diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'contrib/bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-07.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | contrib/bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-07.txt | 3193 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 3193 deletions
diff --git a/contrib/bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-07.txt b/contrib/bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-07.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 5728b35c9ba5..000000000000 --- a/contrib/bind9/doc/draft/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-07.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3193 +0,0 @@ - - -DNS Extensions R. Arends -Internet-Draft Telematica Instituut -Expires: January 13, 2005 M. Larson - VeriSign - R. Austein - ISC - D. Massey - USC/ISI - S. Rose - NIST - July 15, 2004 - - - Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-07 - -Status of this Memo - - By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable - patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, - and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with - RFC 3668. - - Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering - Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that - other groups may also distribute working documents as - Internet-Drafts. - - 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." - - The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. - - The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at - http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. - - This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2005. - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. - -Abstract - - This document is part of a family of documents which describe the DNS - Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The DNS Security Extensions are a - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 1] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - collection of new resource records and protocol modifications which - add data origin authentication and data integrity to the DNS. This - document describes the DNSSEC protocol modifications. This document - defines the concept of a signed zone, along with the requirements for - serving and resolving using DNSSEC. These techniques allow a - security-aware resolver to authenticate both DNS resource records and - authoritative DNS error indications. - - This document obsoletes RFC 2535 and incorporates changes from all - updates to RFC 2535. - -Table of Contents - - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.1 Background and Related Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.2 Reserved Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. Zone Signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.1 Including DNSKEY RRs in a Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.2 Including RRSIG RRs in a Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.3 Including NSEC RRs in a Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.4 Including DS RRs in a Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 2.5 Changes to the CNAME Resource Record. . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 2.6 DNSSEC RR Types Appearing at Zone Cuts. . . . . . . . . . 8 - 2.7 Example of a Secure Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3. Serving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.1 Authoritative Name Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 3.1.1 Including RRSIG RRs in a Response . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 3.1.2 Including DNSKEY RRs In a Response . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 3.1.3 Including NSEC RRs In a Response . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 3.1.4 Including DS RRs In a Response . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 3.1.5 Responding to Queries for Type AXFR or IXFR . . . . . 15 - 3.1.6 The AD and CD Bits in an Authoritative Response . . . 16 - 3.2 Recursive Name Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 3.2.1 The DO bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 3.2.2 The CD bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 3.2.3 The AD bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 3.3 Example DNSSEC Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 4. Resolving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 4.1 EDNS Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 4.2 Signature Verification Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 4.3 Determining Security Status of Data . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 4.4 Configured Trust Anchors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 4.5 Response Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 4.6 Handling of the CD and AD bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 4.7 Caching BAD Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - 4.8 Synthesized CNAMEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 4.9 Stub resolvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 4.9.1 Handling of the DO Bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - 4.9.2 Handling of the CD Bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 4.9.3 Handling of the AD Bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 5. Authenticating DNS Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 5.1 Special Considerations for Islands of Security . . . . . . 26 - 5.2 Authenticating Referrals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 5.3 Authenticating an RRset Using an RRSIG RR . . . . . . . . 27 - 5.3.1 Checking the RRSIG RR Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 5.3.2 Reconstructing the Signed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 5.3.3 Checking the Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 5.3.4 Authenticating A Wildcard Expanded RRset Positive - Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - 5.4 Authenticated Denial of Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 - 5.5 Resolver Behavior When Signatures Do Not Validate . . . . 32 - 5.6 Authentication Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 - 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 - 9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 - 9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 - A. Signed Zone Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - B. Example Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 - B.1 Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 - B.2 Name Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 - B.3 No Data Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 - B.4 Referral to Signed Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 - B.5 Referral to Unsigned Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 - B.6 Wildcard Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 - B.7 Wildcard No Data Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 - B.8 DS Child Zone No Data Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 - C. Authentication Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 - C.1 Authenticating An Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 - C.1.1 Authenticating the example DNSKEY RR . . . . . . . . . 54 - C.2 Name Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 - C.3 No Data Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 - C.4 Referral to Signed Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 - C.5 Referral to Unsigned Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 - C.6 Wildcard Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 - C.7 Wildcard No Data Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 - C.8 DS Child Zone No Data Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 - Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 57 - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 3] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -1. Introduction - - The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) are a collection of new resource - records and protocol modifications which add data origin - authentication and data integrity to the DNS. This document defines - the DNSSEC protocol modifications. Section 2 of this document - defines the concept of a signed zone and lists the requirements for - zone signing. Section 3 describes the modifications to authoritative - name server behavior necessary to handle signed zones. Section 4 - describes the behavior of entities which include security-aware - resolver functions. Finally, Section 5 defines how to use DNSSEC RRs - to authenticate a response. - -1.1 Background and Related Documents - - The reader is assumed to be familiar with the basic DNS concepts - described in [RFC1034] and [RFC1035]. - - This document is part of a family of documents that define DNSSEC. - An introduction to DNSSEC and definition of common terms can be found - in [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro]; the reader is assumed to be - familiar with this document. A definition of the DNSSEC resource - records can be found in [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records]. - -1.2 Reserved Words - - The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", - "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. [RFC2119]. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 4] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -2. Zone Signing - - DNSSEC introduces the concept of signed zones. A signed zone - includes DNSKEY, RRSIG, NSEC and (optionally) DS records according to - the rules specified in Section 2.1, Section 2.2, Section 2.3 and - Section 2.4, respectively. A zone that does not include these - records according to the rules in this section is an unsigned zone. - - DNSSEC requires a change to the definition of the CNAME resource - record [RFC1035]. Section 2.5 changes the CNAME RR to allow RRSIG - and NSEC RRs to appear at the same owner name as a CNAME RR. - - DNSSEC specifies the placement of two new RR types, NSEC and DS, - which can be placed at the parental side of a zone cut (that is, at a - delegation point). This is an exception to the general prohibition - against putting data in the parent zone at a zone cut. Section 2.6 - describes this change. - -2.1 Including DNSKEY RRs in a Zone - - To sign a zone, the zone's administrator generates one or more - public/private key pairs and uses the private key(s) to sign - authoritative RRsets in the zone. For each private key used to - create RRSIG RRs in a zone, the zone SHOULD include a zone DNSKEY RR - containing the corresponding public key. A zone key DNSKEY RR MUST - have the Zone Key bit of the flags RDATA field set -- see Section - 2.1.1 of [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records]. Public keys associated - with other DNS operations MAY be stored in DNSKEY RRs that are not - marked as zone keys but MUST NOT be used to verify RRSIGs. - - If the zone administrator intends a signed zone to be usable other - than as an island of security, the zone apex MUST contain at least - one DNSKEY RR to act as a secure entry point into the zone. This - secure entry point could then be used as the target of a secure - delegation via a corresponding DS RR in the parent zone (see - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records]). - -2.2 Including RRSIG RRs in a Zone - - For each authoritative RRset in a signed zone, there MUST be at least - one RRSIG record that meets all of the following requirements: - o The RRSIG owner name is equal to the RRset owner name; - o The RRSIG class is equal to the RRset class; - o The RRSIG Type Covered field is equal to the RRset type; - o The RRSIG Original TTL field is equal to the TTL of the RRset; - o The RRSIG RR's TTL is equal to the TTL of the RRset; - o The RRSIG Labels field is equal to the number of labels in the - RRset owner name, not counting the null root label and not - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - counting the leftmost label if it is a wildcard; - o The RRSIG Signer's Name field is equal to the name of the zone - containing the RRset; and - o The RRSIG Algorithm, Signer's Name, and Key Tag fields identify a - zone key DNSKEY record at the zone apex. - - The process for constructing the RRSIG RR for a given RRset is - described in [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records]. An RRset MAY have - multiple RRSIG RRs associated with it. - - An RRSIG RR itself MUST NOT be signed, since signing an RRSIG RR - would add no value and would create an infinite loop in the signing - process. - - The NS RRset that appears at the zone apex name MUST be signed, but - the NS RRsets that appear at delegation points (that is, the NS - RRsets in the parent zone that delegate the name to the child zone's - name servers) MUST NOT be signed. Glue address RRsets associated - with delegations MUST NOT be signed. - - There MUST be an RRSIG for each RRset using at least one DNSKEY of - each algorithm in the zone apex DNSKEY RRset. The apex DNSKEY RRset - itself MUST be signed by each algorithm appearing in the DS RRset - located at the delegating parent (if any). - -2.3 Including NSEC RRs in a Zone - - Each owner name in the zone which has authoritative data or a - delegation point NS RRset MUST have an NSEC resource record. The - format of NSEC RRs and the process for constructing the NSEC RR for a - given name is described in [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records]. - - The TTL value for any NSEC RR SHOULD be the same as the minimum TTL - value field in the zone SOA RR. - - An NSEC record (and its associated RRSIG RRset) MUST NOT be the only - RRset at any particular owner name. That is, the signing process - MUST NOT create NSEC or RRSIG RRs for owner names nodes which were - not the owner name of any RRset before the zone was signed. The main - reasons for this are a desire for namespace consistency between - signed and unsigned versions of the same zone and a desire to reduce - the risk of response inconsistency in security oblivious recursive - name servers. - - The type bitmap of every NSEC resource record in a signed zone MUST - indicate the presence of both the NSEC record itself and its - corresponding RRSIG record. - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - The difference between the set of owner names that require RRSIG - records and the set of owner names that require NSEC records is - subtle and worth highlighting. RRSIG records are present at the - owner names of all authoritative RRsets. NSEC records are present at - the owner names of all names for which the signed zone is - authoritative and also at the owner names of delegations from the - signed zone to its children. Neither NSEC nor RRSIG records are - present (in the parent zone) at the owner names of glue address - RRsets. Note, however, that this distinction is for the most part is - only visible during the zone signing process, because NSEC RRsets are - authoritative data, and are therefore signed, thus any owner name - which has an NSEC RRset will have RRSIG RRs as well in the signed - zone. - - The bitmap for the NSEC RR at a delegation point requires special - attention. Bits corresponding to the delegation NS RRset and any - RRsets for which the parent zone has authoritative data MUST be set; - bits corresponding to any non-NS RRset for which the parent is not - authoritative MUST be clear. - -2.4 Including DS RRs in a Zone - - The DS resource record establishes authentication chains between DNS - zones. A DS RRset SHOULD be present at a delegation point when the - child zone is signed. The DS RRset MAY contain multiple records, - each referencing a public key in the child zone used to verify the - RRSIGs in that zone. All DS RRsets in a zone MUST be signed and DS - RRsets MUST NOT appear at a zone's apex. - - A DS RR SHOULD point to a DNSKEY RR which is present in the child's - apex DNSKEY RRset, and the child's apex DNSKEY RRset SHOULD be signed - by the corresponding private key. - - The TTL of a DS RRset SHOULD match the TTL of the delegating NS RRset - (that is, the NS RRset from the same zone containing the DS RRset). - - Construction of a DS RR requires knowledge of the corresponding - DNSKEY RR in the child zone, which implies communication between the - child and parent zones. This communication is an operational matter - not covered by this document. - -2.5 Changes to the CNAME Resource Record. - - If a CNAME RRset is present at a name in a signed zone, appropriate - RRSIG and NSEC RRsets are REQUIRED at that name. A KEY RRset at that - name for secure dynamic update purposes is also allowed. Other types - MUST NOT be present at that name. - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 7] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - This is a modification to the original CNAME definition given in - [RFC1034]. The original definition of the CNAME RR did not allow any - other types to coexist with a CNAME record, but a signed zone - requires NSEC and RRSIG RRs for every authoritative name. To resolve - this conflict, this specification modifies the definition of the - CNAME resource record to allow it to coexist with NSEC and RRSIG RRs. - -2.6 DNSSEC RR Types Appearing at Zone Cuts. - - DNSSEC introduced two new RR types that are unusual in that they can - appear at the parental side of a zone cut. At the parental side of a - zone cut (that is, at a delegation point), NSEC RRs are REQUIRED at - the owner name. A DS RR could also be present if the zone being - delegated is signed and wishes to have a chain of authentication to - the parent zone. This is an exception to the original DNS - specification ([RFC1034]) which states that only NS RRsets could - appear at the parental side of a zone cut. - - This specification updates the original DNS specification to allow - NSEC and DS RR types at the parent side of a zone cut. These RRsets - are authoritative for the parent when they appear at the parent side - of a zone cut. - -2.7 Example of a Secure Zone - - Appendix A shows a complete example of a small signed zone. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 8] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -3. Serving - - This section describes the behavior of entities that include - security-aware name server functions. In many cases such functions - will be part of a security-aware recursive name server, but a - security-aware authoritative name server has some of the same - requirements. Functions specific to security-aware recursive name - servers are described in Section 3.2; functions specific to - authoritative servers are described in Section 3.1. - - The terms "SNAME", "SCLASS", and "STYPE" in the following discussion - are as used in [RFC1034]. - - A security-aware name server MUST support the EDNS0 [RFC2671] message - size extension, MUST support a message size of at least 1220 octets, - and SHOULD support a message size of 4000 octets [RFC3226]. - - A security-aware name server which receives a DNS query that does not - include the EDNS OPT pseudo-RR or that has the DO bit clear MUST - treat the RRSIG, DNSKEY, and NSEC RRs as it would any other RRset, - and MUST NOT perform any of the additional processing described - below. Since the DS RR type has the peculiar property of only - existing in the parent zone at delegation points, DS RRs always - require some special processing, as described in Section 3.1.4.1. - - Security aware name servers that receive explicit queries for - security RR types which match the content of more than one zone that - it serves (for example, NSEC and RRSIG RRs above and below a - delegation point where the server is authoritative for both zones) - should behave self-consistently. The name server MAY return one of - the following: - o The above-delegation RRsets - o The below-delegation RRsets - o Both above and below-delegation RRsets - o Empty answer section (no records) - o Some other response - o An error - As long as the response is always consistent for each query to the - name server. - - DNSSEC allocates two new bits in the DNS message header: the CD - (Checking Disabled) bit and the AD (Authentic Data) bit. The CD bit - is controlled by resolvers; a security-aware name server MUST copy - the CD bit from a query into the corresponding response. The AD bit - is controlled by name servers; a security-aware name server MUST - ignore the setting of the AD bit in queries. See Section 3.1.6, - Section 3.2.2, Section 3.2.3, Section 4, and Section 4.9 for details - on the behavior of these bits. - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 9] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - A security aware name server which synthesizes CNAME RRs from DNAME - RRs as described in [RFC2672] SHOULD NOT generate signatures for the - synthesized CNAME RRs. - -3.1 Authoritative Name Servers - - Upon receiving a relevant query that has the EDNS [RFC2671] OPT - pseudo-RR DO bit [RFC3225] set, a security-aware authoritative name - server for a signed zone MUST include additional RRSIG, NSEC, and DS - RRs according to the following rules: - o RRSIG RRs that can be used to authenticate a response MUST be - included in the response according to the rules in Section 3.1.1; - o NSEC RRs that can be used to provide authenticated denial of - existence MUST be included in the response automatically according - to the rules in Section 3.1.3; - o Either a DS RRset or an NSEC RR proving that no DS RRs exist MUST - be included in referrals automatically according to the rules in - Section 3.1.4. - - These rules only apply to responses the semantics of which convey - information about the presence or absence of resource records. That - is, these rules are not intended to rule out responses such as RCODE - 4 ("Not Implemented") or RCODE 5 ("Refused"). - - DNSSEC does not change the DNS zone transfer protocol. Section 3.1.5 - discusses zone transfer requirements. - -3.1.1 Including RRSIG RRs in a Response - - When responding to a query that has the DO bit set, a security-aware - authoritative name server SHOULD attempt to send RRSIG RRs that a - security-aware resolver can use to authenticate the RRsets in the - response. A name server SHOULD make every attempt to keep the RRset - and its associated RRSIG(s) together in a response. Inclusion of - RRSIG RRs in a response is subject to the following rules: - o When placing a signed RRset in the Answer section, the name server - MUST also place its RRSIG RRs in the Answer section. The RRSIG - RRs have a higher priority for inclusion than any other RRsets - that may need to be included. If space does not permit inclusion - of these RRSIG RRs, the name server MUST set the TC bit. - o When placing a signed RRset in the Authority section, the name - server MUST also place its RRSIG RRs in the Authority section. - The RRSIG RRs have a higher priority for inclusion than any other - RRsets that may need to be included. If space does not permit - inclusion of these RRSIG RRs, the name server MUST set the TC bit. - o When placing a signed RRset in the Additional section, the name - server MUST also place its RRSIG RRs in the Additional section. - If space does not permit inclusion of both the RRset and its - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 10] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - associated RRSIG RRs, the name server MAY drop the RRSIG RRs. If - this happens, the name server MUST NOT set the TC bit solely - because these RRSIG RRs didn't fit. - -3.1.2 Including DNSKEY RRs In a Response - - When responding to a query that has the DO bit set and that requests - the SOA or NS RRs at the apex of a signed zone, a security-aware - authoritative name server for that zone MAY return the zone apex - DNSKEY RRset in the Additional section. In this situation, the - DNSKEY RRset and associated RRSIG RRs have lower priority than any - other information that would be placed in the additional section. - The name server SHOULD NOT include the DNSKEY RRset unless there is - enough space in the response message for both the DNSKEY RRset and - its associated RRSIG RR(s). If there is not enough space to include - these DNSKEY and RRSIG RRs, the name server MUST omit them and MUST - NOT set the TC bit solely because these RRs didn't fit (see Section - 3.1.1). - -3.1.3 Including NSEC RRs In a Response - - When responding to a query that has the DO bit set, a security-aware - authoritative name server for a signed zone MUST include NSEC RRs in - each of the following cases: - - No Data: The zone contains RRsets that exactly match <SNAME, SCLASS>, - but does not contain any RRsets that exactly match <SNAME, SCLASS, - STYPE>. - - Name Error: The zone does not contain any RRsets that match <SNAME, - SCLASS> either exactly or via wildcard name expansion. - - Wildcard Answer: The zone does not contain any RRsets that exactly - match <SNAME, SCLASS> but does contain an RRset that matches - <SNAME, SCLASS, STYPE> via wildcard name expansion. - - Wildcard No Data: The zone does not contain any RRsets that exactly - match <SNAME, SCLASS>, does contain one or more RRsets that match - <SNAME, SCLASS> via wildcard name expansion, but does not contain - any RRsets that match <SNAME, SCLASS, STYPE> via wildcard name - expansion. - - In each of these cases, the name server includes NSEC RRs in the - response to prove that an exact match for <SNAME, SCLASS, STYPE> was - not present in the zone and that the response that the name server is - returning is correct given the data that are in the zone. - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 11] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -3.1.3.1 Including NSEC RRs: No Data Response - - If the zone contains RRsets matching <SNAME, SCLASS> but contains no - RRset matching <SNAME, SCLASS, STYPE>, then the name server MUST - include the NSEC RR for <SNAME, SCLASS> along with its associated - RRSIG RR(s) in the Authority section of the response (see Section - 3.1.1). If space does not permit inclusion of the NSEC RR or its - associated RRSIG RR(s), the name server MUST set the TC bit (see - Section 3.1.1). - - Since the search name exists, wildcard name expansion does not apply - to this query, and a single signed NSEC RR suffices to prove the - requested RR type does not exist. - -3.1.3.2 Including NSEC RRs: Name Error Response - - If the zone does not contain any RRsets matching <SNAME, SCLASS> - either exactly or via wildcard name expansion, then the name server - MUST include the following NSEC RRs in the Authority section, along - with their associated RRSIG RRs: - o An NSEC RR proving that there is no exact match for <SNAME, - SCLASS>; and - o An NSEC RR proving that the zone contains no RRsets that would - match <SNAME, SCLASS> via wildcard name expansion. - - In some cases a single NSEC RR may prove both of these points, in - that case the name server SHOULD only include the NSEC RR and its - RRSIG RR(s) once in the Authority section. - - If space does not permit inclusion of these NSEC and RRSIG RRs, the - name server MUST set the TC bit (see Section 3.1.1). - - The owner names of these NSEC and RRSIG RRs are not subject to - wildcard name expansion when these RRs are included in the Authority - section of the response. - - Note that this form of response includes cases in which SNAME - corresponds to an empty non-terminal name within the zone (a name - which is not the owner name for any RRset but which is the parent - name of one or more RRsets). - -3.1.3.3 Including NSEC RRs: Wildcard Answer Response - - If the zone does not contain any RRsets which exactly match <SNAME, - SCLASS> but does contain an RRset which matches <SNAME, SCLASS, - STYPE> via wildcard name expansion, the name server MUST include the - wildcard-expanded answer and the corresponding wildcard-expanded - RRSIG RRs in the Answer section, and MUST include in the Authority - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 12] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - section an NSEC RR and associated RRSIG RR(s) proving that the zone - does not contain a closer match for <SNAME, SCLASS>. If space does - not permit inclusion of the answer, NSEC and RRSIG RRs, the name - server MUST set the TC bit (see Section 3.1.1). - -3.1.3.4 Including NSEC RRs: Wildcard No Data Response - - This case is a combination of the previous cases. The zone does not - contain an exact match for <SNAME, SCLASS>, and while the zone does - contain RRsets which match <SNAME, SCLASS> via wildcard expansion, - none of those RRsets match STYPE. The name server MUST include the - following NSEC RRs in the Authority section, along with their - associated RRSIG RRs: - o An NSEC RR proving that there are no RRsets matching STYPE at the - wildcard owner name which matched <SNAME, SCLASS> via wildcard - expansion; and - o An NSEC RR proving that there are no RRsets in the zone which - would have been a closer match for <SNAME, SCLASS>. - - In some cases a single NSEC RR may prove both of these points, in - which case the name server SHOULD only include the NSEC RR and its - RRSIG RR(s) once in the Authority section. - - The owner names of these NSEC and RRSIG RRs are not subject to - wildcard name expansion when these RRs are included in the Authority - section of the response. - - If space does not permit inclusion of these NSEC and RRSIG RRs, the - name server MUST set the TC bit (see Section 3.1.1). - -3.1.3.5 Finding The Right NSEC RRs - - As explained above, there are several situations in which a - security-aware authoritative name server needs to locate an NSEC RR - which proves that no RRsets matching a particular SNAME exist. - Locating such an NSEC RR within an authoritative zone is relatively - simple, at least in concept. The following discussion assumes that - the name server is authoritative for the zone which would have held - the nonexistent RRsets matching SNAME. The algorithm below is - written for clarity, not efficiency. - - To find the NSEC which proves that no RRsets matching name N exist in - the zone Z which would have held them, construct sequence S - consisting of the owner names of every RRset in Z, sorted into - canonical order [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records], with no duplicate - names. Find the name M which would have immediately preceded N in S - if any RRsets with owner name N had existed. M is the owner name of - the NSEC RR which proves that no RRsets exist with owner name N. - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - The algorithm for finding the NSEC RR which proves that a given name - is not covered by any applicable wildcard is similar, but requires an - extra step. More precisely, the algorithm for finding the NSEC - proving that no RRsets exist with the applicable wildcard name is - precisely the same as the algorithm for finding the NSEC RR which - proves that RRsets with any other owner name do not exist: the part - that's missing is how to determine the name of the nonexistent - applicable wildcard. In practice, this is easy, because the - authoritative name server has already checked for the presence of - precisely this wildcard name as part of step (1)(c) of the normal - lookup algorithm described in Section 4.3.2 of [RFC1034]. - -3.1.4 Including DS RRs In a Response - - When responding to a query which has the DO bit set, a security-aware - authoritative name server returning a referral includes DNSSEC data - along with the NS RRset. - - If a DS RRset is present at the delegation point, the name server - MUST return both the DS RRset and its associated RRSIG RR(s) in the - Authority section along with the NS RRset. The name server MUST - place the NS RRset before the DS RRset and its associated RRSIG - RR(s). - - If no DS RRset is present at the delegation point, the name server - MUST return both the NSEC RR which proves that the DS RRset is not - present and the NSEC RR's associated RRSIG RR(s) along with the NS - RRset. The name server MUST place the NS RRset before the NSEC RRset - and its associated RRSIG RR(s). - - Including these DS, NSEC, and RRSIG RRs increases the size of - referral messages, and may cause some or all glue RRs to be omitted. - If space does not permit inclusion of the DS or NSEC RRset and - associated RRSIG RRs, the name server MUST set the TC bit (see - Section 3.1.1). - -3.1.4.1 Responding to Queries for DS RRs - - The DS resource record type is unusual in that it appears only on the - parent zone's side of a zone cut. For example, the DS RRset for the - delegation of "foo.example" is stored in the "example" zone rather - than in the "foo.example" zone. This requires special processing - rules for both name servers and resolvers, since the name server for - the child zone is authoritative for the name at the zone cut by the - normal DNS rules but the child zone does not contain the DS RRset. - - A security-aware resolver sends queries to the parent zone when - looking for a needed DS RR at a delegation point (see Section 4.2). - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 14] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - However, special rules are necessary to avoid confusing - security-oblivious resolvers which might become involved in - processing such a query (for example, in a network configuration that - forces a security-aware resolver to channel its queries through a - security-oblivious recursive name server). The rest of this section - describes how a security-aware name server processes DS queries in - order to avoid this problem. - - The need for special processing by a security-aware name server only - arises when all the following conditions are met: - o the name server has received a query for the DS RRset at a zone - cut; and - o the name server is authoritative for the child zone; and - o the name server is not authoritative for the parent zone; and - o the name server does not offer recursion. - - In all other cases, the name server either has some way of obtaining - the DS RRset or could not have been expected to have the DS RRset - even by the pre-DNSSEC processing rules, so the name server can - return either the DS RRset or an error response according to the - normal processing rules. - - If all of the above conditions are met, however, the name server is - authoritative for SNAME but cannot supply the requested RRset. In - this case, the name server MUST return an authoritative "no data" - response showing that the DS RRset does not exist in the child zone's - apex. See Appendix B.8 for an example of such a response. - -3.1.5 Responding to Queries for Type AXFR or IXFR - - DNSSEC does not change the DNS zone transfer process. A signed zone - will contain RRSIG, DNSKEY, NSEC, and DS resource records, but these - records have no special meaning with respect to a zone transfer - operation. - - An authoritative name server is not required to verify that a zone is - properly signed before sending or accepting a zone transfer. - However, an authoritative name server MAY choose to reject the entire - zone transfer if the zone fails meets any of the signing requirements - described in Section 2. The primary objective of a zone transfer is - to ensure that all authoritative name servers have identical copies - of the zone. An authoritative name server that chooses to perform - its own zone validation MUST NOT selectively reject some RRs and - accept others. - - DS RRsets appear only on the parental side of a zone cut and are - authoritative data in the parent zone. As with any other - authoritative RRset, the DS RRset MUST be included in zone transfers - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - of the zone in which the RRset is authoritative data: in the case of - the DS RRset, this is the parent zone. - - NSEC RRs appear in both the parent and child zones at a zone cut, and - are authoritative data in both the parent and child zones. The - parental and child NSEC RRs at a zone cut are never identical to each - other, since the NSEC RR in the child zone's apex will always - indicate the presence of the child zone's SOA RR while the parental - NSEC RR at the zone cut will never indicate the presence of an SOA - RR. As with any other authoritative RRs, NSEC RRs MUST be included - in zone transfers of the zone in which they are authoritative data: - the parental NSEC RR at a zone cut MUST be included zone transfers of - the parent zone, while the NSEC at the zone apex of the child zone - MUST be included in zone transfers of the child zone. - - RRSIG RRs appear in both the parent and child zones at a zone cut, - and are authoritative in whichever zone contains the authoritative - RRset for which the RRSIG RR provides the signature. That is, the - RRSIG RR for a DS RRset or a parental NSEC RR at a zone cut will be - authoritative in the parent zone, while the RRSIG for any RRset in - the child zone's apex will be authoritative in the child zone. - Parental and child RRSIG RRs at a zone cut will never be identical to - each other, since the Signer's Name field of an RRSIG RR in the child - zone's apex will indicate a DNSKEY RR in the child zone's apex while - the same field of a parental RRSIG RR at the zone cut will indicate a - DNSKEY RR in the parent zone's apex. As with any other authoritative - RRs, RRSIG RRs MUST be included in zone transfers of the zone in - which they are authoritative data. - -3.1.6 The AD and CD Bits in an Authoritative Response - - The CD and AD bits are designed for use in communication between - security-aware resolvers and security-aware recursive name servers. - These bits are for the most part not relevant to query processing by - security-aware authoritative name servers. - - A security-aware name server does not perform signature validation - for authoritative data during query processing even when the CD bit - is clear. A security-aware name server SHOULD clear the CD bit when - composing an authoritative response. - - A security-aware name server MUST NOT set the AD bit in a response - unless the name server considers all RRsets in the Answer and - Authority sections of the response to be authentic. A security-aware - name server's local policy MAY consider data from an authoritative - zone to be authentic without further validation, but the name server - MUST NOT do so unless the name server obtained the authoritative zone - via secure means (such as a secure zone transfer mechanism), and MUST - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 16] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - NOT do so unless this behavior has been configured explicitly. - - A security-aware name server which supports recursion MUST follow the - rules for the CD and AD bits given in Section 3.2 when generating a - response that involves data obtained via recursion. - -3.2 Recursive Name Servers - - As explained in [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro], a security-aware - recursive name server is an entity which acts in both the - security-aware name server and security-aware resolver roles. This - section uses the terms "name server side" and "resolver side" to - refer to the code within a security-aware recursive name server which - implements the security-aware name server role and the code which - implements the security-aware resolver role, respectively. - - The resolver side follows the usual rules for caching and negative - caching which would apply to any security-aware resolver. - -3.2.1 The DO bit - - The resolver side of a security-aware recursive name server MUST set - the DO bit when sending requests, regardless of the state of the DO - bit in the initiating request received by the name server side. If - the DO bit in an initiating query is not set, the name server side - MUST strip any authenticating DNSSEC RRs from the response, but MUST - NOT strip any DNSSEC RR types that the initiating query explicitly - requested. - -3.2.2 The CD bit - - The CD bit exists in order to allow a security-aware resolver to - disable signature validation in a security-aware name server's - processing of a particular query. - - The name server side MUST copy the setting of the CD bit from a query - to the corresponding response. - - The name server side of a security-aware recursive name server MUST - pass the sense of the CD bit to the resolver side along with the rest - of an initiating query, so that the resolver side will know whether - or not it is required to verify the response data it returns to the - name server side. If the CD bit is set, it indicates that the - originating resolver is willing to perform whatever authentication - its local policy requires, thus the resolver side of the recursive - name server need not perform authentication on the RRsets in the - response. When the CD bit is set the recursive name server SHOULD, - if possible, return the requested data to the originating resolver - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - even if the recursive name server's local authentication policy would - reject the records in question. That is, by setting the CD bit, the - originating resolver has indicated that it takes responsibility for - performing its own authentication, and the recursive name server - should not interfere. - - If the resolver side implements a BAD cache (see Section 4.7) and the - name server side receives a query which matches an entry in the - resolver side's BAD cache, the name server side's response depends on - the sense of the CD bit in the original query. If the CD bit is set, - the name server side SHOULD return the data from the BAD cache; if - the CD bit is not set, the name server side MUST return RCODE 2 - (server failure). - - The intent of the above rule is to provide the raw data to clients - which are capable of performing their own signature verification - checks while protecting clients which depend on the resolver side of - a security-aware recursive name server to perform such checks. - Several of the possible reasons why signature validation might fail - involve conditions which may not apply equally to the recursive name - server and the client which invoked it: for example, the recursive - name server's clock may be set incorrectly, or the client may have - knowledge of a relevant island of security which the recursive name - server does not share. In such cases, "protecting" a client which is - capable of performing its own signature validation from ever seeing - the "bad" data does not help the client. - -3.2.3 The AD bit - - The name server side of a security-aware recursive name server MUST - NOT set the AD bit in a response unless the name server considers all - RRsets in the Answer and Authority sections of the response to be - authentic. The name server side SHOULD set the AD bit if and only if - the resolver side considers all RRsets in the Answer section and any - relevant negative response RRs in the Authority section to be - authentic. The resolver side MUST follow the procedure described in - Section 5 to determine whether the RRs in question are authentic. - However, for backwards compatibility, a recursive name server MAY set - the AD bit when a response includes unsigned CNAME RRs if those CNAME - RRs demonstrably could have been synthesized from an authentic DNAME - RR which is also included in the response according to the synthesis - rules described in [RFC2672]. - -3.3 Example DNSSEC Responses - - See Appendix B for example response packets. - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 18] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -4. Resolving - - This section describes the behavior of entities that include - security-aware resolver functions. In many cases such functions will - be part of a security-aware recursive name server, but a stand-alone - security-aware resolver has many of the same requirements. Functions - specific to security-aware recursive name servers are described in - Section 3.2. - -4.1 EDNS Support - - A security-aware resolver MUST include an EDNS [RFC2671] OPT - pseudo-RR with the DO [RFC3225] bit set when sending queries. - - A security-aware resolver MUST support a message size of at least - 1220 octets, SHOULD support a message size of 4000 octets, and MUST - advertise the supported message size using the "sender's UDP payload - size" field in the EDNS OPT pseudo-RR. A security-aware resolver - MUST handle fragmented UDP packets correctly regardless of whether - any such fragmented packets were received via IPv4 or IPv6. Please - see [RFC3226] for discussion of these requirements. - -4.2 Signature Verification Support - - A security-aware resolver MUST support the signature verification - mechanisms described in Section 5, and SHOULD apply them to every - received response except when: - o The security-aware resolver is part of a security-aware recursive - name server, and the response is the result of recursion on behalf - of a query received with the CD bit set; - o The response is the result of a query generated directly via some - form of application interface which instructed the security-aware - resolver not to perform validation for this query; or - o Validation for this query has been disabled by local policy. - - A security-aware resolver's support for signature verification MUST - include support for verification of wildcard owner names. - - Security aware resolvers MAY query for missing security RRs in an - attempt to perform validation; implementations that choose to do so - must be aware that the answers received may not be sufficient to - validate the original response. - - When attempting to retrieve missing NSEC RRs which reside on the - parental side at a zone cut, a security-aware iterative-mode resolver - MUST query the name servers for the parent zone, not the child zone. - - When attempting to retrieve a missing DS, a security-aware - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 19] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - iterative-mode resolver MUST query the name servers for the parent - zone, not the child zone. As explained in Section 3.1.4.1, - security-aware name servers need to apply special processing rules to - handle the DS RR, and in some situations the resolver may also need - to apply special rules to locate the name servers for the parent zone - if the resolver does not already have the parent's NS RRset. To - locate the parent NS RRset, the resolver can start with the - delegation name, strip off the leftmost label, and query for an NS - RRset by that name; if no NS RRset is present at that name, the - resolver then strips of the leftmost remaining label and retries the - query for that name, repeating this process of walking up the tree - until it either finds the NS RRset or runs out of labels. - -4.3 Determining Security Status of Data - - A security-aware resolver MUST be able to determine whether or not it - should expect a particular RRset to be signed. More precisely, a - security-aware resolver must be able to distinguish between four - cases: - - Secure: An RRset for which the resolver is able to build a chain of - signed DNSKEY and DS RRs from a trusted security anchor to the - RRset. In this case, the RRset should be signed, and is subject - to signature validation as described above. - - Insecure: An RRset for which the resolver knows that it has no chain - of signed DNSKEY and DS RRs from any trusted starting point to the - RRset. This can occur when the target RRset lies in an unsigned - zone or in a descendent of an unsigned zone. In this case, the - RRset may or may not be signed, but the resolver will not be able - to verify the signature. - - Bogus: An RRset for which the resolver believes that it ought to be - able to establish a chain of trust but is unable to do so, either - due to signatures that for some reason fail to validate or due to - missing data which the relevant DNSSEC RRs indicate should be - present. This case may indicate an attack, but may also indicate - a configuration error or some form of data corruption. - - Indeterminate: An RRset for which the resolver is not able to - determine whether or not the RRset should be signed, because the - resolver is not able to obtain the necessary DNSSEC RRs. This can - occur when the security-aware resolver is not able to contact - security-aware name servers for the relevant zones. - -4.4 Configured Trust Anchors - - A security-aware resolver MUST be capable of being configured with at - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 20] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - least one trusted public key or DS RR, and SHOULD be capable of being - configured with multiple trusted public keys or DS RRs. Since a - security-aware resolver will not be able to validate signatures - without such a configured trust anchor, the resolver SHOULD have some - reasonably robust mechanism for obtaining such keys when it boots; - examples of such a mechanism would be some form of non-volatile - storage (such as a disk drive) or some form of trusted local network - configuration mechanism. - - Note that trust anchors also covers key material that is updated in a - secure manner. This secure manner could be through physical media, a - key exchange protocol, or some other out of band means. - -4.5 Response Caching - - A security-aware resolver SHOULD cache each response as a single - atomic entry containing the entire answer, including the named RRset - and any associated DNSSEC RRs. The resolver SHOULD discard the - entire atomic entry when any of the RRs contained in it expire. In - most cases the appropriate cache index for the atomic entry will be - the triple <QNAME, QTYPE, QCLASS>, but in cases such as the response - form described in Section 3.1.3.2 the appropriate cache index will be - the double <QNAME,QCLASS>. - - The reason for these recommendations is that, between the initial - query and the expiration of the data from the cache, the - authoritative data might have been changed (for example, via dynamic - update). - - There are two situations for which this is relevant: - 1. By using the RRSIG record, it is possible to deduce that an - answer was synthesized from a wildcard. A security aware - recursive name server could store this wildcard data and use it - to generate positive responses to queries other than the name for - which the original answer was first received. - 2. NSEC RRs received to prove the non-existence of a name could be - reused by a security aware resolver to prove the non-existence of - any name in the name range it spans. - - In theory, a resolver could use wildcards or NSEC RRs to generate - positive and negative responses (respectively) until the TTL or - signatures on the records in question expire. However, it seems - prudent for resolvers to avoid blocking new authoritative data or - synthesizing new data on their own. Resolvers which follow this - recommendation will have a more consistent view of the namespace. - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 21] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -4.6 Handling of the CD and AD bits - - A security-aware resolver MAY set a query's CD bit in order to - indicate that the resolver takes responsibility for performing - whatever authentication its local policy requires on the RRsets in - the response. See Section 3.2 for the effect this bit has on the - behavior of security-aware recursive name servers. - - A security-aware resolver MUST clear the AD bit when composing query - messages to protect against buggy name servers which blindly copy - header bits which they do not understand from the query message to - the response message. - - A resolver MUST disregard the meaning of the CD and AD bits in a - response unless the response was obtained using a secure channel or - the resolver was specifically configured to regard the message header - bits without using a secure channel. - -4.7 Caching BAD Data - - While many validation errors will be transient, some are likely to be - more persistent, such as those caused by administrative error - (failure to re-sign a zone, clock skew, and so forth). Since - requerying will not help in these cases, validating resolvers might - generate a significant amount of unnecessary DNS traffic as a result - of repeated queries for RRsets with persistent validation failures. - - To prevent such unnecessary DNS traffic, security-aware resolvers MAY - cache data with invalid signatures, with some restrictions. - Conceptually, caching such data is similar to negative caching - [RFC2308], except that instead of caching a valid negative response, - the resolver is caching the fact that a particular answer failed to - validate. This document refers to a cache of data with invalid - signatures as a "BAD cache". - - Resolvers which implement a BAD cache MUST take steps to prevent the - cache from being useful as a denial-of-service attack amplifier. In - particular: - o Since RRsets which fail to validate do not have trustworthy TTLs, - the implementation MUST assign a TTL. This TTL SHOULD be small, - in order to mitigate the effect of caching the results of an - attack. - o In order to prevent caching of a transient validation failure - (which might be the result of an attack), resolvers SHOULD track - queries that result in validation failures, and SHOULD only answer - from the BAD cache after the number of times that responses to - queries for that particular <QNAME, QTYPE, QCLASS> have failed to - validate exceeds a threshold value. - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 22] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - Resolvers MUST NOT return RRsets from the BAD cache unless the - resolver is not required to validate the signatures of the RRsets in - question under the rules given in Section 4.2 of this document. See - Section 3.2.2 for discussion of how the responses returned by a - security-aware recursive name server interact with a BAD cache. - -4.8 Synthesized CNAMEs - - A validating security-aware resolver MUST treat the signature of a - valid signed DNAME RR as also covering unsigned CNAME RRs which could - have been synthesized from the DNAME RR as described in [RFC2672], at - least to the extent of not rejecting a response message solely - because it contains such CNAME RRs. The resolver MAY retain such - CNAME RRs in its cache or in the answers it hands back, but is not - required to do so. - -4.9 Stub resolvers - - A security-aware stub resolver MUST support the DNSSEC RR types, at - least to the extent of not mishandling responses just because they - contain DNSSEC RRs. - -4.9.1 Handling of the DO Bit - - A non-validating security-aware stub resolver MAY include the DNSSEC - RRs returned by a security-aware recursive name server as part of the - data that the stub resolver hands back to the application which - invoked it but is not required to do so. A non-validating stub - resolver that wishes to do this will need to set the DO bit in - receive DNSSEC RRs from the recursive name server. - - A validating security-aware stub resolver MUST set the DO bit, since - otherwise it will not receive the DNSSEC RRs it needs to perform - signature validation. - -4.9.2 Handling of the CD Bit - - A non-validating security-aware stub resolver SHOULD NOT set the CD - bit when sending queries unless requested by the application layer, - since by definition, a non-validating stub resolver depends on the - security-aware recursive name server to perform validation on its - behalf. - - A validating security-aware stub resolver SHOULD set the CD bit, - since otherwise the security-aware recursive name server will answer - the query using the name server's local policy, which may prevent the - stub resolver from receiving data which would be acceptable to the - stub resolver's local policy. - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 23] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -4.9.3 Handling of the AD Bit - - A non-validating security-aware stub resolver MAY chose to examine - the setting of the AD bit in response messages that it receives in - order to determine whether the security-aware recursive name server - which sent the response claims to have cryptographically verified the - data in the Answer and Authority sections of the response message. - Note, however, that the responses received by a security-aware stub - resolver are heavily dependent on the local policy of the - security-aware recursive name server, so as a practical matter there - may be little practical value to checking the status of the AD bit - except perhaps as a debugging aid. In any case, a security-aware - stub resolver MUST NOT place any reliance on signature validation - allegedly performed on its behalf except when the security-aware stub - resolver obtained the data in question from a trusted security-aware - recursive name server via a secure channel. - - A validating security-aware stub resolver SHOULD NOT examine the - setting of the AD bit in response messages, since, by definition, the - stub resolver performs its own signature validation regardless of the - setting of the AD bit. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 24] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -5. Authenticating DNS Responses - - In order to use DNSSEC RRs for authentication, a security-aware - resolver requires configured knowledge of at least one authenticated - DNSKEY or DS RR. The process for obtaining and authenticating this - initial trust anchors is achieved via some external mechanism. For - example, a resolver could use some off-line authenticated exchange to - obtain a zone's DNSKEY RR or obtain a DS RR that identifies and - authenticates a zone's DNSKEY RR. The remainder of this section - assumes that the resolver has somehow obtained an initial set of - trust anchors. - - An initial DNSKEY RR can be used to authenticate a zone's apex DNSKEY - RRset. To authenticate an apex DNSKEY RRset using an initial key, - the resolver MUST: - 1. Verify that the initial DNSKEY RR appears in the apex DNSKEY - RRset, and verify that the DNSKEY RR MUST have the Zone Key Flag - (DNSKEY RDATA bit 7) set. - 2. Verify that there is some RRSIG RR that covers the apex DNSKEY - RRset, and that the combination of the RRSIG RR and the initial - DNSKEY RR authenticates the DNSKEY RRset. The process for using - an RRSIG RR to authenticate an RRset is described in Section 5.3. - - Once the resolver has authenticated the apex DNSKEY RRset using an - initial DNSKEY RR, delegations from that zone can be authenticated - using DS RRs. This allows a resolver to start from an initial key, - and use DS RRsets to proceed recursively down the DNS tree obtaining - other apex DNSKEY RRsets. If the resolver were configured with a - root DNSKEY RR, and if every delegation had a DS RR associated with - it, then the resolver could obtain and validate any apex DNSKEY - RRset. The process of using DS RRs to authenticate referrals is - described in Section 5.2. - - Once the resolver has authenticated a zone's apex DNSKEY RRset, - Section 5.3 shows how the resolver can use DNSKEY RRs in the apex - DNSKEY RRset and RRSIG RRs from the zone to authenticate any other - RRsets in the zone. Section 5.4 shows how the resolver can use - authenticated NSEC RRsets from the zone to prove that an RRset is not - present in the zone. - - When a resolver indicates support for DNSSEC (by setting the DO bit), - a security-aware name server should attempt to provide the necessary - DNSKEY, RRSIG, NSEC, and DS RRsets in a response (see Section 3). - However, a security-aware resolver may still receive a response that - that lacks the appropriate DNSSEC RRs, whether due to configuration - issues such as an upstream security-oblivious recursive name server - that accidentally interferes with DNSSEC RRs or due to a deliberate - attack in which an adversary forges a response, strips DNSSEC RRs - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 25] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - from a response, or modifies a query so that DNSSEC RRs appear not to - be requested. The absence of DNSSEC data in a response MUST NOT by - itself be taken as an indication that no authentication information - exists. - - A resolver SHOULD expect authentication information from signed - zones. A resolver SHOULD believe that a zone is signed if the - resolver has been configured with public key information for the - zone, or if the zone's parent is signed and the delegation from the - parent contains a DS RRset. - -5.1 Special Considerations for Islands of Security - - Islands of security (see [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro]) are signed - zones for which it is not possible to construct an authentication - chain to the zone from its parent. Validating signatures within an - island of security requires the validator to have some other means of - obtaining an initial authenticated zone key for the island. If a - validator cannot obtain such a key, it SHOULD switch to operating as - if the zones in the island of security are unsigned. - - All the normal processes for validating responses apply to islands of - security. The only difference between normal validation and - validation within an island of security is in how the validator - obtains a trust anchor for the authentication chain. - -5.2 Authenticating Referrals - - Once the apex DNSKEY RRset for a signed parent zone has been - authenticated, DS RRsets can be used to authenticate the delegation - to a signed child zone. A DS RR identifies a DNSKEY RR in the child - zone's apex DNSKEY RRset, and contains a cryptographic digest of the - child zone's DNSKEY RR. A strong cryptographic digest algorithm - ensures that an adversary can not easily generate a DNSKEY RR that - matches the digest. Thus, authenticating the digest allows a - resolver to authenticate the matching DNSKEY RR. The resolver can - then use this child DNSKEY RR to authenticate the entire child apex - DNSKEY RRset. - - Given a DS RR for a delegation, the child zone's apex DNSKEY RRset - can be authenticated if all of the following hold: - o The DS RR has been authenticated using some DNSKEY RR in the - parent's apex DNSKEY RRset (see Section 5.3); - o The Algorithm and Key Tag in the DS RR match the Algorithm field - and the key tag of a DNSKEY RR in the child zone's apex DNSKEY - RRset and, when hashed using the digest algorithm specified in the - DS RR's Digest Type field, results in a digest value that matches - the Digest field of the DS RR; and - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 26] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - o The matching DNSKEY RR in the child zone has the Zone Flag bit - set, the corresponding private key has signed the child zone's - apex DNSKEY RRset, and the resulting RRSIG RR authenticates the - child zone's apex DNSKEY RRset. - - If the referral from the parent zone did not contain a DS RRset, the - response should have included a signed NSEC RRset proving that no DS - RRset exists for the delegated name (see Section 3.1.4). A - security-aware resolver MUST query the name servers for the parent - zone for the DS RRset if the referral includes neither a DS RRset nor - a NSEC RRset proving that the DS RRset does not exist (see Section - 4). - - If the validator authenticates an NSEC RRset that proves that no DS - RRset is present for this zone, then there is no authentication path - leading from the parent to the child. If the resolver has an initial - DNSKEY or DS RR that belongs to the child zone or to any delegation - below the child zone, this initial DNSKEY or DS RR MAY be used to - re-establish an authentication path. If no such initial DNSKEY or DS - RR exists, the validator can not authenticate RRsets in or below the - child zone. - - If the validator does not support any of the algorithms listed in an - authenticated DS RRset, then the resolver has no supported - authentication path leading from the parent to the child. The - resolver should treat this case as it would the case of an - authenticated NSEC RRset proving that no DS RRset exists, as - described above. - - Note that, for a signed delegation, there are two NSEC RRs associated - with the delegated name. One NSEC RR resides in the parent zone, and - can be used to prove whether a DS RRset exists for the delegated - name. The second NSEC RR resides in the child zone, and identifies - which RRsets are present at the apex of the child zone. The parent - NSEC RR and child NSEC RR can always be distinguished, since the SOA - bit will be set in the child NSEC RR and clear in the parent NSEC RR. - A security-aware resolver MUST use the parent NSEC RR when attempting - to prove that a DS RRset does not exist. - - If the resolver does not support any of the algorithms listed in an - authenticated DS RRset, then the resolver will not be able to verify - the authentication path to the child zone. In this case, the - resolver SHOULD treat the child zone as if it were unsigned. - -5.3 Authenticating an RRset Using an RRSIG RR - - A validator can use an RRSIG RR and its corresponding DNSKEY RR to - attempt to authenticate RRsets. The validator first checks the RRSIG - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 27] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - RR to verify that it covers the RRset, has a valid time interval, and - identifies a valid DNSKEY RR. The validator then constructs the - canonical form of the signed data by appending the RRSIG RDATA - (excluding the Signature Field) with the canonical form of the - covered RRset. Finally, the validator uses the public key and - signature to authenticate the signed data. Section 5.3.1, Section - 5.3.2, and Section 5.3.3 describe each step in detail. - -5.3.1 Checking the RRSIG RR Validity - - A security-aware resolver can use an RRSIG RR to authenticate an - RRset if all of the following conditions hold: - o The RRSIG RR and the RRset MUST have the same owner name and the - same class; - o The RRSIG RR's Signer's Name field MUST be the name of the zone - that contains the RRset; - o The RRSIG RR's Type Covered field MUST equal the RRset's type; - o The number of labels in the RRset owner name MUST be greater than - or equal to the value in the RRSIG RR's Labels field; - o The validator's notion of the current time MUST be less than or - equal to the time listed in the RRSIG RR's Expiration field; - o The validator's notion of the current time MUST be greater than or - equal to the time listed in the RRSIG RR's Inception field; - o The RRSIG RR's Signer's Name, Algorithm, and Key Tag fields MUST - match the owner name, algorithm, and key tag for some DNSKEY RR in - the zone's apex DNSKEY RRset; - o The matching DNSKEY RR MUST be present in the zone's apex DNSKEY - RRset, and MUST have the Zone Flag bit (DNSKEY RDATA Flag bit 7) - set. - - It is possible for more than one DNSKEY RR to match the conditions - above. In this case, the validator cannot predetermine which DNSKEY - RR to use to authenticate the signature, MUST try each matching - DNSKEY RR until either the signature is validated or the validator - has run out of matching public keys to try. - - Note that this authentication process is only meaningful if the - validator authenticates the DNSKEY RR before using it to validate - signatures. The matching DNSKEY RR is considered to be authentic if: - o The apex DNSKEY RRset containing the DNSKEY RR is considered - authentic; or - o The RRset covered by the RRSIG RR is the apex DNSKEY RRset itself, - and the DNSKEY RR either matches an authenticated DS RR from the - parent zone or matches a trust anchor. - -5.3.2 Reconstructing the Signed Data - - Once the RRSIG RR has met the validity requirements described in - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 28] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - Section 5.3.1, the validator needs to reconstruct the original signed - data. The original signed data includes RRSIG RDATA (excluding the - Signature field) and the canonical form of the RRset. Aside from - being ordered, the canonical form of the RRset might also differ from - the received RRset due to DNS name compression, decremented TTLs, or - wildcard expansion. The validator should use the following to - reconstruct the original signed data: - - signed_data = RRSIG_RDATA | RR(1) | RR(2)... where - - "|" denotes concatenation - - RRSIG_RDATA is the wire format of the RRSIG RDATA fields - with the Signature field excluded and the Signer's Name - in canonical form. - - RR(i) = name | type | class | OrigTTL | RDATA length | RDATA - - name is calculated according to the function below - - class is the RRset's class - - type is the RRset type and all RRs in the class - - OrigTTL is the value from the RRSIG Original TTL field - - All names in the RDATA field are in canonical form - - The set of all RR(i) is sorted into canonical order. - - To calculate the name: - let rrsig_labels = the value of the RRSIG Labels field - - let fqdn = RRset's fully qualified domain name in - canonical form - - let fqdn_labels = Label count of the fqdn above. - - if rrsig_labels = fqdn_labels, - name = fqdn - - if rrsig_labels < fqdn_labels, - name = "*." | the rightmost rrsig_label labels of the - fqdn - - if rrsig_labels > fqdn_labels - the RRSIG RR did not pass the necessary validation - checks and MUST NOT be used to authenticate this - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 29] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - RRset. - - The canonical forms for names and RRsets are defined in - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records]. - - NSEC RRsets at a delegation boundary require special processing. - There are two distinct NSEC RRsets associated with a signed delegated - name. One NSEC RRset resides in the parent zone, and specifies which - RRset are present at the parent zone. The second NSEC RRset resides - at the child zone, and identifies which RRsets are present at the - apex in the child zone. The parent NSEC RRset and child NSEC RRset - can always be distinguished since only the child NSEC RRs will - specify an SOA RRset exists at the name. When reconstructing the - original NSEC RRset for the delegation from the parent zone, the NSEC - RRs MUST NOT be combined with NSEC RRs from the child zone, and when - reconstructing the original NSEC RRset for the apex of the child - zone, the NSEC RRs MUST NOT be combined with NSEC RRs from the parent - zone. - - Note also that each of the two NSEC RRsets at a delegation point has - a corresponding RRSIG RR with an owner name matching the delegated - name, and each of these RRSIG RRs is authoritative data associated - with the same zone that contains the corresponding NSEC RRset. If - necessary, a resolver can tell these RRSIG RRs apart by checking the - Signer's Name field. - -5.3.3 Checking the Signature - - Once the resolver has validated the RRSIG RR as described in Section - 5.3.1 and reconstructed the original signed data as described in - Section 5.3.2, the validator can attempt to use the cryptographic - signature to authenticate the signed data, and thus (finally!) - authenticate the RRset. - - The Algorithm field in the RRSIG RR identifies the cryptographic - algorithm used to generate the signature. The signature itself is - contained in the Signature field of the RRSIG RDATA, and the public - key used to verify the signature is contained in the Public Key field - of the matching DNSKEY RR(s) (found in Section 5.3.1). - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records] provides a list of algorithm types - and provides pointers to the documents that define each algorithm's - use. - - Note that it is possible for more than one DNSKEY RR to match the - conditions in Section 5.3.1. In this case, the validator can only - determine which DNSKEY RR by trying each matching public key until - the validator either succeeds in validating the signature or runs out - of keys to try. - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 30] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - If the Labels field of the RRSIG RR is not equal to the number of - labels in the RRset's fully qualified owner name, then the RRset is - either invalid or the result of wildcard expansion. The resolver - MUST verify that wildcard expansion was applied properly before - considering the RRset to be authentic. Section 5.3.4 describes how - to determine whether a wildcard was applied properly. - - If other RRSIG RRs also cover this RRset, the local resolver security - policy determines whether the resolver also needs to test these RRSIG - RRs, and determines how to resolve conflicts if these RRSIG RRs lead - to differing results. - - If the resolver accepts the RRset as authentic, the validator MUST - set the TTL of the RRSIG RR and each RR in the authenticated RRset to - a value no greater than the minimum of: - o The RRset's TTL as received in the response; - o The RRSIG RR's TTL as received in the response; - o The value in the RRSIG RR's Original TTL field; and - o The difference of the RRSIG RR's Signature Expiration time and the - current time. - -5.3.4 Authenticating A Wildcard Expanded RRset Positive Response - - If the number of labels in an RRset's owner name is greater than the - Labels field of the covering RRSIG RR, then the RRset and its - covering RRSIG RR were created as a result of wildcard expansion. - Once the validator has verified the signature as described in Section - 5.3, it must take additional steps to verify the non-existence of an - exact match or closer wildcard match for the query. Section 5.4 - discusses these steps. - - Note that the response received by the resolver should include all - NSEC RRs needed to authenticate the response (see Section 3.1.3). - -5.4 Authenticated Denial of Existence - - A resolver can use authenticated NSEC RRs to prove that an RRset is - not present in a signed zone. Security-aware name servers should - automatically include any necessary NSEC RRs for signed zones in - their responses to security-aware resolvers. - - Denial of existence is determined by the following rules: - o If the requested RR name matches the owner name of an - authenticated NSEC RR, then the NSEC RR's type bit map field lists - all RR types present at that owner name, and a resolver can prove - that the requested RR type does not exist by checking for the RR - type in the bit map. If the number of labels in an authenticated - NSEC RR's owner name equals the Labels field of the covering RRSIG - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 31] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - RR, then the existence of the NSEC RR proves that wildcard - expansion could not have been used to match the request. - o If the requested RR name would appear after an authenticated NSEC - RR's owner name and before the name listed in that NSEC RR's Next - Domain Name field according to the canonical DNS name order - defined in [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records], then no RRsets with - the requested name exist in the zone. However, it is possible - that a wildcard could be used to match the requested RR owner name - and type, so proving that the requested RRset does not exist also - requires proving that no possible wildcard RRset exists that could - have been used to generate a positive response. - - In addition, security-aware resolvers MUST authenticate the NSEC - RRsets that comprise the non-existence proof as described in Section - 5.3. - - To prove non-existence of an RRset, the resolver must be able to - verify both that the queried RRset does not exist and that no - relevant wildcard RRset exists. Proving this may require more than - one NSEC RRset from the zone. If the complete set of necessary NSEC - RRsets is not present in a response (perhaps due to message - truncation), then a security-aware resolver MUST resend the query in - order to attempt to obtain the full collection of NSEC RRs necessary - to verify non-existence of the requested RRset. As with all DNS - operations, however, the resolver MUST bound the work it puts into - answering any particular query. - - Since a validated NSEC RR proves the existence of both itself and its - corresponding RRSIG RR, a validator MUST ignore the settings of the - NSEC and RRSIG bits in an NSEC RR. - -5.5 Resolver Behavior When Signatures Do Not Validate - - If for whatever reason none of the RRSIGs can be validated, the - response SHOULD be considered BAD. If the validation was being done - to service a recursive query, the name server MUST return RCODE 2 to - the originating client. However, it MUST return the full response if - and only if the original query had the CD bit set. See also Section - 4.7 on caching responses that do not validate. - -5.6 Authentication Example - - Appendix C shows an example the authentication process. - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 32] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -6. IANA Considerations - - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records] contains a review of the IANA - considerations introduced by DNSSEC. The additional IANA - considerations discussed in this document: - - [RFC2535] reserved the CD and AD bits in the message header. The - meaning of the AD bit was redefined in [RFC3655] and the meaning of - both the CD and AD bit are restated in this document. No new bits in - the DNS message header are defined in this document. - - [RFC2671] introduced EDNS and [RFC3225] reserved the DNSSEC OK bit - and defined its use. The use is restated but not altered in this - document. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 33] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -7. Security Considerations - - This document describes how the DNS security extensions use public - key cryptography to sign and authenticate DNS resource record sets. - Please see [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro] for terminology and general - security considerations related to DNSSEC; see - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro] for considerations specific to the - DNSSEC resource record types. - - An active attacker who can set the CD bit in a DNS query message or - the AD bit in a DNS response message can use these bits to defeat the - protection which DNSSEC attempts to provide to security-oblivious - recursive-mode resolvers. For this reason, use of these control bits - by a security-aware recursive-mode resolver requires a secure - channel. See Section 3.2.2 and Section 4.9 for further discussion. - - The protocol described in this document attempts to extend the - benefits of DNSSEC to security-oblivious stub resolvers. However, - since recovery from validation failures is likely to be specific to - particular applications, the facilities that DNSSEC provides for stub - resolvers may prove inadequate. Operators of security-aware - recursive name servers will need to pay close attention to the - behavior of the applications which use their services when choosing a - local validation policy; failure to do so could easily result in the - recursive name server accidentally denying service to the clients it - is intended to support. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 34] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -8. Acknowledgements - - This document was created from the input and ideas of the members of - the DNS Extensions Working Group and working group mailing list. The - editors would like to express their thanks for the comments and - suggestions received during the revision of these security extension - specifications. While explicitly listing everyone who has - contributed during the decade during which DNSSEC has been under - development would be an impossible task, - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro] includes a list of some of the - participants who were kind enough to comment on these documents. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 35] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -9. References - -9.1 Normative References - - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and S. - Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-10 (work in progress), May - 2004. - - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D. and S. - Rose, "Resource Records for DNS Security Extensions", - draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-records-08 (work in progress), - May 2004. - - [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", - STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. - - [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and - specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. - - [RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982, - August 1996. - - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - - [RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS - Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997. - - [RFC2671] Vixie, P., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)", RFC - 2671, August 1999. - - [RFC2672] Crawford, M., "Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection", RFC - 2672, August 1999. - - [RFC3225] Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC", RFC - 3225, December 2001. - - [RFC3226] Gudmundsson, O., "DNSSEC and IPv6 A6 aware server/resolver - message size requirements", RFC 3226, December 2001. - -9.2 Informative References - - [I-D.ietf-dnsext-nsec-rdata] - Schlyter, J., "DNSSEC NSEC RDATA Format", - draft-ietf-dnsext-nsec-rdata-06 (work in progress), May - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 36] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - 2004. - - [RFC2308] Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS - NCACHE)", RFC 2308, March 1998. - - [RFC2535] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", - RFC 2535, March 1999. - - [RFC2930] Eastlake, D., "Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY - RR)", RFC 2930, September 2000. - - [RFC2931] Eastlake, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( - SIG(0)s)", RFC 2931, September 2000. - - [RFC3655] Wellington, B. and O. Gudmundsson, "Redefinition of DNS - Authenticated Data (AD) bit", RFC 3655, November 2003. - - [RFC3658] Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record - (RR)", RFC 3658, December 2003. - - -Authors' Addresses - - Roy Arends - Telematica Instituut - Drienerlolaan 5 - 7522 NB Enschede - NL - - EMail: roy.arends@telin.nl - - - Matt Larson - VeriSign, Inc. - 21345 Ridgetop Circle - Dulles, VA 20166-6503 - USA - - EMail: mlarson@verisign.com - - - Rob Austein - Internet Systems Consortium - 950 Charter Street - Redwood City, CA 94063 - USA - - EMail: sra@isc.org - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 37] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - Dan Massey - USC Information Sciences Institute - 3811 N. Fairfax Drive - Arlington, VA 22203 - USA - - EMail: masseyd@isi.edu - - - Scott Rose - National Institute for Standards and Technology - 100 Bureau Drive - Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8920 - USA - - EMail: scott.rose@nist.gov - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 38] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -Appendix A. Signed Zone Example - - The following example shows a (small) complete signed zone. - - example. 3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.x.w.example. ( - 1081539377 - 3600 - 300 - 3600000 - 3600 - ) - 3600 RRSIG SOA 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - ONx0k36rcjaxYtcNgq6iQnpNV5+drqYAsC9h - 7TSJaHCqbhE67Sr6aH2xDUGcqQWu/n0UVzrF - vkgO9ebarZ0GWDKcuwlM6eNB5SiX2K74l5LW - DA7S/Un/IbtDq4Ay8NMNLQI7Dw7n4p8/rjkB - jV7j86HyQgM5e7+miRAz8V01b0I= ) - 3600 NS ns1.example. - 3600 NS ns2.example. - 3600 RRSIG NS 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - gl13F00f2U0R+SWiXXLHwsMY+qStYy5k6zfd - EuivWc+wd1fmbNCyql0Tk7lHTX6UOxc8AgNf - 4ISFve8XqF4q+o9qlnqIzmppU3LiNeKT4FZ8 - RO5urFOvoMRTbQxW3U0hXWuggE4g3ZpsHv48 - 0HjMeRaZB/FRPGfJPajngcq6Kwg= ) - 3600 MX 1 xx.example. - 3600 RRSIG MX 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - HyDHYVT5KHSZ7HtO/vypumPmSZQrcOP3tzWB - 2qaKkHVPfau/DgLgS/IKENkYOGL95G4N+NzE - VyNU8dcTOckT+ChPcGeVjguQ7a3Ao9Z/ZkUO - 6gmmUW4b89rz1PUxW4jzUxj66PTwoVtUU/iM - W6OISukd1EQt7a0kygkg+PEDxdI= ) - 3600 NSEC a.example. NS SOA MX RRSIG NSEC DNSKEY - 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - O0k558jHhyrC97ISHnislm4kLMW48C7U7cBm - FTfhke5iVqNRVTB1STLMpgpbDIC9hcryoO0V - Z9ME5xPzUEhbvGnHd5sfzgFVeGxr5Nyyq4tW - SDBgIBiLQUv1ivy29vhXy7WgR62dPrZ0PWvm - jfFJ5arXf4nPxp/kEowGgBRzY/U= ) - 3600 DNSKEY 256 3 5 ( - AQOy1bZVvpPqhg4j7EJoM9rI3ZmyEx2OzDBV - rZy/lvI5CQePxXHZS4i8dANH4DX3tbHol61e - k8EFMcsGXxKciJFHyhl94C+NwILQdzsUlSFo - vBZsyl/NX6yEbtw/xN9ZNcrbYvgjjZ/UVPZI - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 39] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - ySFNsgEYvh0z2542lzMKR4Dh8uZffQ== - ) - 3600 DNSKEY 257 3 5 ( - AQOeX7+baTmvpVHb2CcLnL1dMRWbuscRvHXl - LnXwDzvqp4tZVKp1sZMepFb8MvxhhW3y/0QZ - syCjczGJ1qk8vJe52iOhInKROVLRwxGpMfzP - RLMlGybr51bOV/1se0ODacj3DomyB4QB5gKT - Yot/K9alk5/j8vfd4jWCWD+E1Sze0Q== - ) - 3600 RRSIG DNSKEY 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 9465 example. - ZxgauAuIj+k1YoVEOSlZfx41fcmKzTFHoweZ - xYnz99JVQZJ33wFS0Q0jcP7VXKkaElXk9nYJ - XevO/7nAbo88iWsMkSpSR6jWzYYKwfrBI/L9 - hjYmyVO9m6FjQ7uwM4dCP/bIuV/DKqOAK9NY - NC3AHfvCV1Tp4VKDqxqG7R5tTVM= ) - 3600 RRSIG DNSKEY 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - eGL0s90glUqcOmloo/2y+bSzyEfKVOQViD9Z - DNhLz/Yn9CQZlDVRJffACQDAUhXpU/oP34ri - bKBpysRXosczFrKqS5Oa0bzMOfXCXup9qHAp - eFIku28Vqfr8Nt7cigZLxjK+u0Ws/4lIRjKk - 7z5OXogYVaFzHKillDt3HRxHIZM= ) - a.example. 3600 IN NS ns1.a.example. - 3600 IN NS ns2.a.example. - 3600 DS 57855 5 1 ( - B6DCD485719ADCA18E5F3D48A2331627FDD3 - 636B ) - 3600 RRSIG DS 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - oXIKit/QtdG64J/CB+Gi8dOvnwRvqrto1AdQ - oRkAN15FP3iZ7suB7gvTBmXzCjL7XUgQVcoH - kdhyCuzp8W9qJHgRUSwKKkczSyuL64nhgjuD - EML8l9wlWVsl7PR2VnZduM9bLyBhaaPmRKX/ - Fm+v6ccF2EGNLRiY08kdkz+XHHo= ) - 3600 NSEC ai.example. NS DS RRSIG NSEC - 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - cOlYgqJLqlRqmBQ3iap2SyIsK4O5aqpKSoba - U9fQ5SMApZmHfq3AgLflkrkXRXvgxTQSKkG2 - 039/cRUs6Jk/25+fi7Xr5nOVJsb0lq4zsB3I - BBdjyGDAHE0F5ROJj87996vJupdm1fbH481g - sdkOW6Zyqtz3Zos8N0BBkEx+2G4= ) - ns1.a.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.5 - ns2.a.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.6 - ai.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.9 - 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 40] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - pAOtzLP2MU0tDJUwHOKE5FPIIHmdYsCgTb5B - ERGgpnJluA9ixOyf6xxVCgrEJW0WNZSsJicd - hBHXfDmAGKUajUUlYSAH8tS4ZnrhyymIvk3u - ArDu2wfT130e9UHnumaHHMpUTosKe22PblOy - 6zrTpg9FkS0XGVmYRvOTNYx2HvQ= ) - 3600 HINFO "KLH-10" "ITS" - 3600 RRSIG HINFO 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - Iq/RGCbBdKzcYzlGE4ovbr5YcB+ezxbZ9W0l - e/7WqyvhOO9J16HxhhL7VY/IKmTUY0GGdcfh - ZEOCkf4lEykZF9NPok1/R/fWrtzNp8jobuY7 - AZEcZadp1WdDF3jc2/ndCa5XZhLKD3JzOsBw - FvL8sqlS5QS6FY/ijFEDnI4RkZA= ) - 3600 AAAA 2001:db8::f00:baa9 - 3600 RRSIG AAAA 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - nLcpFuXdT35AcE+EoafOUkl69KB+/e56XmFK - kewXG2IadYLKAOBIoR5+VoQV3XgTcofTJNsh - 1rnF6Eav2zpZB3byI6yo2bwY8MNkr4A7cL9T - cMmDwV/hWFKsbGBsj8xSCN/caEL2CWY/5XP2 - sZM6QjBBLmukH30+w1z3h8PUP2o= ) - 3600 NSEC b.example. A HINFO AAAA RRSIG NSEC - 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - QoshyPevLcJ/xcRpEtMft1uoIrcrieVcc9pG - CScIn5Glnib40T6ayVOimXwdSTZ/8ISXGj4p - P8Sh0PlA6olZQ84L453/BUqB8BpdOGky4hsN - 3AGcLEv1Gr0QMvirQaFcjzOECfnGyBm+wpFL - AhS+JOVfDI/79QtyTI0SaDWcg8U= ) - b.example. 3600 IN NS ns1.b.example. - 3600 IN NS ns2.b.example. - 3600 NSEC ns1.example. NS RRSIG NSEC - 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - GNuxHn844wfmUhPzGWKJCPY5ttEX/RfjDoOx - 9ueK1PtYkOWKOOdiJ/PJKCYB3hYX+858dDWS - xb2qnV/LSTCNVBnkm6owOpysY97MVj5VQEWs - 0lm9tFoqjcptQkmQKYPrwUnCSNwvvclSF1xZ - vhRXgWT7OuFXldoCG6TfVFMs9xE= ) - ns1.b.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.7 - ns2.b.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.8 - ns1.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1 - 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - F1C9HVhIcs10cZU09G5yIVfKJy5yRQQ3qVet - 5pGhp82pzhAOMZ3K22JnmK4c+IjUeFp/to06 - im5FVpHtbFisdjyPq84bhTv8vrXt5AB1wNB+ - +iAqvIfdgW4sFNC6oADb1hK8QNauw9VePJhK - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 41] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - v/iVXSYC0b7mPSU+EOlknFpVECs= ) - 3600 NSEC ns2.example. A RRSIG NSEC - 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - I4hj+Kt6+8rCcHcUdolks2S+Wzri9h3fHas8 - 1rGN/eILdJHN7JpV6lLGPIh/8fIBkfvdyWnB - jjf1q3O7JgYO1UdI7FvBNWqaaEPJK3UkddBq - ZIaLi8Qr2XHkjq38BeQsbp8X0+6h4ETWSGT8 - IZaIGBLryQWGLw6Y6X8dqhlnxJM= ) - ns2.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.2 - 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - V7cQRw1TR+knlaL1z/psxlS1PcD37JJDaCMq - Qo6/u1qFQu6x+wuDHRH22Ap9ulJPQjFwMKOu - yfPGQPC8KzGdE3vt5snFEAoE1Vn3mQqtu7SO - 6amIjk13Kj/jyJ4nGmdRIc/3cM3ipXFhNTKq - rdhx8SZ0yy4ObIRzIzvBFLiSS8o= ) - 3600 NSEC *.w.example. A RRSIG NSEC - 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - N0QzHvaJf5NRw1rE9uxS1Ltb2LZ73Qb9bKGE - VyaISkqzGpP3jYJXZJPVTq4UVEsgT3CgeHvb - 3QbeJ5Dfb2V9NGCHj/OvF/LBxFFWwhLwzngH - l+bQAgAcMsLu/nL3nDi1y/JSQjAcdZNDl4bw - Ymx28EtgIpo9A0qmP08rMBqs1Jw= ) - *.w.example. 3600 IN MX 1 ai.example. - 3600 RRSIG MX 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - OMK8rAZlepfzLWW75Dxd63jy2wswESzxDKG2 - f9AMN1CytCd10cYISAxfAdvXSZ7xujKAtPbc - tvOQ2ofO7AZJ+d01EeeQTVBPq4/6KCWhqe2X - TjnkVLNvvhnc0u28aoSsG0+4InvkkOHknKxw - 4kX18MMR34i8lC36SR5xBni8vHI= ) - 3600 NSEC x.w.example. MX RRSIG NSEC - 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - r/mZnRC3I/VIcrelgIcteSxDhtsdlTDt8ng9 - HSBlABOlzLxQtfgTnn8f+aOwJIAFe1Ee5RvU - 5cVhQJNP5XpXMJHfyps8tVvfxSAXfahpYqtx - 91gsmcV/1V9/bZAG55CefP9cM4Z9Y9NT9XQ8 - s1InQ2UoIv6tJEaaKkP701j8OLA= ) - x.w.example. 3600 IN MX 1 xx.example. - 3600 RRSIG MX 5 3 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - Il2WTZ+Bkv+OytBx4LItNW5mjB4RCwhOO8y1 - XzPHZmZUTVYL7LaA63f6T9ysVBzJRI3KRjAP - H3U1qaYnDoN1DrWqmi9RJe4FoObkbcdm7P3I - kx70ePCoFgRz1Yq+bVVXCvGuAU4xALv3W/Y1 - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 42] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - jNSlwZ2mSWKHfxFQxPtLj8s32+k= ) - 3600 NSEC x.y.w.example. MX RRSIG NSEC - 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 3 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - aRbpHftxggzgMXdDlym9SsADqMZovZZl2QWK - vw8J0tZEUNQByH5Qfnf5N1FqH/pS46UA7A4E - mcWBN9PUA1pdPY6RVeaRlZlCr1IkVctvbtaI - NJuBba/VHm+pebTbKcAPIvL9tBOoh+to1h6e - IjgiM8PXkBQtxPq37wDKALkyn7Q= ) - x.y.w.example. 3600 IN MX 1 xx.example. - 3600 RRSIG MX 5 4 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - k2bJHbwP5LH5qN4is39UiPzjAWYmJA38Hhia - t7i9t7nbX/e0FPnvDSQXzcK7UL+zrVA+3MDj - q1ub4q3SZgcbLMgexxIW3Va//LVrxkP6Xupq - GtOB9prkK54QTl/qZTXfMQpW480YOvVknhvb - +gLcMZBnHJ326nb/TOOmrqNmQQE= ) - 3600 NSEC xx.example. MX RRSIG NSEC - 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 4 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - OvE6WUzN2ziieJcvKPWbCAyXyP6ef8cr6Csp - ArVSTzKSquNwbezZmkU7E34o5lmb6CWSSSpg - xw098kNUFnHcQf/LzY2zqRomubrNQhJTiDTX - a0ArunJQCzPjOYq5t0SLjm6qp6McJI1AP5Vr - QoKqJDCLnoAlcPOPKAm/jJkn3jk= ) - xx.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.10 - 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - kBF4YxMGWF0D8r0cztL+2fWWOvN1U/GYSpYP - 7SoKoNQ4fZKyk+weWGlKLIUM+uE1zjVTPXoa - 0Z6WG0oZp46rkl1EzMcdMgoaeUzzAJ2BMq+Y - VdxG9IK1yZkYGY9AgbTOGPoAgbJyO9EPULsx - kbIDV6GPPSZVusnZU6OMgdgzHV4= ) - 3600 HINFO "KLH-10" "TOPS-20" - 3600 RRSIG HINFO 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - GY2PLSXmMHkWHfLdggiox8+chWpeMNJLkML0 - t+U/SXSUsoUdR91KNdNUkTDWamwcF8oFRjhq - BcPZ6EqrF+vl5v5oGuvSF7U52epfVTC+wWF8 - 3yCUeUw8YklhLWlvk8gQ15YKth0ITQy8/wI+ - RgNvuwbioFSEuv2pNlkq0goYxNY= ) - 3600 AAAA 2001:db8::f00:baaa - 3600 RRSIG AAAA 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - Zzj0yodDxcBLnnOIwDsuKo5WqiaK24DlKg9C - aGaxDFiKgKobUj2jilYQHpGFn2poFRetZd4z - ulyQkssz2QHrVrPuTMS22knudCiwP4LWpVTr - U4zfeA+rDz9stmSBP/4PekH/x2IoAYnwctd/ - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 43] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - xS9cL2QgW7FChw16mzlkH6/vsfs= ) - 3600 NSEC example. A HINFO AAAA RRSIG NSEC - 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - ZFWUln6Avc8bmGl5GFjD3BwT530DUZKHNuoY - 9A8lgXYyrxu+pqgFiRVbyZRQvVB5pccEOT3k - mvHgEa/HzbDB4PIYY79W+VHrgOxzdQGGCZzi - asXrpSGOWwSOElghPnMIi8xdF7qtCntr382W - GghLahumFIpg4MO3LS/prgzVVWo= ) - - The apex DNSKEY set includes two DNSKEY RRs, and the DNSKEY RDATA - Flags indicate that each of these DNSKEY RRs is a zone key. One of - these DNSKEY RRs also has the SEP flag set and has been used to sign - the apex DNSKEY RRset; this is the key which should be hashed to - generate a DS record to be inserted into the parent zone. The other - DNSKEY is used to sign all the other RRsets in the zone. - - The zone includes a wildcard entry "*.w.example". Note that the name - "*.w.example" is used in constructing NSEC chains, and that the RRSIG - covering the "*.w.example" MX RRset has a label count of 2. - - The zone also includes two delegations. The delegation to - "b.example" includes an NS RRset, glue address records, and an NSEC - RR; note that only the NSEC RRset is signed. The delegation to - "a.example" provides a DS RR; note that only the NSEC and DS RRsets - are signed. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 44] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -Appendix B. Example Responses - - The examples in this section show response messages using the signed - zone example in Appendix A. - -B.1 Answer - - A successful query to an authoritative server. - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - x.w.example. IN MX - - ;; Answer - x.w.example. 3600 IN MX 1 xx.example. - x.w.example. 3600 RRSIG MX 5 3 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - Il2WTZ+Bkv+OytBx4LItNW5mjB4RCwhOO8y1 - XzPHZmZUTVYL7LaA63f6T9ysVBzJRI3KRjAP - H3U1qaYnDoN1DrWqmi9RJe4FoObkbcdm7P3I - kx70ePCoFgRz1Yq+bVVXCvGuAU4xALv3W/Y1 - jNSlwZ2mSWKHfxFQxPtLj8s32+k= ) - - ;; Authority - example. 3600 NS ns1.example. - example. 3600 NS ns2.example. - example. 3600 RRSIG NS 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - gl13F00f2U0R+SWiXXLHwsMY+qStYy5k6zfd - EuivWc+wd1fmbNCyql0Tk7lHTX6UOxc8AgNf - 4ISFve8XqF4q+o9qlnqIzmppU3LiNeKT4FZ8 - RO5urFOvoMRTbQxW3U0hXWuggE4g3ZpsHv48 - 0HjMeRaZB/FRPGfJPajngcq6Kwg= ) - - ;; Additional - xx.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.10 - xx.example. 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - kBF4YxMGWF0D8r0cztL+2fWWOvN1U/GYSpYP - 7SoKoNQ4fZKyk+weWGlKLIUM+uE1zjVTPXoa - 0Z6WG0oZp46rkl1EzMcdMgoaeUzzAJ2BMq+Y - VdxG9IK1yZkYGY9AgbTOGPoAgbJyO9EPULsx - kbIDV6GPPSZVusnZU6OMgdgzHV4= ) - xx.example. 3600 AAAA 2001:db8::f00:baaa - xx.example. 3600 RRSIG AAAA 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - Zzj0yodDxcBLnnOIwDsuKo5WqiaK24DlKg9C - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 45] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - aGaxDFiKgKobUj2jilYQHpGFn2poFRetZd4z - ulyQkssz2QHrVrPuTMS22knudCiwP4LWpVTr - U4zfeA+rDz9stmSBP/4PekH/x2IoAYnwctd/ - xS9cL2QgW7FChw16mzlkH6/vsfs= ) - ns1.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1 - ns1.example. 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - F1C9HVhIcs10cZU09G5yIVfKJy5yRQQ3qVet - 5pGhp82pzhAOMZ3K22JnmK4c+IjUeFp/to06 - im5FVpHtbFisdjyPq84bhTv8vrXt5AB1wNB+ - +iAqvIfdgW4sFNC6oADb1hK8QNauw9VePJhK - v/iVXSYC0b7mPSU+EOlknFpVECs= ) - ns2.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.2 - ns2.example. 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - V7cQRw1TR+knlaL1z/psxlS1PcD37JJDaCMq - Qo6/u1qFQu6x+wuDHRH22Ap9ulJPQjFwMKOu - yfPGQPC8KzGdE3vt5snFEAoE1Vn3mQqtu7SO - 6amIjk13Kj/jyJ4nGmdRIc/3cM3ipXFhNTKq - rdhx8SZ0yy4ObIRzIzvBFLiSS8o= ) - - -B.2 Name Error - - An authoritative name error. The NSEC RRs prove that the name does - not exist and that no covering wildcard exists. - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=3 - ;; - ;; Question - ml.example. IN A - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - example. 3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.x.w.example. ( - 1081539377 - 3600 - 300 - 3600000 - 3600 - ) - example. 3600 RRSIG SOA 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - ONx0k36rcjaxYtcNgq6iQnpNV5+drqYAsC9h - 7TSJaHCqbhE67Sr6aH2xDUGcqQWu/n0UVzrF - vkgO9ebarZ0GWDKcuwlM6eNB5SiX2K74l5LW - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 46] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - DA7S/Un/IbtDq4Ay8NMNLQI7Dw7n4p8/rjkB - jV7j86HyQgM5e7+miRAz8V01b0I= ) - b.example. 3600 NSEC ns1.example. NS RRSIG NSEC - b.example. 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - GNuxHn844wfmUhPzGWKJCPY5ttEX/RfjDoOx - 9ueK1PtYkOWKOOdiJ/PJKCYB3hYX+858dDWS - xb2qnV/LSTCNVBnkm6owOpysY97MVj5VQEWs - 0lm9tFoqjcptQkmQKYPrwUnCSNwvvclSF1xZ - vhRXgWT7OuFXldoCG6TfVFMs9xE= ) - example. 3600 NSEC a.example. NS SOA MX RRSIG NSEC DNSKEY - example. 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - O0k558jHhyrC97ISHnislm4kLMW48C7U7cBm - FTfhke5iVqNRVTB1STLMpgpbDIC9hcryoO0V - Z9ME5xPzUEhbvGnHd5sfzgFVeGxr5Nyyq4tW - SDBgIBiLQUv1ivy29vhXy7WgR62dPrZ0PWvm - jfFJ5arXf4nPxp/kEowGgBRzY/U= ) - - ;; Additional - ;; (empty) - - -B.3 No Data Error - - A "no data" response. The NSEC RR proves that the name exists and - that the requested RR type does not. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 47] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - ns1.example. IN MX - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - example. 3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.x.w.example. ( - 1081539377 - 3600 - 300 - 3600000 - 3600 - ) - example. 3600 RRSIG SOA 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - ONx0k36rcjaxYtcNgq6iQnpNV5+drqYAsC9h - 7TSJaHCqbhE67Sr6aH2xDUGcqQWu/n0UVzrF - vkgO9ebarZ0GWDKcuwlM6eNB5SiX2K74l5LW - DA7S/Un/IbtDq4Ay8NMNLQI7Dw7n4p8/rjkB - jV7j86HyQgM5e7+miRAz8V01b0I= ) - ns1.example. 3600 NSEC ns2.example. A RRSIG NSEC - ns1.example. 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - I4hj+Kt6+8rCcHcUdolks2S+Wzri9h3fHas8 - 1rGN/eILdJHN7JpV6lLGPIh/8fIBkfvdyWnB - jjf1q3O7JgYO1UdI7FvBNWqaaEPJK3UkddBq - ZIaLi8Qr2XHkjq38BeQsbp8X0+6h4ETWSGT8 - IZaIGBLryQWGLw6Y6X8dqhlnxJM= ) - - ;; Additional - ;; (empty) - - -B.4 Referral to Signed Zone - - Referral to a signed zone. The DS RR contains the data which the - resolver will need to validate the corresponding DNSKEY RR in the - child zone's apex. - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 48] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - ;; Header: QR DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - mc.a.example. IN MX - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - a.example. 3600 IN NS ns1.a.example. - a.example. 3600 IN NS ns2.a.example. - a.example. 3600 DS 57855 5 1 ( - B6DCD485719ADCA18E5F3D48A2331627FDD3 - 636B ) - a.example. 3600 RRSIG DS 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - oXIKit/QtdG64J/CB+Gi8dOvnwRvqrto1AdQ - oRkAN15FP3iZ7suB7gvTBmXzCjL7XUgQVcoH - kdhyCuzp8W9qJHgRUSwKKkczSyuL64nhgjuD - EML8l9wlWVsl7PR2VnZduM9bLyBhaaPmRKX/ - Fm+v6ccF2EGNLRiY08kdkz+XHHo= ) - - ;; Additional - ns1.a.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.5 - ns2.a.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.6 - - -B.5 Referral to Unsigned Zone - - Referral to an unsigned zone. The NSEC RR proves that no DS RR for - this delegation exists in the parent zone. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 49] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - ;; Header: QR DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - mc.b.example. IN MX - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - b.example. 3600 IN NS ns1.b.example. - b.example. 3600 IN NS ns2.b.example. - b.example. 3600 NSEC ns1.example. NS RRSIG NSEC - b.example. 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - GNuxHn844wfmUhPzGWKJCPY5ttEX/RfjDoOx - 9ueK1PtYkOWKOOdiJ/PJKCYB3hYX+858dDWS - xb2qnV/LSTCNVBnkm6owOpysY97MVj5VQEWs - 0lm9tFoqjcptQkmQKYPrwUnCSNwvvclSF1xZ - vhRXgWT7OuFXldoCG6TfVFMs9xE= ) - - ;; Additional - ns1.b.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.7 - ns2.b.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.8 - - -B.6 Wildcard Expansion - - A successful query which was answered via wildcard expansion. The - label count in the answer's RRSIG RR indicates that a wildcard RRset - was expanded to produce this response, and the NSEC RR proves that no - closer match exists in the zone. - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - a.z.w.example. IN MX - - ;; Answer - a.z.w.example. 3600 IN MX 1 ai.example. - a.z.w.example. 3600 RRSIG MX 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - OMK8rAZlepfzLWW75Dxd63jy2wswESzxDKG2 - f9AMN1CytCd10cYISAxfAdvXSZ7xujKAtPbc - tvOQ2ofO7AZJ+d01EeeQTVBPq4/6KCWhqe2X - TjnkVLNvvhnc0u28aoSsG0+4InvkkOHknKxw - 4kX18MMR34i8lC36SR5xBni8vHI= ) - - ;; Authority - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 50] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - example. 3600 NS ns1.example. - example. 3600 NS ns2.example. - example. 3600 RRSIG NS 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - gl13F00f2U0R+SWiXXLHwsMY+qStYy5k6zfd - EuivWc+wd1fmbNCyql0Tk7lHTX6UOxc8AgNf - 4ISFve8XqF4q+o9qlnqIzmppU3LiNeKT4FZ8 - RO5urFOvoMRTbQxW3U0hXWuggE4g3ZpsHv48 - 0HjMeRaZB/FRPGfJPajngcq6Kwg= ) - x.y.w.example. 3600 NSEC xx.example. MX RRSIG NSEC - x.y.w.example. 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 4 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - OvE6WUzN2ziieJcvKPWbCAyXyP6ef8cr6Csp - ArVSTzKSquNwbezZmkU7E34o5lmb6CWSSSpg - xw098kNUFnHcQf/LzY2zqRomubrNQhJTiDTX - a0ArunJQCzPjOYq5t0SLjm6qp6McJI1AP5Vr - QoKqJDCLnoAlcPOPKAm/jJkn3jk= ) - - ;; Additional - ai.example. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.9 - ai.example. 3600 RRSIG A 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - pAOtzLP2MU0tDJUwHOKE5FPIIHmdYsCgTb5B - ERGgpnJluA9ixOyf6xxVCgrEJW0WNZSsJicd - hBHXfDmAGKUajUUlYSAH8tS4ZnrhyymIvk3u - ArDu2wfT130e9UHnumaHHMpUTosKe22PblOy - 6zrTpg9FkS0XGVmYRvOTNYx2HvQ= ) - ai.example. 3600 AAAA 2001:db8::f00:baa9 - ai.example. 3600 RRSIG AAAA 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - nLcpFuXdT35AcE+EoafOUkl69KB+/e56XmFK - kewXG2IadYLKAOBIoR5+VoQV3XgTcofTJNsh - 1rnF6Eav2zpZB3byI6yo2bwY8MNkr4A7cL9T - cMmDwV/hWFKsbGBsj8xSCN/caEL2CWY/5XP2 - sZM6QjBBLmukH30+w1z3h8PUP2o= ) - - -B.7 Wildcard No Data Error - - A "no data" response for a name covered by a wildcard. The NSEC RRs - prove that the matching wildcard name does not have any RRs of the - requested type and that no closer match exists in the zone. - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - a.z.w.example. IN AAAA - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 51] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - example. 3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.x.w.example. ( - 1081539377 - 3600 - 300 - 3600000 - 3600 - ) - example. 3600 RRSIG SOA 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - ONx0k36rcjaxYtcNgq6iQnpNV5+drqYAsC9h - 7TSJaHCqbhE67Sr6aH2xDUGcqQWu/n0UVzrF - vkgO9ebarZ0GWDKcuwlM6eNB5SiX2K74l5LW - DA7S/Un/IbtDq4Ay8NMNLQI7Dw7n4p8/rjkB - jV7j86HyQgM5e7+miRAz8V01b0I= ) - x.y.w.example. 3600 NSEC xx.example. MX RRSIG NSEC - x.y.w.example. 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 4 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - OvE6WUzN2ziieJcvKPWbCAyXyP6ef8cr6Csp - ArVSTzKSquNwbezZmkU7E34o5lmb6CWSSSpg - xw098kNUFnHcQf/LzY2zqRomubrNQhJTiDTX - a0ArunJQCzPjOYq5t0SLjm6qp6McJI1AP5Vr - QoKqJDCLnoAlcPOPKAm/jJkn3jk= ) - *.w.example. 3600 NSEC x.w.example. MX RRSIG NSEC - *.w.example. 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 2 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - r/mZnRC3I/VIcrelgIcteSxDhtsdlTDt8ng9 - HSBlABOlzLxQtfgTnn8f+aOwJIAFe1Ee5RvU - 5cVhQJNP5XpXMJHfyps8tVvfxSAXfahpYqtx - 91gsmcV/1V9/bZAG55CefP9cM4Z9Y9NT9XQ8 - s1InQ2UoIv6tJEaaKkP701j8OLA= ) - - ;; Additional - ;; (empty) - - -B.8 DS Child Zone No Data Error - - A "no data" response for a QTYPE=DS query which was mistakenly sent - to a name server for the child zone. - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 52] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - ;; Header: QR AA DO RCODE=0 - ;; - ;; Question - example. IN DS - - ;; Answer - ;; (empty) - - ;; Authority - example. 3600 IN SOA ns1.example. bugs.x.w.example. ( - 1081539377 - 3600 - 300 - 3600000 - 3600 - ) - example. 3600 RRSIG SOA 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - ONx0k36rcjaxYtcNgq6iQnpNV5+drqYAsC9h - 7TSJaHCqbhE67Sr6aH2xDUGcqQWu/n0UVzrF - vkgO9ebarZ0GWDKcuwlM6eNB5SiX2K74l5LW - DA7S/Un/IbtDq4Ay8NMNLQI7Dw7n4p8/rjkB - jV7j86HyQgM5e7+miRAz8V01b0I= ) - example. 3600 NSEC a.example. NS SOA MX RRSIG NSEC DNSKEY - example. 3600 RRSIG NSEC 5 1 3600 20040509183619 ( - 20040409183619 38519 example. - O0k558jHhyrC97ISHnislm4kLMW48C7U7cBm - FTfhke5iVqNRVTB1STLMpgpbDIC9hcryoO0V - Z9ME5xPzUEhbvGnHd5sfzgFVeGxr5Nyyq4tW - SDBgIBiLQUv1ivy29vhXy7WgR62dPrZ0PWvm - jfFJ5arXf4nPxp/kEowGgBRzY/U= ) - - ;; Additional - ;; (empty) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 53] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -Appendix C. Authentication Examples - - The examples in this section show how the response messages in - Appendix B are authenticated. - -C.1 Authenticating An Answer - - The query in section Appendix B.1 returned an MX RRset for - "x.w.example.com". The corresponding RRSIG indicates the MX RRset - was signed by an "example" DNSKEY with algorithm 5 and key tag 38519. - The resolver needs the corresponding DNSKEY RR in order to - authenticate this answer. The discussion below describes how a - resolver might obtain this DNSKEY RR. - - The RRSIG indicates the original TTL of the MX RRset was 3600 and, - for the purpose of authentication, the current TTL is replaced by - 3600. The RRSIG labels field value of 3 indicates the answer was not - the result of wildcard expansion. The "x.w.example.com" MX RRset is - placed in canonical form and, assuming the current time falls between - the signature inception and expiration dates, the signature is - authenticated. - -C.1.1 Authenticating the example DNSKEY RR - - This example shows the logical authentication process that starts - from the a configured root DNSKEY (or DS RR) and moves down the tree - to authenticate the desired "example" DNSKEY RR. Note the logical - order is presented for clarity and an implementation may choose to - construct the authentication as referrals are received or may choose - to construct the authentication chain only after all RRsets have been - obtained, or in any other combination it sees fit. The example here - demonstrates only the logical process and does not dictate any - implementation rules. - - We assume the resolver starts with an configured DNSKEY RR for the - root zone (or a configured DS RR for the root zone). The resolver - checks this configured DNSKEY RR is present in the root DNSKEY RRset - (or the DS RR matches some DNSKEY in the root DNSKEY RRset), this - DNSKEY RR has signed the root DNSKEY RRset and the signature lifetime - is valid. If all these conditions are met, all keys in the DNSKEY - RRset are considered authenticated. The resolver then uses one (or - more) of the root DNSKEY RRs to authenticate the "example" DS RRset. - Note the resolver may need to query the root zone to obtain the root - DNSKEY RRset or "example" DS RRset. - - Once the DS RRset has been authenticated using the root DNSKEY, the - resolver checks the "example" DNSKEY RRset for some "example" DNSKEY - RR that matches one of the authenticated "example" DS RRs. If such a - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 54] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - matching "example" DNSKEY is found, the resolver checks this DNSKEY - RR has signed the "example" DNSKEY RRset and the signature lifetime - is valid. If all these conditions are met, all keys in the "example" - DNSKEY RRset are considered authenticated. - - Finally the resolver checks that some DNSKEY RR in the "example" - DNSKEY RRset uses algorithm 5 and has a key tag of 38519. This - DNSKEY is used to authenticated the RRSIG included in the response. - If multiple "example" DNSKEY RRs match this algorithm and key tag, - then each DNSKEY RR is tried and the answer is authenticated if any - of the matching DNSKEY RRs validates the signature as described - above. - -C.2 Name Error - - The query in section Appendix B.2 returned NSEC RRs that prove the - requested data does not exist and no wildcard applies. The negative - reply is authenticated by verifying both NSEC RRs. The NSEC RRs are - authenticated in a manner identical to that of the MX RRset discussed - above. - -C.3 No Data Error - - The query in section Appendix B.3 returned an NSEC RR that proves the - requested name exists, but the requested RR type does not exist. The - negative reply is authenticated by verifying the NSEC RR. The NSEC - RR is authenticated in a manner identical to that of the MX RRset - discussed above. - -C.4 Referral to Signed Zone - - The query in section Appendix B.4 returned a referral to the signed - "a.example." zone. The DS RR is authenticated in a manner identical - to that of the MX RRset discussed above. This DS RR is used to - authenticate the "a.example" DNSKEY RRset. - - Once the "a.example" DS RRset has been authenticated using the - "example" DNSKEY, the resolver checks the "a.example" DNSKEY RRset - for some "a.example" DNSKEY RR that matches the DS RR. If such a - matching "a.example" DNSKEY is found, the resolver checks this DNSKEY - RR has signed the "a.example" DNSKEY RRset and the signature lifetime - is valid. If all these conditions are met, all keys in the - "a.example" DNSKEY RRset are considered authenticated. - -C.5 Referral to Unsigned Zone - - The query in section Appendix B.5 returned a referral to an unsigned - "b.example." zone. The NSEC proves that no authentication leads from - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 55] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - - "example" to "b.example" and the NSEC RR is authenticated in a manner - identical to that of the MX RRset discussed above. - -C.6 Wildcard Expansion - - The query in section Appendix B.6 returned an answer that was - produced as a result of wildcard expansion. The RRset expanded as - the similar to The corresponding RRSIG indicates the MX RRset was - signed by an "example" DNSKEY with algorithm 5 and key tag 38519. - The RRSIG indicates the original TTL of the MX RRset was 3600 and, - for the purpose of authentication, the current TTL is replaced by - 3600. The RRSIG labels field value of 2 indicates the answer the - result of wildcard expansion since the "a.z.w.example" name contains - 4 labels. The name "a.z.w.w.example" is replaced by "*.w.example", - the MX RRset is placed in canonical form and, assuming the current - time falls between the signature inception and expiration dates, the - signature is authenticated. - - The NSEC proves that no closer match (exact or closer wildcard) could - have been used to answer this query and the NSEC RR must also be - authenticated before the answer is considered valid. - -C.7 Wildcard No Data Error - - The query in section Appendix B.7 returned NSEC RRs that prove the - requested data does not exist and no wildcard applies. The negative - reply is authenticated by verifying both NSEC RRs. - -C.8 DS Child Zone No Data Error - - The query in section Appendix B.8 returned NSEC RRs that shows the - requested was answered by a child server ("example" server). The - NSEC RR indicates the presence of an SOA RR, showing the answer is - from the child . Queries for the "example" DS RRset should be sent - to the parent servers ("root" servers). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 56] - -Internet-Draft DNSSEC Protocol Modifications July 2004 - - -Intellectual Property Statement - - The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any - Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to - pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in - this document or the extent to which any license under such rights - might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has - made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information - on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be - found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. - - Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any - assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an - attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of - such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this - specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at - http://www.ietf.org/ipr. - - The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any - copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary - rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at - ietf-ipr@ietf.org. - - -Disclaimer of Validity - - This document and the information contained herein are provided on an - "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS - OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET - ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, - INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE - INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED - WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. - - -Copyright Statement - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. - - -Acknowledgment - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. - - - - -Arends, et al. Expires January 13, 2005 [Page 57] - - |