7 Network Working Group O. Kolkman
8 Request for Comments: 3757 RIPE NCC
9 Updates: 3755, 2535 J. Schlyter
10 Category: Standards Track NIC-SE
16 Domain Name System KEY (DNSKEY) Resource Record (RR)
17 Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag
21 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
22 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
23 improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
24 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
25 and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
29 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
33 With the Delegation Signer (DS) resource record (RR), the concept of
34 a public key acting as a secure entry point (SEP) has been
35 introduced. During exchanges of public keys with the parent there is
36 a need to differentiate SEP keys from other public keys in the Domain
37 Name System KEY (DNSKEY) resource record set. A flag bit in the
38 DNSKEY RR is defined to indicate that DNSKEY is to be used as a SEP.
39 The flag bit is intended to assist in operational procedures to
40 correctly generate DS resource records, or to indicate what DNSKEYs
41 are intended for static configuration. The flag bit is not to be
42 used in the DNS verification protocol. This document updates RFC
58 Kolkman, et al. Standard Track [Page 1]
60 RFC 3757 DNSKEY RR SEP Flag April 2004
65 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
66 2. The Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
67 3. DNSSEC Protocol Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
68 4. Operational Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
69 5. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
70 6. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
71 7. Internationalization Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
72 8. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
73 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
74 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
75 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
76 10. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
77 11. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
81 "All keys are equal but some keys are more equal than others" [6].
83 With the definition of the Delegation Signer Resource Record (DS RR)
84 [5], it has become important to differentiate between the keys in the
85 DNSKEY RR set that are (to be) pointed to by parental DS RRs and the
86 other keys in the DNSKEY RR set. We refer to these public keys as
87 Secure Entry Point (SEP) keys. A SEP key either used to generate a
88 DS RR or is distributed to resolvers that use the key as the root of
89 a trusted subtree [3].
91 In early deployment tests, the use of two (kinds of) key pairs for
92 each zone has been prevalent. For one kind of key pair the private
93 key is used to sign just the zone's DNSKEY resource record (RR) set.
94 Its public key is intended to be referenced by a DS RR at the parent
95 or configured statically in a resolver. The private key of the other
96 kind of key pair is used to sign the rest of the zone's data sets.
97 The former key pair is called a key-signing key (KSK) and the latter
98 is called a zone-signing key (ZSK). In practice there have been
99 usually one of each kind of key pair, but there will be multiples of
102 It should be noted that division of keys pairs into KSK's and ZSK's
103 is not mandatory in any definition of DNSSEC, not even with the
104 introduction of the DS RR. But, in testing, this distinction has
105 been helpful when designing key roll over (key super-cession)
106 schemes. Given that the distinction has proven helpful, the labels
107 KSK and ZSK have begun to stick.
114 Kolkman, et al. Standard Track [Page 2]
116 RFC 3757 DNSKEY RR SEP Flag April 2004
119 There is a need to differentiate the public keys for the key pairs
120 that are used for key signing from keys that are not used key signing
121 (KSKs vs ZSKs). This need is driven by knowing which DNSKEYs are to
122 be sent for generating DS RRs, which DNSKEYs are to be distributed to
123 resolvers, and which keys are fed to the signer application at the
126 In other words, the SEP bit provides an in-band method to communicate
127 a DNSKEY RR's intended use to third parties. As an example we
128 present 3 use cases in which the bit is useful:
130 The parent is a registry, the parent and the child use secured DNS
131 queries and responses, with a preexisting trust-relation, or plain
132 DNS over a secured channel to exchange the child's DNSKEY RR sets.
133 Since a DNSKEY RR set will contain a complete DNSKEY RRset the SEP
134 bit can be used to isolate the DNSKEYs for which a DS RR needs to
137 An administrator has configured a DNSKEY as root for a trusted
138 subtree into security aware resolver. Using a special purpose
139 tool that queries for the KEY RRs from that domain's apex, the
140 administrator will be able to notice the roll over of the trusted
141 anchor by a change of the subset of KEY RRs with the DS flag set.
143 A signer might use the SEP bit on the public key to determine
144 which private key to use to exclusively sign the DNSKEY RRset and
145 which private key to use to sign the other RRsets in the zone.
147 As demonstrated in the above examples it is important to be able to
148 differentiate the SEP keys from the other keys in a DNSKEY RR set in
149 the flow between signer and (parental) key-collector and in the flow
150 between the signer and the resolver configuration. The SEP flag is
151 to be of no interest to the flow between the verifier and the
152 authoritative data store.
154 The reason for the term "SEP" is a result of the observation that the
155 distinction between KSK and ZSK key pairs is made by the signer, a
156 key pair could be used as both a KSK and a ZSK at the same time. To
157 be clear, the term SEP was coined to lessen the confusion caused by
158 the overlap. (Once this label was applied, it had the side effect of
159 removing the temptation to have both a KSK flag bit and a ZSK flag
162 The key words "MAY","MAY NOT", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
163 "RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT" in this document are to be
164 interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1].
170 Kolkman, et al. Standard Track [Page 3]
172 RFC 3757 DNSKEY RR SEP Flag April 2004
175 2. The Secure Entry Point (SEP) Flag
177 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
178 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
179 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
180 | flags |S| protocol | algorithm |
183 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
187 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
190 This document assigns the 15th bit in the flags field as the secure
191 entry point (SEP) bit. If the bit is set to 1 the key is intended to
192 be used as secure entry point key. One SHOULD NOT assign special
193 meaning to the key if the bit is set to 0. Operators can recognize
194 the secure entry point key by the even or odd-ness of the decimal
195 representation of the flag field.
197 3. DNSSEC Protocol Changes
199 The bit MUST NOT be used during the resolving and verification
200 process. The SEP flag is only used to provide a hint about the
201 different administrative properties of the key and therefore the use
202 of the SEP flag does not change the DNS resolution protocol or the
205 4. Operational Guidelines
207 The SEP bit is set by the key-pair-generator and MAY be used by the
208 zone signer to decide whether the public part of the key pair is to
209 be prepared for input to a DS RR generation function. The SEP bit is
210 recommended to be set (to 1) whenever the public key of the key pair
211 will be distributed to the parent zone to build the authentication
212 chain or if the public key is to be distributed for static
213 configuration in verifiers.
215 When a key pair is created, the operator needs to indicate whether
216 the SEP bit is to be set in the DNSKEY RR. As the SEP bit is within
217 the data that is used to compute the 'key tag field' in the SIG RR,
218 changing the SEP bit will change the identity of the key within DNS.
219 In other words, once a key is used to generate signatures, the
220 setting of the SEP bit is to remain constant. If not, a verifier
221 will not be able to find the relevant KEY RR.
226 Kolkman, et al. Standard Track [Page 4]
228 RFC 3757 DNSKEY RR SEP Flag April 2004
231 When signing a zone, it is intended that the key(s) with the SEP bit
232 set (if such keys exist) are used to sign the KEY RR set of the zone.
233 The same key can be used to sign the rest of the zone data too. It
234 is conceivable that not all keys with a SEP bit set will sign the
235 DNSKEY RR set, such keys might be pending retirement or not yet in
238 When verifying a RR set, the SEP bit is not intended to play a role.
239 How the key is used by the verifier is not intended to be a
240 consideration at key creation time.
242 Although the SEP flag provides a hint on which public key is to be
243 used as trusted root, administrators can choose to ignore the fact
244 that a DNSKEY has its SEP bit set or not when configuring a trusted
245 root for their resolvers.
247 Using the SEP flag a key roll over can be automated. The parent can
248 use an existing trust relation to verify DNSKEY RR sets in which a
249 new DNSKEY RR with the SEP flag appears.
251 5. Security Considerations
253 As stated in Section 3 the flag is not to be used in the resolution
254 protocol or to determine the security status of a key. The flag is
255 to be used for administrative purposes only.
257 No trust in a key should be inferred from this flag - trust MUST be
258 inferred from an existing chain of trust or an out-of-band exchange.
260 Since this flag might be used for automating public key exchanges, we
261 think the following consideration is in place.
263 Automated mechanisms for roll over of the DS RR might be vulnerable
264 to a class of replay attacks. This might happen after a public key
265 exchange where a DNSKEY RR set, containing two DNSKEY RRs with the
266 SEP flag set, is sent to the parent. The parent verifies the DNSKEY
267 RR set with the existing trust relation and creates the new DS RR
268 from the DNSKEY RR that the current DS RR is not pointing to. This
269 key exchange might be replayed. Parents are encouraged to implement
270 a replay defense. A simple defense can be based on a registry of
271 keys that have been used to generate DS RRs during the most recent
272 roll over. These same considerations apply to entities that
273 configure keys in resolvers.
282 Kolkman, et al. Standard Track [Page 5]
284 RFC 3757 DNSKEY RR SEP Flag April 2004
287 6. IANA Considerations
289 IANA has assigned the 15th bit in the DNSKEY Flags Registry (see
290 Section 4.3 of [4]) as the Secure Entry Point (SEP) bit.
292 7. Internationalization Considerations
294 Although SEP is a popular acronym in many different languages, there
295 are no internationalization considerations.
299 The ideas documented in this document are inspired by communications
300 we had with numerous people and ideas published by other folk. Among
301 others Mark Andrews, Rob Austein, Miek Gieben, Olafur Gudmundsson,
302 Daniel Karrenberg, Dan Massey, Scott Rose, Marcos Sanz and Sam Weiler
303 have contributed ideas and provided feedback.
305 This document saw the light during a workshop on DNSSEC operations
306 hosted by USC/ISI in August 2002.
310 9.1. Normative References
312 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
313 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
315 [2] Eastlake, D., "Domain Name System Security Extensions", RFC
318 [3] Lewis, E., "DNS Security Extension Clarification on Zone
319 Status", RFC 3090, March 2001.
321 [4] Weiler, S., "Legacy Resolver Compatibility for Delegation Signer
322 (DS)", RFC 3755, April 2004.
324 9.2. Informative References
326 [5] Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR)",
327 RFC 3658, December 2003.
329 [6] Orwell, G. and R. Steadman (illustrator), "Animal Farm; a Fairy
330 Story", ISBN 0151002177 (50th anniversary edition), April 1996.
338 Kolkman, et al. Standard Track [Page 6]
340 RFC 3757 DNSKEY RR SEP Flag April 2004
343 10. Authors' Addresses
351 Phone: +31 20 535 4444
353 URI: http://www.ripe.net/
363 URI: http://www.nic.se/
368 3635 Concorde Parkway Suite 200
372 Phone: +1 703 227 9854
373 EMail: edlewis@arin.net
374 URI: http://www.arin.net/
394 Kolkman, et al. Standard Track [Page 7]
396 RFC 3757 DNSKEY RR SEP Flag April 2004
399 11. Full Copyright Statement
401 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
402 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
403 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
405 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
406 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
407 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
408 INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
409 IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
410 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
411 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
413 Intellectual Property
415 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
416 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
417 to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
418 described in this document or the extent to which any license
419 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
420 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
421 such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to
422 rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
424 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
425 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
426 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
427 of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
428 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
429 at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
431 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
432 any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
433 proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
434 to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
435 IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
439 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
450 Kolkman, et al. Standard Track [Page 8]