RFC 9157

Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC

📅 published December 2021, from ietf

Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC 🎀

Okay bestie, this is RFC 9157, and it's giving IANA registry policy glow-up 💅✨

Author: Paul Hoffman (ICANN) 🦋
Date: November 2021 📅
Category: Standards Track 👑
ISSN: 2070-1721 🌸
Updates: RFC 5155, RFC 6014, and RFC 8624 🔥

Abstract

okay so this doc changes the review requirements for getting DNSSEC algorithms and resource records added to IANA registries 💖 It updates RFC 6014 so that hash algorithms for Delegation Signer (DS) records and NextSECure version 3 (NSEC3) parameters (for Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence) are included. It also updates RFCs 5155 and 6014, which have requirements for DNSSEC algorithms, and updates RFC 8624 to clarify the implementation recommendation for algorithms described in RFCs that are not on the standards track 🧚 The whole point is to bring the requirements for DS records and NSEC3 hash algorithms in line with the requirements for every other DNSSEC algorithm. Iconic, honestly ✨

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). If you want more info on Internet Standards, check out Section 2 of RFC 7841 📚

For the current status of this document, any errata, and how to give feedback on it, go to https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9157 🍓

Copyright Notice

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please read these carefully, because they describe your rights and restrictions regarding this document 🫶 Code Components pulled out of this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they're provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents 🗺️

1.  Introduction
  1.1.  Requirements Language
2.  Update to RFC 6014
3.  Update to RFC 8624
4.  IANA Considerations
5.  Security Considerations
6.  References
  6.1.  Normative References
  6.2.  Informative References
Acknowledgements
Author's Address

1. Introduction 🌸

DNSSEC is mainly described in [RFC4033], [RFC4034], and [RFC4035] 💅 DNSSEC also commonly uses another resource record beyond the ones defined in [RFC4034]: NSEC3 [RFC5155]. DS resource records were first defined in [RFC3658], and that definition was obsoleted by [RFC4034] 🙈

[RFC6014] updates the requirements for how DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm identifiers in the IANA registries get assigned, lowering them from "Standards Action" to "RFC Required" ✨ But the IANA registry requirements for hash algorithms for DS records [RFC3658] and for the hash algorithms used in NSEC3 records [RFC5155] are still "Standards Action" 😭 This document updates those IANA registry requirements. (For a reference on how IANA registries can be updated in general, see [RFC8126].) 📖

1.1. Requirements Language 🎀

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here 💖

2. Update to RFC 6014 🦋

Section 4 updates [RFC6014] to bring the requirements for DS records and NSEC3 hash algorithms in line with the rest of the DNSSEC cryptographic algorithms. It does this by allowing any DS hash algorithms, NSEC3 hash algorithms, NSEC3 parameters, and NSEC3 flags that are fully described in an RFC to get identifiers assigned in the IANA registries 🔥 This is an addition to the IANA considerations in [RFC6014], so it's not a replacement, just an extra layer of slay ✨

3. Update to RFC 8624 🌈

This document updates [RFC8624] for all DNSKEY and DS algorithms that are not on the standards track 🧚

The second paragraph of Section 1.2 of [RFC8624] currently says:

This document only provides recommendations with respect to
mandatory-to-implement algorithms or algorithms so weak that they
cannot be recommended.  Any algorithm listed in the [DNSKEY-IANA]
and [DS-IANA] registries that are not mentioned in this document
MAY be implemented.  For clarification and consistency, an
algorithm will be specified as MAY in this document only when it
has been downgraded from a MUST or a RECOMMENDED to a MAY.

That paragraph is now replaced with the following:

This document provides recommendations with respect to mandatory-
to-implement algorithms, algorithms so weak that they cannot be
recommended, and algorithms defined in RFCs that are not on the
standards track.  Any algorithm listed in the [DNSKEY-IANA] and
[DS-IANA] registries that are not mentioned in this document MAY
be implemented.  For clarification and consistency, an algorithm
will be specified as MAY in this document only when it has been
downgraded from a MUST or a RECOMMENDED to a MAY.

This update is also reflected in the IANA considerations in Section 4 💜

4. IANA Considerations 📋

In the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) NextSECure3 (NSEC3) Parameters" registry, the registration procedure for "DNSSEC NSEC3 Flags", "DNSSEC NSEC3 Hash Algorithms", and "DNSSEC NSEC3PARAM Flags" has changed from "Standards Action" to "RFC Required", and this document has been added as a reference ✨

In the "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" registry, the registration procedure for "Digest Algorithms" has changed from "Standards Action" to "RFC Required", and this document has been added as a reference 🌸

5. Security Considerations 💀

Changing the requirements for adding security algorithms to IANA registries as described in this document will make it easier to add both good and bad algorithms to the registries. It is impossible to weigh the security impact of those two changes 😭🚨

Heads up, this part is seriously important! Administrators of DNSSEC-signed zones and validating resolvers may have been making security decisions based on the contents of the IANA registries. That was a bad idea in the past, and now it's an even worse idea, because there will be more algorithms in those registries that may not have gone through IETF review. Security decisions about which algorithms are safe and not safe should be made by reading the security literature, not by looking in IANA registries. Do not skip this one, bestie 🙅‍♀️

6. References 📚

6.1. Normative References 🔐

[RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
           Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
           RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.

[RFC4034]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
           Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
           RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.

[RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
           Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
           Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.

[RFC5155]  Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
           Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
           Existence", RFC 5155, DOI 10.17487/RFC5155, March 2008,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5155>.

[RFC6014]  Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier
           Allocation for DNSSEC", RFC 6014, DOI 10.17487/RFC6014,
           November 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6014>.

[RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
           Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
           RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

[RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
           2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
           May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

[RFC8624]  Wouters, P. and O. Sury, "Algorithm Implementation
           Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC", RFC 8624,
           DOI 10.17487/RFC8624, June 2019,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8624>.

6.2. Informative References 🦋

[RFC3658]  Gudmundsson, O., "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record
           (RR)", RFC 3658, DOI 10.17487/RFC3658, December 2003,
           <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3658>.

Acknowledgements 🫶

Donald Eastlake, Murray Kucherawy, Dan Harkins, Martin Duke, and Benjamin Kaduk contributed to this document. Thank you, legends 🌟

Author's Address 🖊️

Paul Hoffman ICANN

Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org

📦 where this page comes from

ietf: rfc9157 2021-12
💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on 2026-10-18: a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms