]> The Swedish Internet Foundation

Sweden erik.bergstrom@internetstiftelsen.se

The Swedish Internet Foundation

Sweden leon.fernandez@internetstiftelsen.se

The Swedish Internet Foundation

Sweden johan.stenstam@internetstiftelsen.se

Internet DNSOP Working Group Internet-Draft This document introduces the KeyState EDNS(0) option code, to enable the exchange of SIG(0) key state information between DNS entities via the DNS protocol. The KeyState option allows DNS clients and servers to include key state data in both queries and responses, facilitating mutual awareness of SIG(0) key status between child and parent zones. This mechanism addresses the challenges of maintaining synchronization of SIG(0) keys used for securing DNS UPDATE messages, thereby enhancing the efficiency and reliability of DNS operations that require coordinated key management. This document proposes such a mechanism. TO BE REMOVED: This document is being collaborated on in Github at: https://github.com/johanix/draft-berra-dnsop-opt-transaction-state. The most recent working version of the document, open issues, etc, should all be available there. The authors (gratefully) accept pull requests.

Introduction In a mechanism for automatic synchronization of delegation data between a child zone and a parent zone is proposed. That mechanism relies on the parent validating and subsequently trusting the child SIG(0) public key so that the child is able to sign DNS UPDATE requests to the parent using the corresponding SIG(0) private key. While there is a mechanism for both uploading and rolling the public SIG(0) key there is still a risk of the child operator and the parent receiver getting out of sync. This will be noticed by the child if a DNS UPDATE is refused. In this situation the parent UPDATE Receiver does have the opportunity and ability to provide more details of the refusal via an EDE opcode . However, at that point it is too late to immediately get back in sync again and as a result the needed delegation synchronization that triggered the DNS UPDATE will be delayed until the child has managed to "re-bootstrap" a new SIG(0) key with the parent. The proposed new KeyState EDNS(0) Option addresses this problem by allowing the child and parent to exchange information about the current "state" of a SIG(0) key. This enables the child to become aware of any issue with the SIG(0) key currently being used in advance, and then address and resolve the problem.

Trusting SIG(0) Signed DNS Messages Between Child and Parent Using the proposed OPT KeyState the child gains the ability to inform the parent about its own state and in return become aware of the parent's state independently of a new DNS UPDATE (i.e. the OPT exchange may be sent via a normal DNS QUERY + response). It should be pointed out that for the child to be able to trust the response from the parent, the response must be signed using a key that the child trusts. As the mechanism for automatic synchronization of delegation data aims to work independently of whether the involved zones are DNSSEC-signed or not, this requires that the parent UPDATE Receiver is able to sign the response using its own SIG(0) private key. Hence there is a similar need for the UPDATE Receiver to "bootstrap" (as in "validate so that the key may be trusted" the child SIG(0) public key and for the child to "bootstrap" the UPDATE Receiver SIG(0) public key. The mechanism for doing this is described in . Knowledge of DNS NOTIFY and DNS Dynamic Updates and is assumed. DNS SIG(0) transaction signatures are documented in .

Requirements Notation 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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Terminology

SIG(0)

An assymmetric signing algorithm that allows the recipient to only need to know the public key to verify a signature created by the senders private key.

Comparision to Extended DNS Errors EDE (Extended DNS Errors) specify a mechanism by which a receiver of a DNS message gains the ability to provide more information about the reason for a negative response. EDE data travels in an OPT record in the response and consist of an EDE code and, optionally, an EDE "Extra Text". It is possible to return EDE data with all types of DNS messages, including QUERY, NOTIFY and UPDATE. However, there are three limitations to EDE that make it insufficent for communicating state between two parties: An EDE must only be present in a response, not in the originating message. An EDE must only be used to augment an error response. It should not be part of a successful response. An EDE must contain an EDE info code (16 bits) and may contain "Extra Text". However this extra text is intended for human consumption, not automated parsing. To communicate state between two parties this requirement is too strict. These limitations are not a problem, as EDE serves a different purpose. But it is clear that for use cases like the above examples, EDE is not the right mechanism and another mechanism is needed. Hence the present proposal.

KeyState EDNS0 Option Format This document uses an Extended Mechanism for DNS (EDNS0) option to include Key State information in DNS messages. The option is structured as follows:

Field definition details: OPTION-CODE: 2 octets / 16 bits (defined in ) contains the value TBD for KeyState. OPTION-LENGTH: 2 octets / 16 bits (defined in ) contains the length of the payload (everything after OPTION-LENGTH) in octets and should be 3 plus the length of the EXTRA-TEXT field (which may be zero octets long). KEY-ID: 16 bits. The KeyID of the SIG(0) key that the KeyState inquiry is referring to. Note that while KeyIds are not guaranteed to be unique, it is the child that generates the initial SIG(0) key pair and all subsequent key pairs. Hence, it is the child's responsibility to not use multiple keys with the same KeyId. KEY-STATE: 8 bits. Currently defined values are listed in Section 6 below. EXTRA-TEXT: a variable-length sequence of octets that may hold additional information. This information is intended for human consumption (typically a reason or additional detail), not automated parsing. The length of the EXTRA-TEXT MUST be derived from the OPTION-LENGTH field. The EXTRA-TEXT field may be zero octets in length.

Use of the KeyState Option The KeyState option may be included in outgoing message of type QUERY or UPDATE from the child to the UPDATE Receiver. The KeyState option MUST be present in such messages if the child supports the KeyState option. The UPDATE Receiver MUST only include a KeyState option when responding to a DNS message that contained a KeyState option. I.e. the UPDATE Receiver must never assume that the child is able to interpret KeyState options. A KeyState option MAY be included in any type of response (SERVFAIL, NXDOMAIN, REFUSED, even NOERROR, etc.) to a query that includes an KeyState Option. The KeyState option may always be ignored by the recipient. However, if the recipient does understand the KeyState option and responding with its own corresponding KeyState for the specified key make sense, then it is expected to do so. This document includes a set of initial "key state" codepoints but is extensible via the IANA registry defined and created in Section 8.2.

Defined and Reserved Values for SIG(0) Key States This document defines a number of initial KEY-STATE codes. The mechanism is intended to be extensible and additional KEY-STATE codes can be registered in the "KeyState Codes" registry (see Section 8.2). The KEY-STATE code from the "KeyState" EDNS(0) option is used to serve as an index into the "KeyState Option Codes" registry with the initial values defined below. For KeyState signalling to be used the child is set by the child to indicate ability to interpret a KeyState OPT in the response.

KeyStates Set By The Sender (the Child) 0: Automatic bootstrap requested. This assumes that the child SIG(0) public key is already published as a KEY record that the child apex. 1: Manual bootstrap requested. Child requests that manual bootstrap should be used (child does not want automatic bootstrap of the SIG(0) public key). 2: Key inquiry. Child requests information about current KeyState for specified key. 3: Policy inquiry. Child requests information about current bootstrap policy for parent (or its agent).

KeyStates Set By The UPDATE Receiver (the Parent or Its Agent) 4: SIG(0) key is known and trusted. 5: SIG(0) key is unknown. 6: SIG(0) key is invalid (eg. key data doesn't match algorithm). 7: SIG(0) key is refused (eg. algorithm not accepted by policy). 8: SIG(0) key is known but validation has failed. 9: SIG(0) key is known but not trusted, automatic bootstrapping ongoing. 10: SIG(0) key is known but not trusted, manual bootstrapping required. 11: Manual bootstrapping required for all SIG(0) keys to become trusted. This is a policy indication in response to a KeyState=3 inquiry from Sender. 12: Automatic bootstrapping will be attempted for all SIG(0) keys to become trusted. This is a policy indication in response to a KeyState=3 inquiry from Sender. 128-255: Reserved for private use. To ensure that automatic delegation is correctly prepared and bootstrapped, the child (or an agent for the child) sends a DNS QUERY to the parent UPDATE Reciever with QNAME="child.parent." and QTYPE=ANY containing a KeyState OPT with KeyState-Code=1 and the KeyId of the SIG(0) key to inquire state for in the KEY-ID field. The response should be signed by the SIG(0) key for the UPDATE Receiver and contain both the KeyId and the Key State encoded as described above.

Security Considerations Key state signals in OPT queries and answers are unauthenticated unless the transaction carrying the state signal is secured via mechanisms such as , , or . Unauthenticated information MUST NOT be trusted as the state signals influence the DNS protocol processing. For instance, an attacker might cause a denial-of-service by forging a response claiming that the victim's key is invalid, thereby halting the delegation synchronization procedure. Moreover, it is assumed that the child has some means of validating messages from the parent during the initial phase when the child initializes the SIG(0) key synchronization. Otherwise, an attacker could prevent a child from initializing the synchronization by spoofing responses that refuses the key that the child is trying to upload. For that reason, it is expected that the parent has already published a public key that the child can use for this purpose. It could also possible to establish this trust out-of-band, such as via a physical meeting. Lastly, SIG(0) transaction signatures are vulnerable to replay attacks, which could allow an attacker to disrupt the synchronization. Secure transport alternatives exist in and .

IANA Considerations.

New KeyState EDNS Option This document defines a new EDNS(0) option, entitled "KeyState", assigned a value of TBD "DNS EDNS0 Option Codes (OPT)" registry Value Name Status Reference TBD KeyState Standard (This document)

A New Registry for EDNS Option KeyState State Codes The KeyState option also defines a 16-bit state field, for which IANA is requested to create and mainain a new registry entitled "KeyState Codes", used by the KeyState option. Initial values for the "KeyState Codes" registry are given below; future assignments in in the 8-127 range are to be made through Specification Required review . KEY STATE Mnemonic Reference 0 UNUSED (This document) 1 KEY_TRUSTED (This document) 2 KEY_UNKNOWN (This document) 3 KEY_INVALID (This document) 4 KEY_REFUSED (This document) 5 VALIDATION_FAIL (This document) 6 AUTO_BOOTSTRAP_ONGOING (This document) 7 MANUAL_BOOTSTRAP_REQUIRED (This document) 8 MANUAL_BOOTSTRAP_SIG0 (This document) 9 ATTEMPT_AUTO_BOOTSTRAP (This document) 10 REQUST_MANUAL_BOOTSTRAP (This document) 11-127 Unassigned (This document) 128-255 Private use (This document)

This document defines an extensible method to return additional information about the cause of DNS errors. Though created primarily to extend SERVFAIL to provide additional information about the cause of DNS and DNSSEC failures, the Extended DNS Errors option defined in this document allows all response types to contain extended error information. Extended DNS Error information does not change the processing of RCODEs. This memo describes the NOTIFY opcode for DNS, by which a master server advises a set of slave servers that the master's data has been changed and that a query should be initiated to discover the new data. [STANDARDS-TRACK] Using this specification of the UPDATE opcode, it is possible to add or delete RRs or RRsets from a specified zone. Prerequisites are specified separately from update operations, and can specify a dependency upon either the previous existence or nonexistence of an RRset, or the existence of a single RR. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document proposes a method for performing secure Domain Name System (DNS) dynamic updates. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document describes the minor but non-interoperable changes in Request and Transaction signature resource records ( SIG(0)s ) that implementation experience has deemed necessary. [STANDARDS-TRACK] In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. The Domain Name System's wire protocol includes a number of fixed fields whose range has been or soon will be exhausted and does not allow requestors to advertise their capabilities to responders. This document describes backward-compatible mechanisms for allowing the protocol to grow. This document updates the Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0)) specification (and obsoletes RFC 2671) based on feedback from deployment experience in several implementations. It also obsoletes RFC 2673 ("Binary Labels in the Domain Name System") and adds considerations on the use of extended labels in the DNS. This protocol allows for transaction level authentication using shared secrets and one way hashing. It can be used to authenticate dynamic updates as coming from an approved client, or to authenticate responses as coming from an approved recursive name server. [STANDARDS-TRACK] DNS queries and responses are visible to network elements on the path between the DNS client and its server. These queries and responses can contain privacy-sensitive information, which is valuable to protect. This document proposes the use of Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) for DNS, to protect against passive listeners and certain active attacks. As latency is critical for DNS, this proposal also discusses mechanisms to reduce DTLS round trips and reduce the DTLS handshake size. The proposed mechanism runs over port 853. This document defines a protocol for sending DNS queries and getting DNS responses over HTTPS. Each DNS query-response pair is mapped into an HTTP exchange. The Swedish Internet Foundation Delegation information (i.e. the NS RRset, possible glue, possible DS records) should always be kept in sync between child zone and parent zone. However, in practice that is not always the case. When the delegation information is not in sync the child zone is usually working fine, but without the amount of redundancy that the zone owner likely expects to have. Hence, should any further problems ensue it could have catastropic consequences. The DNS name space has lived with this problem for decades and it never goes away. Or, rather, it will never go away until a fully automated mechanism for how to keep the information in sync automatically is deployed. This document proposes such a mechanism. TO BE REMOVED: This document is being collaborated on in Github at: https://github.com/johanix/draft-johani-dnsop-delegation-mgmt-via- ddns (https://github.com/johanix/draft-johani-dnsop-delegation-mgmt- via-ddns). The most recent working version of the document, open issues, etc, should all be available there. The author (gratefully) accept pull requests. Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry. This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.

Change History (to be removed before publication) draft-berra-dnsop-opt-keystate-00

• Initial public draft.