idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits31847/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-02.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 (April 19, 2012) is 3683 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, April 19, 2012 5 5155, 5702, 5933 (if approved) 6 Intended status: BCP 7 Expires: October 21, 2012 9 Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm 10 Implementation Status 11 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-algo-imp-status-02 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 status for DNSSEC component 21 software. This document lists each algorithm's status based on the 22 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 October 21, 2012. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2012 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. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 1. Introduction 78 The Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC4033], 79 [RFC4034], [RFC4035], [RFC4509], [RFC5155], and [RFC5702] uses 80 digital signatures over DNS data to provide source authentication and 81 integrity protection. DNSSEC uses an IANA registry to list codes for 82 digital signature algorithms (consisting of a cryptographic algorithm 83 and one-way hash function). 85 The original list of algorithm status is found in [RFC4034]. Other 86 DNSSEC RFC's have added new algorithms or changed the status of 87 algorithms in the registry. However, implementers must read through 88 all the documents in order to discover which algorithms are 89 considered wise to implement, which are not, and which algorithms may 90 become widely used in the future. This document includes the current 91 implementation status for certain algorithms. 93 This implementation status indication is only to be considered for 94 implementation, not deployment or operations. Operators are free to 95 deploy any digital signature algorithm available in implementations 96 or algorithms chosen by local security policies. This status is to 97 measure compliance to this document only. 99 This document updates the following: [RFC2536], [RFC2539], [RFC3110], 100 [RFC4034], [RFC4398], [RFC5155], [RFC5702], and [RFC5933]. 102 1.1. Requirements Language 104 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", 105 "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document 106 are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 108 2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists 110 2.1. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignement Rationale 112 The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to RECOMMENDED TO IMPLEMENT 113 as major deployments (such as the root zone) use NSEC3 [ROOTDPS]. 114 The status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/SHA-512 are also set to RECOMMENDED 115 TO IMPLEMENT as it is believed that these algorithms will replace 116 older algorithms (e.g. RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness or 117 these recommended algorithms are seen in major deployments. 119 All other algorithms used in DNSSEC specified without an 120 implementation status are currently set to OPTIONAL. 122 2.2. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table 124 The DNSSEC algorithm implementation status table is listed below. 125 Only the algorithms already specified for use with DNSSEC (at the 126 time of writing) are listed. 128 +------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+ 129 | MUST | MUST NOT | RECOMMENDED | OPTIONAL | 130 | IMPLEMENT | IMPLEMENT | TO IMPLEMENT | | 131 +------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+ 132 | | | | | 133 | RSASHA1 | RSAMD5 | RSASHA256 | DSASHA1 | 134 | | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | DH | 135 | | | -SHA1 | DSA-NSEC3-SHA1 | 136 | | | RSASHA512 | GOST-ECC | 137 | | | ECDSAP256SHA256 | | 138 | | | ECDSAP384SHA384 | | 139 +------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+ 141 This table does not list the Reserved values in the IANA registry 142 table or the values for INDIRECT (252), PRIVATE (253) and PRIVATEOID 143 (254). These values may relate to more than one algorithm and are 144 therefore up to the implementer's discretion. Their implementation 145 (or lack thereof) therefore cannot be included when judging 146 compliance to this document. 148 2.3. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating Status of Existing Entries 150 [RFC6014] establishes a parallel procedure for adding a registry 151 entry for a new algorithm other than a standards track document. 152 Algorithms entered into the registry using that procedure are to be 153 considered OPTIONAL for implementation purposes. Specifications that 154 follow this path do not need to obsolete or update this document. 156 Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with an 157 implementation status other than OPTIONAL SHALL entail making this 158 document obsolete and replacing the table in Section 2.2 (with the 159 new algorithm entry). Altering the status value of any existing 160 algorithm in the registry SHALL entail making this document obsolete 161 and replacing the table in Section 2.2 above. 163 This document cannot be updated, only made obsolete and replaced by a 164 successor document. 166 3. IANA Considerations 168 This document lists the implementation status of cryptographic 169 algorithms used with DNSSEC. These algorithms are maintained in an 170 IANA registry. There are no changes to the registry in this 171 document. However this document asks to be listed as a reference for 172 the entire registry. 174 4. Security Considerations 176 This document lists, and in some cases assigns, the implementation 177 status of cryptographic algorithms used with DNSSEC. It is not meant 178 to be a discussion on algorithm superiority. No new security 179 considerations are raised in this document. 181 5. References 183 5.1. Normative References 185 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 186 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 188 [RFC2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System 189 (DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999. 191 [RFC2539] Eastlake, D., "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the 192 Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999. 194 [RFC3110] Eastlake, D., "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain 195 Name System (DNS)", RFC 3110, May 2001. 197 [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 198 Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", 199 RFC 4033, March 2005. 201 [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 202 Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", 203 RFC 4034, March 2005. 205 [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. 206 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security 207 Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. 209 [RFC4398] Josefsson, S., "Storing Certificates in the Domain Name 210 System (DNS)", RFC 4398, March 2006. 212 [RFC4509] Hardaker, W., "Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer 213 (DS) Resource Records (RRs)", RFC 4509, May 2006. 215 [RFC5155] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS 216 Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of 217 Existence", RFC 5155, March 2008. 219 [RFC5702] Jansen, J., "Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY 220 and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702, 221 October 2009. 223 [RFC5933] Dolmatov, V., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of GOST 224 Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records 225 for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, July 2010. 227 [RFC6014] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier 228 Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, November 2010. 230 5.2. Informative References 232 [ROOTDPS] Ljunggren, F., Okubo, T., Lamb, R., and J. Schlyter, 233 "DNSSEC Practice Statement for the Root Zone KSK 234 Operator", DNS ROOTDPS, May 2010, . 238 Author's Address 240 Scott Rose 241 NIST 242 100 Bureau Dr. 243 Gaithersburg, MD 20899 244 USA 246 Phone: +1-301-975-8439 247 EMail: scottr.nist@gmail.com