idnits 2.17.1 draft-srose-dnssec-algo-imp-status-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 RFC2539, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3110, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2536, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4398, 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 == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). (Using the creation date from RFC2536, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1997-09-10) (Using the creation date from RFC2539, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1997-06-02) -- 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 (November 18, 2011) is 4543 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DNS Extensions Working Group S. Rose 3 Internet-Draft NIST 4 Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, November 18, 2011 5 5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved) 6 Intended status: BCP 7 Expires: May 21, 2012 9 Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm 10 Implementation Status 11 draft-srose-dnssec-algo-imp-status-00 13 Abstract 15 The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of 16 cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over 17 DNS data. There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms 18 that is incomplete in that it lacks the recommended implementation 19 status of each algorithm. This document provides an applicability 20 statement on algorithm implementation compliance status for DNSSEC 21 implementations. This document lists each algorithm's status based 22 on the current reference. In the case that an algorithm is specified 23 without an implementation status, this document assigns one. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2012. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists . . . . 3 63 2.1. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Rationale . . . 3 64 2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of 66 Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 1. Introduction 76 The Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033], 77 [RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC4509], [RFC5155], and [RFC5702] uses 78 digital signatures over DNS data to provide source authentication and 79 integrity protection. DNSSEC uses an IANA registry to list codes for 80 digital signature algorithms (consisting of a cryptographic algorithm 81 and one-way hash function). 83 The original list of algorithm status is found in [RFC4034]. Other 84 DNSSEC RFC's have added new algorithms or changed the status of 85 algorithms in the registry. However, implementers must read through 86 all the documents in order to discover which algorithms are 87 considered wise to implement, which are not, and which algorithms may 88 become widely used in the future. This document includes the current 89 compliance status for certain algorithms. 91 This compliance status indication is only to be considered for 92 implementation, not deployment or operations. Operators are free to 93 deploy any digital signature algorithm available in implementations 94 or algorithms chosen by local security policies. This status is to 95 measure compliance to this RFC only. 97 This document updates the following: [RFC2536], [RFC2539], [RFC3110], 98 [RFC4034], [RFC4398], [RFC5155], [RFC5702], and [RFC5933]. 100 1.1. Requirements Language 102 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", 103 "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document 104 are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 106 2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists 108 2.1. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Rationale 110 The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT. 111 This is due to the fact that RSA/SHA-1 is a MUST IMPLEMENT. The 112 status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/SHA-512 are also set to RECOMMENDED TO 113 IMPLEMENT as it is believed that these algorithms will replace an 114 older algorithm (e.g. RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness in 115 its hash algorithm (SHA-1). 117 2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table 119 The DNSSEC algorithm implementation status table is listed below. 120 Only the algorithms already specified for use with DNSSEC (at the 121 time of writing) are listed. 123 +------------+------------+-----------------+-------------+ 124 | MUST | MUST NOT | RECOMMENDED | OPTIONAL | 125 | IMPLEMENT | IMPLEMENT | TO IMPLEMENT | | 126 +------------+------------+-----------------+-------------+ 127 | | | | | 128 | RSASHA1 | RSAMD5 | RSASHA256 | DSASHA1 | 129 | | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | DH | 130 | | | -SHA1 | DSA-NSEC3 | 131 | | | RSASHA512 | -SHA1 | 132 | | | | GOST-ECC | 133 | | | | | 134 +------------+------------+-----------------+-------------+ 136 This table does not list the Reserved values in the IANA registry 137 table or the values for INDIRECT (252), PRIVATE (253) and PRIVATEOID 138 (254). These values may relate to more than one algorithm and are 139 therefore up to the implementer's discretion. Their implementation 140 (or lack thereof) therefore cannot be included when judging 141 compliance to this document. 143 2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of Existing Entries 145 [RFC6014] establishes a parallel procedure for adding a registry 146 entry for a new algorithm other than a standards track document. 147 Algorithms entered into the registry using that procedure are to be 148 considered OPTIONAL for implementation purposes. Specifications that 149 follow this path do not need to obsolete or update this document. 151 Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with a compliance 152 status SHALL entail obsolescing this document and replacing the 153 registry table (with the new algorithm entry). Altering the status 154 column value of any existing algorithm in the registry SHALL entail 155 obsolescing this document and replacing the registry table. 157 This document cannot be updated, only made obsolete and replaced by a 158 successor document. 160 3. IANA Considerations 162 This document lists the implementation status of cryptographic 163 algorithms used with DNSSEC. These algorithms are maintained in an 164 IANA registry. There are no changes to the registry in this 165 document. However this document asks to be listed as a reference for 166 the entire registry. 168 4. Security Considerations 170 This document replaces the Domain Name System (DNS) Security 171 Algorithm Numbers registry. It is not meant to be a discussion on 172 algorithm superiority. No new security considerations are raised in 173 this document. 175 5. Normative References 177 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 178 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 180 [RFC2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System 181 (DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999. 183 [RFC2539] Eastlake, D., "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the 184 Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999. 186 [RFC3110] Eastlake, D., "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain 187 Name System (DNS)", RFC 3110, May 2001. 189 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 190 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", 191 RFC 4033, March 2005. 193 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 194 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 195 RFC 4034, March 2005. 197 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 198 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 199 Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. 201 [RFC4398] Josefsson, S., "Storing Certificates in the Domain Name 202 System (DNS)", RFC 4398, March 2006. 204 [RFC4509] Hardaker, W., "Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer 205 (DS) Resource Records (RRs)", RFC 4509, May 2006. 207 [RFC5155] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS 208 Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of 209 Existence", RFC 5155, March 2008. 211 [RFC5702] Jansen, J., "Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY 212 and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702, 213 October 2009. 215 [RFC5933] Dolmatov, V., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of GOST 216 Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records 217 for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, July 2010. 219 [RFC6014] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier 220 Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, November 2010. 222 Author's Address 224 Scott Rose 225 NIST 226 100 Bureau Dr. 227 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 228 USA 230 Phone: +1-301-975-8439 231 EMail: scottr.nist@gmail.com