Parental Reource Record Types in DNS
draft-pwouters-parental-rrtype-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Paul Wouters | ||
| Last updated | 2024-05-22 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-pwouters-parental-rrtype-00
dnsop P. Wouters
Internet-Draft Aiven
Intended status: Standards Track 22 May 2024
Expires: 23 November 2024
Parental Reource Record Types in DNS
draft-pwouters-parental-rrtype-00
Abstract
This document updates the DNS Parameters' Resource Record (RR) TYPEs
registry by adding a field denotating "Parental RRtype" that
instructs DNS name servers to store or query RRtypes that have this
new field set at the parent side of a delegation instead of at the
child side. These DNS protocol rules match those already in use for
the Delegation Signer (DS) RRtype.
It additonally reserves a small part of the "Reserved for future use"
allocation space in the RRtype registry to mark a group of RRtypes
values to have this new flag set.
The goal of this document is to provide a general facility that
future RRtypes can use without requiring to wait a period of many
years for DNS implementations and deployments before these type of
new RRtype become usable in practise. It is similar in goal to the
support of Unknown DNS RRtypes as specified in RFC 3597.
This document updates [many things which we should figure out].
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 23 November 2024.
Wouters Expires 23 November 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft parental-rrtype May 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. DNS Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Parental RRtype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Registration Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. RRtype Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Yang Model Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record Type (RRtype) [RFC4034]
has the unique property that the record is stored at the parental
side of the delegation instead of at the child side. It is currently
the only record with this property. As this property was a
significant modification of the existing DNS protocol, it took many
years for DNS software and DNS deployment to reliably serve and
resolve this RRtype. Since then, a number of proposals have surfaces
that wanted to create similarly behaving RRtypes. This document
updates [DNS RFCs] to generalize this property of resolving at the
parental side of a delegation for future RRtypes that fall within a
predefined RRtype range.
Wouters Expires 23 November 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft parental-rrtype May 2024
This document modifies the DNS Parameters' Resource Record (RR) TYPEs
registry to reserve 256 RRtypes that have this property. The goal is
that a number of years from now, new RRtypes that want to be resolved
at the parental side of a delegation can be specified without
incurring another time penality for waiting on DNS implementations
and deployment updates of DNS authoritative servers and DNS resolver
implementations. This uses the same deployment strategy as the
Unknown Resource Records [RFC3597].
1.1. Requirements Language
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.
1.2. DNS Terminology
This document uses DNS Terminology as described in BCP 219 [RFC8499].
2. Parental RRtype
A new property "Parental RRtype" is defined to mean that this RRtype
MUST only be resolved at the parental side of a zone delegation.
This flag is only set for the existing DS RRtype and a new range of
RRtypes specified by this document below.
3. Operational Considerations
For Top Level Domains (TLDs), which generally use a Registry,
Registrar, Registrant model, it is RECOMMENDED that new Parental
RRtypes support a DNS mechanism that allows the introduction, update
and deletion of these RRtypes by the DNS Hoster of the child zone.
Failing such a mechanism, deployments will still see considerable
(seveal years or more) delays in universal deployment of their
Parental RRtype. Even though the DNS protool will resolve these
records without issue, updates will be required to the EPP protocol
[RFC5730] (and its reseller subsystems), Registrar software and
deployment and Registrant (enduser) capability of entering such new
(possibly complicated) RRtype data into a Registrar website.
4. Security Considerations
New Parental RRtypes related to security or privacy SHOULD require
DNSSEC [RFC9364], especially if no other trust path (eg WebPKI) is
available within the RRdata of the new Parental RRtype.
Wouters Expires 23 November 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft parental-rrtype May 2024
In general, RRtypes that wish to store data at the parent side of a
delegation contains information that is preferably conveyed to the
DNS resolver before connecting to the child zone's name servers
specified in the NS RRtype of the zone and generally are assumed to
increase security and reliability of the DNS.
Any future Parental RRtype defined MUST contemplate the security
implications of their RRtype getting resolved at the wrong (child)
location by old DNS software.
If a new Parental RRtype contains security context that the child
zone owner would like to confirm it supports (or not), this could be
signed by using a new DNSKEY flag, see RFCxxxxx Section yyy.
DNS resolvers, especially actively maintained public facing large DNS
resolvers, MAY disable those Parental RRtypes values that have not
yet been allocated to prevent abuse, with the expectation that once a
Parentl RRtype is allocated, that support for these is then promptly
enabled.
what else ?
5. IANA considerations
This document updates the Record Resource (RR) TYPEs IANA Registry
listed under the DNS Parameters IANA Registry as follows:
This document is added to the Reference section.
5.1. Registration Table
The Registration Procedures table is updated as follows:
The "Reserved for future use" range is updated to 61696-65279
(0xF100-0xFEFF)
Two new entries are added just before the Reserved entry with:
Wouters Expires 23 November 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft parental-rrtype May 2024
+=============+===============+==========================+==========+
| Decimal | Hex | Registration | Note |
| | | Procedures | |
+=============+===============+==========================+==========+
| 61440-61680 | 0xF000-0xF0F0 | Expert Review | Parental |
| | | (see mailing | RRtypes |
| | | list information | |
| | | in [RFC6895]) or | |
| | | Standards Action | |
+-------------+---------------+--------------------------+----------+
| 61681-61695 | 0xF0F1-0xF0FF | | Parental |
| | | | RRtypes |
| | | | for |
| | | | Private |
| | | | Use |
+-------------+---------------+--------------------------+----------+
Table 1
5.2. RRtype Table
A Column "Parental" is added to the second table before the Reference
column
This colum is populated as follows:
RRtype value 43 is set to "YES"
All other RRtypes are set to "-"
6. Yang Model Update
update RFC 9108 for yang. TODO
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
Wouters Expires 23 November 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft parental-rrtype May 2024
[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>.
[RFC9364] Hoffman, P., "DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", BCP 237,
RFC 9364, DOI 10.17487/RFC9364, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9364>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC3597] Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record
(RR) Types", RFC 3597, DOI 10.17487/RFC3597, September
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3597>.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, January
2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The idea of having more than just the DS record resolve at the parent
has been suggested a number of times by people in the past. The idea
of confirming a zone property to the parent via DNSKEY flag was first
proposed by the DELEGATION_ONLY draft. Both were made popular by the
DELEG RRtype initiative.
This was written before I realised there was a very short scaffolding
draft on the same topic: draft-peetterr-dnsop-parent-side-auth-types
Author's Address
Paul Wouters
Aiven
Email: paul.wouters@aiven.io
Wouters Expires 23 November 2024 [Page 6]