[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

dnsop                                                        P. van Dijk
Internet-Draft                                                  PowerDNS
Intended status: Standards Track                               P. Spacek
Expires: 28 March 2021                                             CZNIC
                                                       24 September 2020


     Parent-side authoritative DNS records for enhanced delegation
             draft-peetterr-dnsop-parent-side-auth-types-00

Abstract

   A DNS RRtype numeric range that behaves like DS is reserved.  This
   means: being authoritative on the parent side of a delegation; being
   signed by the parent; being provided along with delegations by the
   parent.  If this document had become an RFC five years ago, deploying
   new types (along the lines of NS2/NS2T, DSPKI or various other
   imagined things like DNS ('signed delegation NS')) would be easier to
   deploy and experiment with today.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 March 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.










van Dijk & Spacek         Expires 28 March 2021                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           parent-side-auth-types           September 2020


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Document work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     5.1.  Authoritative server changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     5.2.  Validating resolver changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     5.3.  Stub resolver changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.4.  Zone validator changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.5.  Domain registry changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   10. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Document history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   [RFC4035] defines the DS Resource Record, as a type with the special
   property that it lives at the parent side of a delegation, unlike any
   other record (if we can briefly ignore NSEC living on both sides of a
   delegation as an extra special case).  In various conversations and
   posted drafts in DPRIVE and DNSOP, a need to publish other kinds of
   data parent-side has been identified.  Some drafts simply proposed a
   new type, assuming that authoritative DNS servers and registry
   operations would eventually follow along; other drafts have tried to
   shoehorn new kinds of data into the DS record.  If, when DS was
   defined, or at any time since then, a range of RRtype numbers would
   have been specified to have the same behaviour as DS, those drafts,
   and the experiments that need to go with figuring out the exact
   definition of a protocol, would have been much more feasible.  This
   document requests that IANA allocate such a range.





van Dijk & Spacek         Expires 28 March 2021                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           parent-side-auth-types           September 2020


2.  Document work

   This document lives on GitHub (https://github.com/PowerDNS/draft-
   dnsop-parent-side-auth-types); proposed text and editorial changes
   are very much welcomed there, but any functional changes should
   always first be discussed on the IETF DNSOP WG mailing list.

3.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

4.  Summary

   A range of new types is allocated, but not assigned (FIXME:
   wording?).  This range of types is defined to be handled by DNS
   software like the DS record is handled.  Authoritative servers serve
   the types from the parent side of a delegation.  Resolvers know to
   ask the parent side of a delegation.

   No semantics are assigned to the numbers at this time.  Having these
   numbers reserved with these processing rules allows for future
   extension of parent-side publication of data on behalf of a child,
   without having to wait for implementations to catch up.

5.  Implementation

   The subsection titles in this section attempt to follow the
   terminology from [RFC8499] in as far as it has suitable terms.
   'Implementation' is understood to mean both 'code changes' and
   'operational changes' here.

5.1.  Authoritative server changes

   This specification defines changes to query processing in
   authoritative servers.

   FIXME

5.2.  Validating resolver changes

   This specification defines changes to query processing in resolvers.

   FIXME




van Dijk & Spacek         Expires 28 March 2021                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           parent-side-auth-types           September 2020


5.3.  Stub resolver changes

   This specification defines no changes to query processing in
   resolvers.

   FIXME

5.4.  Zone validator changes

   This specification defines changes to zone validation in zone
   validators.

   FIXME

5.5.  Domain registry changes

   Domain registries MAY decide to allow children to publish records of
   any type from the range defined in this document in the parent zone.
   Alternatively, they MAY decide to only allow such publication for
   types that actually get allocated a name and a semantic.  Ideally,
   domain registries would allow anything in the experimental subrange.

6.  Security Considerations

7.  Implementation Status

   [RFC Editor: please remove this section before publication]

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to reserve a range of numbers in the Domain Name
   System (DNS) Parameters Resource Record (RR) TYPEs, with this
   document as the Reference.  The numbers shall get no meaningful names
   (but perhaps they would get some useful mnemonic, a weak proposal is
   "PA00" through "PAXX" for 'parent authoritive').

   IANA is also requested to mark a subset of that range as
   'experimental'.  The experimental numbers are expected to never be
   hardcoded in published, released software, and no further allocation
   or naming of the experimental numbers by an RFC or otherwise is
   expected.

9.  Acknowledgements

   This idea was initially proposed by Petr Spacek.  His contribution is
   rewarded by listing him as an author so he can take equal parts
   credit and blame.




van Dijk & Spacek         Expires 28 March 2021                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           parent-side-auth-types           September 2020


10.  Normative References

   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

11.  Informative References

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8499]  Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
              Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
              January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.

Appendix A.  Document history

Authors' Addresses

   Peter van Dijk
   PowerDNS
   Den Haag
   Netherlands

   Email: peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com


   Petr Spacek
   CZNIC
   Prague
   Czech Republic

   Email: petr.spacek@nic.cz











van Dijk & Spacek         Expires 28 March 2021                 [Page 5]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/