|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6944
Last modified on Wednesday, May 1st, 2013
 Permanent link to RFC 6944
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6944
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6944
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Rose
Request for Comments: 6944 NIST
Updates: 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, April 2013
5155, 5702, 5933
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm
Implementation Status
 Abstract
The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) requires the use of
cryptographic algorithm suites for generating digital signatures over
DNS data. There is currently an IANA registry for these algorithms,
but there is no record of the recommended implementation status of
each algorithm. This document provides an applicability statement on
algorithm implementation status for DNSSEC component software. This
document lists each algorithm's status based on the current
reference. In the case that an algorithm is specified without an
implementation status, this document assigns one. This document
updates RFCs 2536, 2539, 3110, 4034, 4398, 5155, 5702, and 5933.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6944.
Rose Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 6944 DNSSEC DNSKEY Algorithm Status April 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists . . . . 3
2.1. Status Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignment Rationale . . . 4
2.3. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating the Status of
Existing Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Rose Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 6944 DNSSEC DNSKEY Algorithm Status April 2013
1. Introduction
The Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions (DNSSEC) ([RFC 4033],
[RFC 4034], [RFC 4035], [RFC 4509], [RFC 5155], and [RFC 5702]) uses
digital signatures over DNS data to provide source authentication and
integrity protection. DNSSEC uses an IANA registry to list codes for
digital signature algorithms (consisting of a cryptographic algorithm
and one-way hash function).
The original list of algorithm status is found in [RFC 4034]. Other
DNSSEC RFCs have added new algorithms or changed the status of
algorithms in the registry. However, implementers must read through
all the documents in order to discover which algorithms are
considered wise to implement, which are not, and which algorithms may
become widely used in the future.
This document defines the current implementation status for all
registered algorithms. If the status of algorithms changes, this
document will be replaced with a new one establishing the new status;
see Section 2.4.
This document updates the following: [RFC 2536], [RFC 2539], [RFC 3110],
[RFC 4034], [RFC 4398], [RFC 5155], [RFC 5702], and [RFC 5933].
1.1. Requirements Language
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. The DNS Security Algorithm Implementation Status Lists
2.1. Status Definitions
Must Implement: The algorithm MUST be implemented to interoperate
with other implementations of this specification.
Must Not Implement: The algorithm MUST NOT be implemented. An
algorithm with this status has known weaknesses.
Recommended to Implement: The algorithm SHOULD be implemented.
Utility and interoperability with other implementations will be
improved when an algorithm with this status is implemented, though
there might be occasions where it is reasonable not to implement
the algorithm. An implementer must understand and weigh the full
implications of choosing not to implement this particular
algorithm.
Rose Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 6944 DNSSEC DNSKEY Algorithm Status April 2013
Optional: The algorithm MAY be implemented, but all implementations
MUST be prepared to interoperate with implementations that do or
do not implement this algorithm.
2.2. Algorithm Implementation Status Assignment Rationale
RSASHA1 has an implementation status of Must Implement, consistent
with [RFC 4034]. RSAMD5 has an implementation status of Must Not
Implement because of known weaknesses in MD5.
The status of RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 is set to Recommended to Implement
as many deployments use NSEC3. The status of RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/
SHA-512 are also set to Recommended to Implement as major deployments
(such as the root zone) use these algorithms [ROOTDPS]. It is
believed that RSA/SHA-256 or RSA/SHA-512 algorithms will replace
older algorithms (e.g., RSA/SHA-1) that have a perceived weakness.
Likewise, ECDSA with the two identified curves (ECDSAP256SHA256 and
ECDSAP384SHA384) is an algorithm that may see widespread use due to
the perceived similar level of security offered with smaller key size
compared to the key sizes of algorithms such as RSA. Therefore,
ECDSAP256SHA256 and ECDSAP384SHA384 are Recommended to Implement.
All other algorithms used in DNSSEC specified without an
implementation status are currently set to Optional.
2.3. DNSSEC Implementation Status Table
The DNSSEC algorithm implementation status table is listed below.
Only the algorithms already specified for use with DNSSEC at the time
of writing are listed.
+------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+
| Must | Must Not | Recommended | Optional |
| Implement | Implement | to Implement | |
+------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+
| | | | |
| RSASHA1 | RSAMD5 | RSASHA256 | Any |
| | | RSASHA1-NSEC3 | registered |
| | | -SHA1 | algorithm |
| | | RSASHA512 | not listed in |
| | | ECDSAP256SHA256 | this table |
| | | ECDSAP384SHA384 | |
+------------+------------+-------------------+-------------------+
Rose Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 6944 DNSSEC DNSKEY Algorithm Status April 2013
This table does not list the Reserved values in the IANA registry
table or the values for INDIRECT (252), PRIVATE (253), and PRIVATEOID
(254). These values may relate to more than one algorithm and are
therefore up to the implementer's discretion. As noted, any
algorithm not listed in the table is Optional. As of this writing,
the Optional algorithms are DSASHA1, DH, DSA-NSEC3-SHA1, and GOST-
ECC, but in general, anything not explicitly listed is Optional.
2.4. Specifying New Algorithms and Updating the Status of Existing
Entries
[RFC 6014] establishes a parallel procedure for adding a registry
entry for a new algorithm other than a standards track document.
Because any algorithm not listed in the foregoing table is Optional,
algorithms entered into the registry using the [RFC 6014] procedure
are automatically Optional.
It has turned out to be useful for implementations to refer to a
single document that specifies the implementation status of every
algorithm. Accordingly, when a new algorithm is to be registered
with a status other than Optional, this document shall be made
obsolete by a new document that adds the new algorithm to the table
in Section 2.3. Similarly, if the status of any algorithm in the
table in Section 2.3 changes, a new document shall make this document
obsolete; that document shall include a replacement of the table in
Section 2.3. This way, the goal of having one authoritative document
to specify all the status values is achieved.
This document cannot be updated, only made obsolete and replaced by a
successor document.
3. IANA Considerations
This document lists the implementation status of cryptographic
algorithms used with DNSSEC. These algorithms are maintained in an
IANA registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers.
Because this document establishes the implementation status of every
algorithm, it has been listed as a reference for the registry itself.
4. Security Considerations
This document lists, and in some cases assigns, the implementation
status of cryptographic algorithms used with DNSSEC. It is not meant
to be a discussion on algorithm superiority. No new security
considerations are raised in this document, though prior description
of algorithms as NOT RECOMMENDED (see [RFC 4034]) has been recast as
Must Not Implement.
Rose Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 6944 DNSSEC DNSKEY Algorithm Status April 2013
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 2536] Eastlake, D., "DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System
(DNS)", RFC 2536, March 1999.
[RFC 2539] Eastlake, D., "Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the
Domain Name System (DNS)", RFC 2539, March 1999.
[RFC 3110] Eastlake, D., "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain
Name System (DNS)", RFC 3110, May 2001.
[RFC 4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
RFC 4033, March 2005.
[RFC 4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC 4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005.
[RFC 4398] Josefsson, S., "Storing Certificates in the Domain Name
System (DNS)", RFC 4398, March 2006.
[RFC 4509] Hardaker, W., "Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer
(DS) Resource Records (RRs)", RFC 4509, May 2006.
[RFC 5155] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
Existence", RFC 5155, March 2008.
[RFC 5702] Jansen, J., "Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY
and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702,
October 2009.
[RFC 5933] Dolmatov, V., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of GOST
Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records
for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, July 2010.
[RFC 6014] Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier
Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, November 2010.
Rose Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 6944 DNSSEC DNSKEY Algorithm Status April 2013
5.2. Informative References
[ROOTDPS] Ljunggren, F., Okubo, T., Lamb, R., and J. Schlyter,
"DNSSEC Practice Statement for the Root Zone KSK
Operator", DNS ROOTDPS, May 2010,
<http://www.root-dnssec.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/
icann-dps-00.txt>.
Author's Address
Scott Rose
NIST
100 Bureau Dr.
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
USA
Phone: +1-301-975-8439
EMail: scottr.nist@gmail.com
Rose Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 13876 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Wednesday, May 1st, 2013
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
