No empty .Rs/.Re

[netbsd-mini2440.git] / external / bsd / bind / dist / doc / rfc / rfc4956.txt

Network Working Group                                          R. Arends
Request for Comments: 4956                                       Nominet
Category: Experimental                                        M. Kosters
                                                               D. Blacka
                                                          VeriSign, Inc.
                                                               July 2007


                      DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In

Status of This Memo

   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   In the DNS security (DNSSEC) extensions, delegations to unsigned
   subzones are cryptographically secured.  Maintaining this
   cryptography is not always practical or necessary.  This document
   describes an experimental "Opt-In" model that allows administrators
   to omit this cryptography and manage the cost of adopting DNSSEC with
   large zones.






















Arends, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 1]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


Table of Contents

   1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Definitions and Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Experimental Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Protocol Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Server Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       4.1.1.  Delegations Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       4.1.2.  Insecure Delegation Responses  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       4.1.3.  Dynamic Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Client Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.1.  Delegations Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.2.  Validation Process Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.3.  NSEC Record Caching  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.4.  Use of the AD bit  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Transition Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix A.  Implementing Opt-In Using "Views" . . . . . . . . . . 15



























Arends, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 2]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


1.  Overview

   The cost to cryptographically secure delegations to unsigned zones is
   high for large delegation-centric zones and zones where insecure
   delegations will be updated rapidly.  For these zones, the costs of
   maintaining the NextSECure (NSEC) record chain may be extremely high
   relative to the gain of cryptographically authenticating existence of
   unsecured zones.

   This document describes an experimental method of eliminating the
   superfluous cryptography present in secure delegations to unsigned
   zones.  Using "Opt-In", a zone administrator can choose to remove
   insecure delegations from the NSEC chain.  This is accomplished by
   extending the semantics of the NSEC record by using a redundant bit
   in the type map.

2.  Definitions and Terminology

   Throughout this document, familiarity with the DNS system (RFC 1035
   [1]), DNS security extensions ([4], [5], and [6], referred to in this
   document as "standard DNSSEC"), and DNSSEC terminology (RFC 3090
   [10]) is assumed.

   The following abbreviations and terms are used in this document:

   RR:  is used to refer to a DNS resource record.

   RRset:  refers to a Resource Record Set, as defined by [8].  In this
      document, the RRset is also defined to include the covering RRSIG
      records, if any exist.

   signed name:  refers to a DNS name that has, at minimum, a (signed)
      NSEC record.

   unsigned name:  refers to a DNS name that does not (at least) have an
      NSEC record.

   covering NSEC record/RRset:  is the NSEC record used to prove
      (non)existence of a particular name or RRset.  This means that for
      a RRset or name 'N', the covering NSEC record has the name 'N', or
      has an owner name less than 'N' and "next" name greater than 'N'.

   delegation:  refers to an NS RRset with a name different from the
      current zone apex (non-zone-apex), signifying a delegation to a
      subzone.






Arends, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 3]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


   secure delegation:  refers to a signed name containing a delegation
      (NS RRset), and a signed DS RRset, signifying a delegation to a
      signed subzone.

   insecure delegation:  refers to a signed name containing a delegation
      (NS RRset), but lacking a DS RRset, signifying a delegation to an
      unsigned subzone.

   Opt-In insecure delegation:  refers to an unsigned name containing
      only a delegation NS RRset.  The covering NSEC record uses the
      Opt-In methodology described in this document.

   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 [2].

3.  Experimental Status

   This document describes an EXPERIMENTAL extension to DNSSEC.  It
   interoperates with non-experimental DNSSEC using the technique
   described in [7].  This experiment is identified with the following
   private algorithms (using algorithm 253):

   "3.optin.verisignlabs.com":  is an alias for DNSSEC algorithm 3, DSA,
      and

   "5.optin.verisignlabs.com":  is an alias for DNSSEC algorithm 5,
      RSASHA1.

   Servers wishing to sign and serve zones that utilize Opt-In MUST sign
   the zone with only one or more of these private algorithms and MUST
   NOT use any other algorithms.

   Resolvers MUST NOT apply the Opt-In validation rules described in
   this document unless a zone is signed using one or more of these
   private algorithms.

   This experimental protocol relaxes the restriction that validators
   MUST ignore the setting of the NSEC bit in the type map as specified
   in RFC 4035 [6] Section 5.4.

   The remainder of this document assumes that the servers and resolvers
   involved are aware of and are involved in this experiment.








Arends, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 4]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


4.  Protocol Additions

   In DNSSEC, delegation NS RRsets are not signed, but are instead
   accompanied by an NSEC RRset of the same name and (possibly) a DS
   record.  The security status of the subzone is determined by the
   presence or absence of the DS RRset, cryptographically proven by the
   NSEC record.  Opt-In expands this definition by allowing insecure
   delegations to exist within an otherwise signed zone without the
   corresponding NSEC record at the delegation's owner name.  These
   insecure delegations are proven insecure by using a covering NSEC
   record.

   Since this represents a change of the interpretation of NSEC records,
   resolvers must be able to distinguish between RFC standard DNSSEC
   NSEC records and Opt-In NSEC records.  This is accomplished by
   "tagging" the NSEC records that cover (or potentially cover) insecure
   delegation nodes.  This tag is indicated by the absence of the NSEC
   bit in the type map.  Since the NSEC bit in the type map merely
   indicates the existence of the record itself, this bit is redundant
   and safe for use as a tag.

   An Opt-In tagged NSEC record does not assert the (non)existence of
   the delegations that it covers (except for a delegation with the same
   name).  This allows for the addition or removal of these delegations
   without recalculating or resigning records in the NSEC chain.
   However, Opt-In tagged NSEC records do assert the (non)existence of
   other RRsets.

   An Opt-In NSEC record MAY have the same name as an insecure
   delegation.  In this case, the delegation is proven insecure by the
   lack of a DS bit in the type map, and the signed NSEC record does
   assert the existence of the delegation.

   Zones using Opt-In MAY contain a mixture of Opt-In tagged NSEC
   records and standard DNSSEC NSEC records.  If an NSEC record is not
   Opt-In, there MUST NOT be any insecure delegations (or any other
   records) between it and the RRsets indicated by the 'next domain
   name' in the NSEC RDATA.  If it is Opt-In, there MUST only be
   insecure delegations between it and the next node indicated by the
   'next domain name' in the NSEC RDATA.

   In summary,

   o  An Opt-In NSEC type is identified by a zero-valued (or not-
      specified) NSEC bit in the type bit map of the NSEC record.






Arends, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 5]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


   o  A standard DNSSEC NSEC type is identified by a one-valued NSEC bit
      in the type bit map of the NSEC record.

   and

   o  An Opt-In NSEC record does not assert the non-existence of a name
      between its owner name and "next" name, although it does assert
      that any name in this span MUST be an insecure delegation.

   o  An Opt-In NSEC record does assert the (non)existence of RRsets
      with the same owner name.

4.1.  Server Considerations

   Opt-In imposes some new requirements on authoritative DNS servers.

4.1.1.  Delegations Only

   This specification dictates that only insecure delegations may exist
   between the owner and "next" names of an Opt-In tagged NSEC record.
   Signing tools MUST NOT generate signed zones that violate this
   restriction.  Servers MUST refuse to load and/or serve zones that
   violate this restriction.  Servers also MUST reject AXFR or IXFR
   responses that violate this restriction.

4.1.2.  Insecure Delegation Responses

   When returning an Opt-In insecure delegation, the server MUST return
   the covering NSEC RRset in the Authority section.

   In standard DNSSEC, NSEC records already must be returned along with
   the insecure delegation.  The primary difference that this proposal
   introduces is that the Opt-In tagged NSEC record will have a
   different owner name from the delegation RRset.  This may require
   implementations to search for the covering NSEC RRset.

4.1.3.  Dynamic Update

   Opt-In changes the semantics of Secure DNS Dynamic Update [9].  In
   particular, it introduces the need for rules that describe when to
   add or remove a delegation name from the NSEC chain.  This document
   does not attempt to define these rules.  Until these rules are
   defined, servers MUST NOT process DNS Dynamic Update requests against
   zones that use Opt-In NSEC records.  Servers SHOULD return responses
   to update requests with RCODE=REFUSED.






Arends, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 6]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


4.2.  Client Considerations

   Opt-In imposes some new requirements on security-aware resolvers
   (caching or otherwise).

4.2.1.  Delegations Only

   As stated in Section 4.1 above, this specification restricts the
   namespace covered by Opt-In tagged NSEC records to insecure
   delegations only.  Clients are not expected to take any special
   measures to enforce this restriction; instead, it forms an underlying
   assumption that clients may rely on.

4.2.2.  Validation Process Changes

   This specification does not change the resolver's resolution
   algorithm.  However, it does change the DNSSEC validation process.

4.2.2.1.  Referrals

   Resolvers MUST be able to use Opt-In tagged NSEC records to
   cryptographically prove the validity and security status (as
   insecure) of a referral.  Resolvers determine the security status of
   the referred-to zone as follows:

   o  In standard DNSSEC, the security status is proven by the existence
      or absence of a DS RRset at the same name as the delegation.  The
      existence of the DS RRset indicates that the referred-to zone is
      signed.  The absence of the DS RRset is proven using a verified
      NSEC record of the same name that does not have the DS bit set in
      the type map.  This NSEC record MAY also be tagged as Opt-In.

   o  Using Opt-In, the security status is proven by the existence of a
      DS record (for signed) or the presence of a verified Opt-In tagged
      NSEC record that covers the delegation name.  That is, the NSEC
      record does not have the NSEC bit set in the type map, and the
      delegation name falls between the NSEC's owner and "next" name.

   Using Opt-In does not substantially change the nature of following
   referrals within DNSSEC.  At every delegation point, the resolver
   will have cryptographic proof that the referred-to subzone is signed
   or unsigned.

4.2.2.2.  Queries for DS Resource Records

   Since queries for DS records are directed to the parent side of a
   zone cut (see [5], Section 5), negative responses to these queries
   may be covered by an Opt-In flagged NSEC record.



Arends, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 7]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


   Resolvers MUST be able to use Opt-In tagged NSEC records to
   cryptographically prove the validity and security status of negative
   responses to queries for DS records.  In particular, a NOERROR/NODATA
   (i.e., RCODE=3, but the answer section is empty) response to a DS
   query may be proven by an Opt-In flagged covering NSEC record, rather
   than an NSEC record matching the query name.

4.2.3.  NSEC Record Caching

   Caching resolvers MUST be able to retrieve the appropriate covering
   Opt-In NSEC record when returning referrals that need them.  This
   requirement differs from standard DNSSEC in that the covering NSEC
   will not have the same owner name as the delegation.  Some
   implementations may have to use new methods for finding these NSEC
   records.

4.2.4.  Use of the AD bit

   The AD bit, as defined by [3] and [6], MUST NOT be set when:

   o  sending a Name Error (RCODE=3) response where the covering NSEC is
      tagged as Opt-In.

   o  sending an Opt-In insecure delegation response, unless the
      covering (Opt-In) NSEC record's owner name equals the delegation
      name.

   o  sending a NOERROR/NODATA response when query type is DS and the
      covering NSEC is tagged as Opt-In, unless NSEC record's owner name
      matches the query name.

   This rule is based on what the Opt-In NSEC record actually proves:
   for names that exist between the Opt-In NSEC record's owner and
   "next" names, the Opt-In NSEC record cannot prove the non-existence
   or existence of the name.  As such, not all data in the response has
   been cryptographically verified, so the AD bit cannot be set.

5.  Benefits

   Using Opt-In allows administrators of large and/or changing
   delegation-centric zones to minimize the overhead involved in
   maintaining the security of the zone.

   Opt-In accomplishes this by eliminating the need for NSEC records for
   insecure delegations.  This, in a zone with a large number of
   delegations to unsigned subzones, can lead to substantial space
   savings (both in memory and on disk).  Additionally, Opt-In allows
   for the addition or removal of insecure delegations without modifying



Arends, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 8]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


   the NSEC record chain.  Zones that are frequently updating insecure
   delegations (e.g., Top-Level Domains (TLDs)) can avoid the
   substantial overhead of modifying and resigning the affected NSEC
   records.

6.  Example

   Consider the zone EXAMPLE shown below.  This is a zone where all of
   the NSEC records are tagged as Opt-In.

   Example A: Fully Opt-In Zone.

         EXAMPLE.               SOA    ...
         EXAMPLE.               RRSIG  SOA ...
         EXAMPLE.               NS     FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE.
         EXAMPLE.               RRSIG  NS ...
         EXAMPLE.               DNSKEY ...
         EXAMPLE.               RRSIG  DNSKEY ...
         EXAMPLE.               NSEC   FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. (
                                       SOA NS RRSIG DNSKEY )
         EXAMPLE.               RRSIG  NSEC ...

         FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE.  A      ...
         FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE.  RRSIG  A ...
         FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE.  NSEC   NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE. A RRSIG
         FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE.  RRSIG  NSEC ...

         NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE.    NS     NS.NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE.
         NS.NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE. A      ...

         NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE.  NS     NS.NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE.
         NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE   NSEC   SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE NS RRSIG
         NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE   RRSIG  NSEC ...

         SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NS     NS.ELSEWHERE.
         SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. DS     ...
         SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG  DS ...
         SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NSEC   EXAMPLE. NS RRSIG DNSKEY
         SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG  NSEC ...

         UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE.      NS     NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE.
         NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE.   A      ...


                                Example A.






Arends, et al.                Experimental                      [Page 9]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


   In this example, a query for a signed RRset (e.g., "FIRST-
   SECURE.EXAMPLE A") or a secure delegation ("WWW.SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE
   A") will result in a standard DNSSEC response.

   A query for a nonexistent RRset will result in a response that
   differs from standard DNSSEC by the following: the NSEC record will
   be tagged as Opt-In, there may be no NSEC record proving the non-
   existence of a matching wildcard record, and the AD bit will not be
   set.

   A query for an insecure delegation RRset (or a referral) will return
   both the answer (in the Authority section) and the corresponding
   Opt-In NSEC record to prove that it is not secure.

   Example A.1: Response to query for WWW.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE.  A


         RCODE=NOERROR, AD=0

         Answer Section:

         Authority Section:
         UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE.      NS     NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE
         SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. NSEC   EXAMPLE. NS RRSIG DS
         SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. RRSIG  NSEC ...

         Additional Section:
         NS.UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE.   A      ...

                                Example A.1

   In the Example A.1 zone, the EXAMPLE. node MAY use either style of
   NSEC record, because there are no insecure delegations that occur
   between it and the next node, FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE.  In other words,
   Example A would still be a valid zone if the NSEC record for EXAMPLE.
   was changed to the following RR:

         EXAMPLE.               NSEC   FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. (SOA NS
                                       RRSIG DNSKEY NSEC )

   However, the other NSEC records (FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. and SECOND-
   SECURE.EXAMPLE.)  MUST be tagged as Opt-In because there are insecure
   delegations in the range they define.  (NOT-SECURE.EXAMPLE. and
   UNSIGNED.EXAMPLE., respectively).

   NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE. is an example of an insecure delegation that is
   part of the NSEC chain and also covered by an Opt-In tagged NSEC
   record.  Because NOT-SECURE-2.EXAMPLE. is a signed name, it cannot be



Arends, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 10]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


   removed from the zone without modifying and resigning the prior NSEC
   record.  Delegations with names that fall between NOT-SECURE-
   2.EXAMPLE. and SECOND-SECURE.EXAMPLE. may be added or removed without
   resigning any NSEC records.

7.  Transition Issues

   Opt-In is not backwards compatible with standard DNSSEC and is
   considered experimental.  Standard DNSSEC-compliant implementations
   would not recognize Opt-In tagged NSEC records as different from
   standard NSEC records.  Because of this, standard DNSSEC
   implementations, if they were to validate Opt-In style responses,
   would reject all Opt-In insecure delegations within a zone as
   invalid.  However, by only signing with private algorithms, standard
   DNSSEC implementations will treat Opt-In responses as unsigned.

   It should be noted that all elements in the resolution path between
   (and including) the validator and the authoritative name server must
   be aware of the Opt-In experiment and implement the Opt-In semantics
   for successful validation to be possible.  In particular, this
   includes any caching middleboxes between the validator and
   authoritative name server.

8.  Security Considerations

   Opt-In allows for unsigned names, in the form of delegations to
   unsigned subzones, to exist within an otherwise signed zone.  All
   unsigned names are, by definition, insecure, and their validity or
   existence cannot be cryptographically proven.

   In general:

   o  Records with unsigned names (whether or not existing) suffer from
      the same vulnerabilities as records in an unsigned zone.  These
      vulnerabilities are described in more detail in [12] (note in
      particular Sections 2.3, "Name Games" and 2.6, "Authenticated
      Denial").

   o  Records with signed names have the same security whether or not
      Opt-In is used.

   Note that with or without Opt-In, an insecure delegation may have its
   contents undetectably altered by an attacker.  Because of this, the
   primary difference in security that Opt-In introduces is the loss of
   the ability to prove the existence or nonexistence of an insecure
   delegation within the span of an Opt-In NSEC record.





Arends, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 11]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


   In particular, this means that a malicious entity may be able to
   insert or delete records with unsigned names.  These records are
   normally NS records, but this also includes signed wildcard
   expansions (while the wildcard record itself is signed, its expanded
   name is an unsigned name), which can be undetectably removed or used
   to replace an existing unsigned delegation.

   For example, if a resolver received the following response from the
   example zone above:

   Example S.1: Response to query for WWW.DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE.  A

         RCODE=NOERROR

         Answer Section:

         Authority Section:
         DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE. NS     NS.FORGED.
         EXAMPLE.                NSEC   FIRST-SECURE.EXAMPLE. SOA NS \
                                        RRSIG DNSKEY
         EXAMPLE.                RRSIG  NSEC ...

         Additional Section:


                        Attacker has forged a name

   The resolver would have no choice but to believe that the referral to
   NS.FORGED. is valid.  If a wildcard existed that would have been
   expanded to cover "WWW.DOES-NOT-EXIST.EXAMPLE.", an attacker could
   have undetectably removed it and replaced it with the forged
   delegation.

   Note that being able to add a delegation is functionally equivalent
   to being able to add any record type: an attacker merely has to forge
   a delegation to the nameserver under his/her control and place
   whatever records are needed at the subzone apex.

   While in particular cases, this issue may not present a significant
   security problem, in general it should not be lightly dismissed.
   Therefore, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that Opt-In be used sparingly.
   In particular, zone signing tools SHOULD NOT default to Opt-In, and
   MAY choose not to support Opt-In at all.








Arends, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 12]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


9.  Acknowledgments

   The contributions, suggestions, and remarks of the following persons
   (in alphabetic order) to this document are acknowledged:

      Mats Kolkman, Edward Lewis, Ted Lindgreen, Rip Loomis, Bill
      Manning, Dan Massey, Scott Rose, Mike Schiraldi, Jakob Schlyter,
      Brian Wellington.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
         specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [2]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [3]   Wellington, B. and O. Gudmundsson, "Redefinition of DNS
         Authenticated Data (AD) bit", RFC 3655, November 2003.

   [4]   Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
         "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033,
         March 2005.

   [5]   Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
         "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034,
         March 2005.

   [6]   Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose,
         "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions",
         RFC 4035, March 2005.

   [7]   Blacka, D., "DNSSEC Experiments", RFC 4955, July 2007.

10.2.  Informative References

   [8]   Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification",
         RFC 2181, July 1997.

   [9]   Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic
         Update", RFC 3007, November 2000.

   [10]  Lewis, E., "DNS Security Extension Clarification on Zone
         Status", RFC 3090, March 2001.





Arends, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 13]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


   [11]  Conrad, D., "Indicating Resolver Support of DNSSEC", RFC 3225,
         December 2001.

   [12]  Atkins, D. and R. Austein, "Threat Analysis of the Domain Name
         System (DNS)", RFC 3833, August 2004.














































Arends, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 14]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


Appendix A.  Implementing Opt-In Using "Views"

   In many cases, it may be convenient to implement an Opt-In zone by
   combining two separately maintained "views" of a zone at request
   time.  In this context, "view" refers to a particular version of a
   zone, not to any specific DNS implementation feature.

   In this scenario, one view is the secure view, the other is the
   insecure (or legacy) view.  The secure view consists of an entirely
   signed zone using Opt-In tagged NSEC records.  The insecure view
   contains no DNSSEC information.  It is helpful, although not
   necessary, for the secure view to be a subset (minus DNSSEC records)
   of the insecure view.

   In addition, the only RRsets that may solely exist in the insecure
   view are non-zone-apex NS RRsets.  That is, all non-NS RRsets (and
   the zone apex NS RRset) MUST be signed and in the secure view.

   These two views may be combined at request time to provide a virtual,
   single Opt-In zone.  The following algorithm is used when responding
   to each query:

      V_A is the secure view as described above.

      V_B is the insecure view as described above.

      R_A is a response generated from V_A, following standard DNSSEC.

      R_B is a response generated from V_B, following DNS resolution as
      per RFC 1035 [1].

      R_C is the response generated by combining R_A with R_B, as
      described below.

      A query is DNSSEC-aware if it either has the DO bit [11] turned on
      or is for a DNSSEC-specific record type.

   1.  If V_A is a subset of V_B and the query is not DNSSEC-aware,
       generate and return R_B, otherwise

   2.  Generate R_A.

   3.  If R_A's RCODE != NXDOMAIN, return R_A, otherwise








Arends, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 15]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


   4.  Generate R_B and combine it with R_A to form R_C:

          For each section (ANSWER, AUTHORITY, ADDITIONAL), copy the
          records from R_A into R_B, EXCEPT the AUTHORITY section SOA
          record, if R_B's RCODE = NOERROR.

   5.  Return R_C.

Authors' Addresses

   Roy Arends
   Nominet
   Sandford Gate
   Sandy Lane West
   Oxford  OX4 6LB
   UNITED KINGDOM

   Phone: +44 1865 332211
   EMail: roy@nominet.org.uk


   Mark Kosters
   VeriSign, Inc.
   21355 Ridgetop Circle
   Dulles, VA  20166
   US

   Phone: +1 703 948 3200
   EMail: mkosters@verisign.com
   URI:   http://www.verisignlabs.com


   David Blacka
   VeriSign, Inc.
   21355 Ridgetop Circle
   Dulles, VA  20166
   US

   Phone: +1 703 948 3200
   EMail: davidb@verisign.com
   URI:   http://www.verisignlabs.com










Arends, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 16]
\f
RFC 4956              DNS Security (DNSSEC) Opt-In             July 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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.

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.

Intellectual Property

   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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.







Arends, et al.                Experimental                     [Page 17]
\f