviour as DS, those drafts, 86 and the experiments that need to go with figuring out the exact 87 definition of a protocol, would have been much more feasible. This 88 document requests that IANA allocate such a range. 90 2. Document work 92 This document lives on GitHub (https://github.com/PowerDNS/draft- 93 dnsop-parent-side-auth-types); proposed text and editorial changes 94 are very much welcomed there, but any functional changes should 95 always first be discussed on the IETF DNSOP WG mailing list. 97 3. Conventions and Definitions 99 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 100 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 101 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 102 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 103 capitals, as shown here. 105 4. Summary 107 A range of new types is allocated, but not assigned (FIXME: 108 wording?). This range of types is defined to be handled by DNS 109 software like the DS record is handled. Authoritative servers serve 110 the types from the parent side of a delegation. Resolvers know to 111 ask the parent side of a delegation. 113 No semantics are assigned to the numbers at this time. Having these 114 numbers reserved with these processing rules allows for future 115 extension of parent-side publication of data on behalf of a child, 116 without having to wait for implementations to catch up. 118 5. Implementation 120 The subsection titles in this section attempt to follow the 121 terminology from [RFC8499] in as far as it has suitable terms. 122 'Implementation' is understood to mean both 'code changes' and 123 'operational changes' here. 125 5.1. Authoritative server changes 127 This specification defines changes to query processing in 128 authoritative servers. 130 FIXME 132 5.2. Validating resolver changes 134 This specification defines changes to query processing in resolvers. 136 FIXME 138 5.3. Stub resolver changes 140 This specification defines no changes to query processing in 141 resolvers. 143 FIXME 145 5.4. Zone validator changes 147 This specification defines changes to zone validation in zone 148 validators. 150 FIXME 152 5.5. Domain registry changes 154 Domain registries MAY decide to allow children to publish records of 155 any type from the range defined in this document in the parent zone. 156 Alternatively, they MAY decide to only allow such publication for 157 types that actually get allocated a name and a semantic. Ideally, 158 domain registries would allow anything in the experimental subrange. 160 6. Security Considerations 162 7. Implementation Status 164 [RFC Editor: please remove this section before publication] 166 8. IANA Considerations 168 IANA is requested to reserve a range of numbers in the Domain Name 169 System (DNS) Parameters Resource Record (RR) TYPEs, with this 170 document as the Reference. The numbers shall get no meaningful names 171 (but perhaps they would get some useful mnemonic, a weak proposal is 172 "PA00" through "PAXX" for 'parent authoritive'). 174 IANA is also requested to mark a subset of that range as 175 'experimental'. The experimental numbers are expected to never be 176 hardcoded in published, released software, and no further allocation 177 or naming of the experimental numbers by an RFC or otherwise is 178 expected. 180 9. Acknowledgements 182 This idea was initially proposed by Petr Spacek. His contribution is 183 rewarded by listing him as an author so he can take equal parts 184 credit and blame. 186 10. Normative References 188 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 189 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 190 Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005, 191 . 193 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 194 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 195 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 196 . 198 11. Informative References 200 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 201 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 202 May 2017, . 204 [RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS 205 Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, 206 January 2019, . 208 Appendix A. Document history 210 Authors' Addresses 212 Peter van Dijk 213 PowerDNS 214 Den Haag 215 Netherlands 217 Email: peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com 219 Petr Spacek 220 CZNIC 221 Prague 222 Czech Republic 224 Email: petr.spacek@nic.cz