]> Citrix Systems, Inc.

United States of America danwing@gmail.com

Nokia

Bangalore Karnataka India kondtir@gmail.com

Open-Xchange

United Kingdom neil.cook@noware.co.uk

Orange

Rennes 35000 France mohamed.boucadair@orange.com

Internet DNS Operations Working Group Customer experience Informed decision transparency enriched feedback DNS filtering is widely deployed for various reasons, including network security. However, filtered DNS responses lack structured information for end users to understand the reason for the filtering. Existing mechanisms to provide explanatory details to end users cause harm especially if the blocked DNS response is for HTTPS resources. This document updates RFC 8914 by signaling client support for structuring the EXTRA-TEXT field of the Extended DNS Error to provide details on the DNS filtering. Such details can be parsed by the client and displayed, logged, or used for other purposes. About This Document The latest revision of this draft can be found at . Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the dnsop Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction DNS filters are deployed for a variety of reasons, e.g., endpoint security, parental filtering, and filtering required by law enforcement. Network-based security solutions such as firewalls and Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) rely upon network traffic inspection to implement perimeter-based security policies and operate by filtering DNS responses. In a home network, DNS filtering is used for the same reasons as above and additionally for parental control. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) typically block access to some DNS domains due to a requirement imposed by an external entity (e.g., law enforcement agency) also performed using DNS-based content filtering. End-users or network administrators leveraging DNS services that perform filtering may wish to receive more explanatory information about such a filtering to resolve problems with the filter -- for example to contact the DNS service administrator to allowlist a DNS domain that was erroneously filtered or to understand the reason a particular domain was filtered. With that information, they can choose to use another network, open a trouble ticket with the DNS service administrator to resolve erroneous filtering, log the information, etc. For the DNS filtering mechanisms described in , the DNS server can return extended error codes Blocked, Filtered, Censored, or Forged Answer defined in . However, these codes only explain that filtering occurred but lack detail for the user to diagnose erroneous filterings. No matter which type of response is generated (forged IP address(es), NXDOMAIN or empty answer, even with an extended error code), the user who triggered the DNS query has little chance to understand which entity filtered the query, how to report a mistake in the filter, or why the entity filtered it at all. This document describes a mechanism to provide such detail. One of the other benefits of the approach described in this document is to eliminate the need to "spoof" block pages for HTTPS resources. This is achieved since clients implementing this approach would be able to display a meaningful error message, and would not need to connect to such a block page. This approach thus avoids the need to install a local root certificate authority on those IT-managed devices. This document describes a format for computer-parsable data in the EXTRA-TEXT field of . It updates which says the information in EXTRA-TEXT field is intended for human consumption (not automated parsing). This document does not recommend DNS filtering but provides a mechanism for better transparency to explain to the users why some DNS queries are filtered.

Conventions and Definitions 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. This document uses terms defined in DNS Terminology . "Requestor" refers to the side that sends a request. "Responder" refers to an authoritative, recursive resolver, or other DNS component that responds to questions. "Encrypted DNS" refers to any encrypted scheme to convey DNS messages, for example, DNS-over-HTTPS , DNS-over-TLS , or DNS-over-QUIC . The document refers to an Extended DNS Error (EDE) using its purpose, not its INFO-CODE as per Table 3 of . "Forged Answer", "Blocked", "Censored", and "Filtered" are thus used to refer to "Forged Answer (4)", "Blocked (15)", "Censored (16)",and "Filtered (17)". The term "DNS server" refers to a DNS recursive resolver or a DNS forwarder that generates DNS structured error responses.

DNS Filtering Techniques and Their Limitations DNS responses can be filtered by sending, e.g., a bogus (also called "forged") response, NXDOMAIN error, or empty answer. Also, clients can be informed that filtering has occured by sending an Extended DNS Error code defined in . Each of these methods have advantages and disadvantages that are discussed below:

1. The DNS response is forged to provide a list of IP addresses that points to an HTTP(S) server alerting the end user about the reason for blocking access to the requested domain (e.g., malware). If the authority component of an HTTP(S) URL is blocked, the network security device (e.g., Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) or firewall) presents a block page instead of the HTTP response from the content provider hosting that domain. If the authority component of an HTTP URL is blocked, the network security device intercepts the HTTP request and returns a block page over HTTP. If the authority component of an HTTPS URL is blocked, the network security device serves the block page over HTTPS. In order to return a block page over HTTPS, the network security device uses a locally generated root certificate and corresponding key pair. The local root certificate is installed on the endpoint while the network security device stores a copy of the private key. During the TLS handshake, the on-path network security device modifies the certificate provided by the server and (re)signs it using the private key from the local root certificate.
   • However, in deployments where DNSSEC is used, this approach becomes ineffective because DNSSEC ensures the integrity and authenticity of DNS responses, preventing forged DNS responses from being accepted.
   • The HTTPS server hosted on the network security device will have access to the client's IP address and the hostname being requested. This information will be sensitive, as it will expose the user's identity and the domain name that a user attempted to access.
   • Configuring a local root certificate on endpoints is not a viable option in several deployments like home networks, schools, Small Office/Home Office (SOHO), or Small/Medium Enterprise (SME). In these cases, the typical behavior is that the filtered DNS response points to a server that will display the block page. If the client is using HTTPS (via a web browser or another application) this results in a certificate validation error which gives no information to the end-user about the reason for the DNS filtering.
   • Enterprise networks do not always assume that all the connected devices are managed by the IT team or Mobile Device Management (MDM) devices, especially in the quite common Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) scenario. In addition, the local root certificate cannot be installed on IoT devices without a device management tool.
   • An end user does not know why the connection was prevented and, consequently, may repeatedly try to reach the domain but with no success. Frustrated, the end user may switch to an alternate network that offers no DNS filtering against malware and phishing, potentially compromising both security and privacy. Furthermore, certificate errors train users to click through certificate errors, which is a bad security practice. To eliminate the need for an end user to click through certificate errors, an end user may manually install a local root certificate on a host device. Doing so, however, is also a bad security practice as it creates a security vulnerability that may be exploited by a MITM attack. When a manually installed local root certificate expires, the user has to (again) manually install the new local root certificate.
2. The DNS response is forged to provide an NXDOMAIN answer, causing the DNS lookup to fail. This approach is incompatible with DNSSEC when the client performs validation, as the forged response will fail DNSSEC checks. However, in deployments where the client relies on the DNS server to perform DNSSEC validation, a filtering DNS server can forge an NXDOMAIN response for a valid domain, and the client will trust it. This undermines the integrity guarantees of DNSSEC, as the client has no way to distinguish between a genuine and a forged response. Further, the end user may not understand why a domain cannot be reached and may repeatedly attempt access without success. Frustrated, the user may resort to using insecure methods to reach the domain, potentially compromising both security and privacy.
3. The extended error codes Blocked and Filtered defined in can be returned by a DNS server to provide additional information about the cause of a DNS error. These extended error codes do not suffer from the limitations discussed in bullets (1) and (2), but the user still does not know the exact reason nor is aware of the exact entity blocking the access to the domain. For example, a DNS server may block access to a domain based on the content category such as "Malware" to protect the endpoint from malicious software, "Phishing" to prevent the user from revealing sensitive information to the attacker, etc. A user may need to know the contact details of the IT/InfoSec team to raise a complaint.

I-JSON in EXTRA-TEXT Field DNS servers that are compliant with this specification and have received an indication that the client also supports this specification as per send data in the EXTRA-TEXT field encoded using the Internet JSON (I-JSON) message format .

• Note that was based on , but was replaced by .

This document defines the following JSON names:

c: (contact)

The contact details of the IT/InfoSec team to report mis-classified DNS filtering. This information is important for transparency and also to ease unblocking a legitimate domain name that got blocked due to wrong classification.

This field is structured as an array of contact URIs that MUST use 'tel' or 'sips' or 'mailto' schemes. At least one contact URI MUST be included.

New contact URI schemes may be added to the IANA registry following the instructions in .

This field is mandatory.

j: (justification)

'UTF-8'-encoded textual justification for this particular DNS filtering. The field should be treated only as diagnostic information for IT staff.

Whether the information provided in the "j" name is meaningful or considered as garbage data (including empty values) is local to each IT teams. Returning garbage data would indicate that a DNS server is misbehaving. Note also that the provided justification is useful for cross-validation with another DNS server.

This field is mandatory.

s: (sub-error)

An integer representing the sub-error code for this particular DNS filtering case.

The integer values are defined in the IANA-managed registry for DNS Sub-Error Codes in .

This field is optional.

o: (organization)

'UTF-8'-encoded human-friendly name of the organization that filtered this particular DNS query.

This field is optional.

l: (language)

The "l" field indicates the language used for the JSON-encoded "j" and "o" fields. The value of this field MUST conform to the language tag syntax specified in .

This field is optional but RECOMMENDED to aid in localization.

New JSON names can be defined in the IANA registry introduced in . Such names MUST consist only of lower-case ASCII characters, digits, and hyphen-minus (that is, Unicode characters U+0061 through 007A, U+0030 through U+0039, and U+002D). Also, these names MUST be 63 characters or shorter and it is RECOMMENDED they be as short as possible. The text in the "j" and "o" names can include international characters. The text will be in natural language, chosen by the DNS administrator to match its expected audience. If the client supports diagnostic interfaces, it MAY use the "l" field to identify the language of the "j" text and optionally translate it for IT administrators. The "o" field MAY be displayed to end users, subject to the conditions described in . If the text is in a language not understood by the end-user, the "l" field can be used to identify the language and support translation into the end-user's preferred language. To reduce DNS message size the generated JSON SHOULD be as short as possible: short domain names, concise text in the values for the "j" and "o" names, and minified JSON (that is, without spaces or line breaks between JSON elements). The JSON data can be parsed to display to the user, logged, or otherwise used to assist the end-user or IT staff with troubleshooting and diagnosing the cause of the DNS filtering. The sub-error codes provide a structured way to communicate more detailed and precise communication of the cause of an error (e.g., distinguishing between malware-related blocking and phishing-related blocking under the general blocked error).

• An alternate design for conveying the sub-error would be to define new EDE codes for these errors. However, such design is suboptimal because it requires replicating an error code for each EDE code to which the sub-error applies (e.g., "Malware" sub-error in would consume three EDE codes).

Protocol Operation

Client Generating Request When generating a DNS query the client includes the EDE option () in the OPT pseudo-RR to elicit the EDE option in the DNS response. It MUST use an OPTION-LENGTH of 2, the INFO-CODE field set to "0" (Other Error), and an empty EXTRA-TEXT field. This signal indicates that the client desires that the server responds in accordance with the present specification.

Server Generating Response When the DNS server filters its DNS response to a query (e.g., A or AAAA resource record query), the DNS response MAY contain an empty answer, NXDOMAIN, or (less ideally) forged response, as desired by the DNS server. In addition, if the query contained the OPT pseudo-RR the DNS server MAY return more detail in the EXTRA-TEXT field as described in . Servers MAY decide to return small TTL values in filtered DNS responses (e.g., 10 seconds) to handle domain category and reputation updates. Short TTLs allow for quick adaptation to dynamic changes in domain filtering decisions, but can result in increased query traffic. In cases where updates are less frequent, TTL values of 30 to 60 seconds MAY provide a better balance, reducing server load while still ensuring reasonable flexibility for updates. Because the DNS client signals its EDE support () and because EDE support is signaled via a non-cached OPT resource record () the EDE-aware DNS server can tailor its filtered response to be most appropriate to that client's EDE support. If EDE support is signaled in the query as per , the server MUST NOT return the "Forged Answer" extended error code because the client can take advantage of EDE's more sophisticated error reporting (e.g., "Filtered", "Blocked"). Continuing to send "Forged Answer" even to an EDE-supporting client will cause the persistence of the drawbacks described in . When the "Censored" extended error code is included in the DNS response, the "c", "j", "o", and "l" fields may be conveyed in the EXTRA-TEXT field. The sub-error codes defined in this specification are not applicable to the "Censored" extended error code and MUST NOT be used in conjunction with it.

Client Processing Response On receipt of a DNS response with an EDE option from a DNS responder, the following ordered actions are performed on the EXTRA-TEXT field:

1. Servers which don't support this specification might use plain text in the EXTRA-TEXT field. Requestors SHOULD properly handle both plaintext and JSON text in the EXTRA-TEXT field. The requestor verifies that the field contains valid JSON. If not, the requestor MUST consider the server does not support this specification and stop processing rest of the actions defined in this section, but may instead choose to treat EXTRA-TEXT as per .
2. The response MUST be received over an encrypted DNS channel. If not, the requestor MUST discard data in the EXTRA-TEXT field.
3. The DNS response MUST also contain an extended error code of "Blocked by Upstream Server", "Blocked" or "Filtered" , otherwise the EXTRA-TEXT field is discarded.
4. If either of the mandatory JSON names "c" and "j" are missing or have empty values in the EXTRA-TEXT field, the entire JSON is discarded.
5. If the "c" field contains any contact URIs that use a scheme not registered in the registry, only those URIs MUST be discarded. Contact URIs using registered schemes can be processed.
6. If a DNS client has enabled opportunistic privacy profile () for DoT, the DNS client will either fall back to an encrypted connection without authenticating the DNS server provided by the local network or fall back to clear text DNS, and cannot exchange encrypted DNS messages. Both of these fallback mechanisms adversely impact security and privacy. If the DNS client has enabled opportunistic privacy profile for DoT and the identity of the DNS server cannot be verified but the connection is encrypted, the DNS client MUST ignore the "c", "j", and "o" fields but MAY process the "s" field and other parts of the response.
7. Opportunistic discovery , where only the IP address is validated, the DNS client MUST ignore the "c", "j", and "o" fields but MAY process the "s" field and other parts of the response.
8. If a DNS client has enabled strict privacy profile () for DoT, the DNS client requires an encrypted connection and successful authentication of the DNS server. In doing so, this mitigates both passive eavesdropping and client redirection (at the expense of providing no DNS service if an encrypted, authenticated connection is not available). If the DNS client has enabled strict privacy profile for DoT, the DNS client MAY process the EXTRA-TEXT field of the DNS response.
9. The DNS client MUST ignore any other JSON names that it does not support.

• Note that the strict and opportunistic privacy profiles as defined in only apply to DoT; there has been no such distinction made for DoH.

Deployment Considerations When a forwarder receives an EDE option, whether or not (and how) to pass along JSON information in the EXTRA-TEXT field to its client is implementation-dependent . Implementations MAY choose not to forward the JSON information, or they MAY choose to create a new EDE option that conveys the information in the "c", "s", and "j" fields encoded in the JSON object. The application that triggered the DNS request may have a local policy to override the contact information (e.g., redirect all complaint calls to a single contact point). In such cases, the content of the "c" attribute MAY be ignored.

New Sub-Error Codes Definition The document defines the following new IANA-registered Sub-Error codes.

Reserved

• Number: 0
• Meaning: Reserved. This sub-error code value MUST NOT be sent. If received, it has no meaning.
• Applicability: This code should never be used.
• Reference: This-Document
• Change Controller: IETF

Network Operator Policy

• Number: 5
• Meaning: Network Operator Policy. The code indicates that the request was filtered according to a policy imposed by the operator of the local network (where local network is a relative term, e.g., it may refer to a Local Area Network or to the network of the ISP selected by the user).
• Applicability: Blocked
• Reference: This-Document
• Change Controller: IETF

DNS Operator Policy

• Number: 6
• Meaning: DNS Operator Policy. The code indicates that the request was filtered according to policy determined by the operator of the DNS server. This is different from the "Network Operator Policy" code when a third-party DNS resolver is used.
• Applicability: Blocked
• Reference: This-Document
• Change Controller: IETF

New Extended DNS Errors This document defines an addition to the EDE codes defined in .

Extended DNS Error Code TBA1 - Blocked by Upstream DNS Server The DNS server (e.g., a DNS forwarder) is unable to respond to the request because the domain is on a blocklist due to an internal security policy imposed by an upstream DNS server. This error code is useful in deployments where a network-provided DNS forwarder is configured to use an external resolver that filters malicious domains. Typically, when the DNS forwarder receives a Blocked (15) error code from the upstream DNS server, it will replace it with "Blocked by Upstream DNS Server" (TBA1) before forwarding the reply to the DNS client. Additionally, the EXTRA-TEXT field is forwarded to the DNS client.

Examples An example showing the nameserver at 'ns.example.net' that filtered a DNS "A" record query for 'example.org' is provided in .

JSON Returned in EXTRA-TEXT Field of Extended DNS Error Response

In the same content is shown with minified JSON (no whitespace, no blank lines) with '\' line wrapping per .

Minified Response

Security Considerations

Authentication and Confidentiality Security considerations in apply to this document, except the guard against using EDE content to alter DNS protocol processing. The guard is relaxed in the current specification as it mandates encryption and recommends the use of an authenticated connection to the DNS server, while assumes that EDE information is unauthenticated and sent over clear text. To minimize impact of active on-path attacks on the DNS channel, the client validates the response as described in .

Restrictions on Display of "c" and "o" Fields A client might choose to display the information in the "c" field to the end-user if and only if the encrypted resolver has sufficient reputation, according to some local policy (e.g., user configuration, administrative configuration, or a built-in list of respectable resolvers). This limits the ability of a malicious encrypted resolver to cause harm. For example, an end user can use the details in the "c" field to contact an attacker to solve the problem of being unable to reach a domain. The attacker can mislead the end user to install malware or spyware to compromise the device security posture or mislead the end user to reveal personal data. If the client decides not to display all of the information in the EXTRA-TEXT field, it can be logged for diagnostics purpose and the client can only display the resolver hostname that blocked the domain, error description for the EDE code and the sub-error description for the "s" field to the end-user. When displaying the free-form text of "o", the browser MUST NOT make any of those elements into actionable (clickable) links and these fields need to be rendered as text, not as HTML. The contact details of "c" can be made into clickable links to provide a convenient way for users to initiate, e.g., voice calls. The client might choose to display the contact details only when the identity of the DNS server is verified. Further, clients MUST NOT display the value of the "o" field to the end-user unless one of the following conditions is met:

• The value matches a registered organization name listed in the OR
• The value consists solely of an organization name and does not contain any additional free-form content such as instructions, URLs, or messaging intended to influence the end-user behavior.

Security Risks from Legacy DNS Forwarders An attacker might inject (or modify) the EDE EXTRA-TEXT field with a DNS proxy or DNS forwarder that is unaware of EDE. Such a DNS proxy or DNS forwarder will forward that attacker-controlled EDE option. To prevent such an attack, clients can be configured to process EDE from explicitly configured DNS servers or utilize RESINFO .

IANA Considerations This document requests four IANA actions as described in the following subsections.

• Note to the RFC Editor: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number assigned to this document and "TBA1" with the value assigned by IANA.

New Registry for JSON Names This document requests IANA to create a new registry, entitled "EXTRA-TEXT JSON Names" under "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters, Extended DNS Error Codes" registry . The registration request for a new JSON name must include the following fields:

JSON Name:

Specifies the name of an attribute that is present in the JSON data enclosed in EXTRA-TEXT field. The name must follow the guidelines in .

Field Meaning:

Provides a brief, human-readable label summarizing the purpose of the JSON attribute.

Short description:

Includes a short description of the requested JSON name.

Mandatory (Y/N?):

Indicates whether this attribute is mandatory or optional.

Specification:

Provides a pointer to the reference document that specifies the attribute.

The registry is initially populated with the following values: Initial JSON Names Registry

JSON Name	Field Meaning	Description	Mandatory	Specification
c	contact	The contact details of the IT/InfoSec team to report mis-classified DNS filtering	Y	of RFCXXXX
j	justification	UTF-8-encoded textual justification for a particular DNS filtering	Y	of RFCXXXX
s	sub-error	Integer representing the sub-error code for this DNS filtering case	N	of RFCXXXX
o	organization	UTF-8-encoded human-friendly name of the organization that filtered this particular DNS query	N	of RFCXXXX
l	language	Indicates the language of the "j" and "o" fields as defined in	N	of RFCXXXX

New JSON names are registered via IETF Review ().

New Registry for Contact URI Scheme This document requests IANA to create a new registry, entitled "Contact URI Schemes" under "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters, Extended DNS Error Codes" registry . The registration request for a new Contact URI scheme has to include the following fields:

• Name: URI scheme name.
• Meaning: Provides a short description of the scheme.
• Reference: Provides a pointer to an IETF-approved specification that defines the URI scheme.

The Contact URI scheme registry is initially be populated with the following schemes:

Name	Meaning	Reference
sips	SIP Call
tel	Telephone Number
mailto	Internet mail

The registration procedure for adding new Contact URI schemes to the "Contact URI Schemes" registry is "IETF Review" as defined in .

New Registry for DNS Sub-Error Codes This document requests IANA to create a new registry, entitled "Sub-Error Codes" under "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters, Extended DNS Error Codes" registry . The registration request for a new sub-error codes MUST include the following fields:

• Number: Is the wire format sub-error code (range 0-255).
• Meaning: Provides a short description of the sub-error.
• Applicability: Indicates which Extended DNS Error (EDE) Codes apply to this sub-error code.
• Reference: Provides a pointer to an IETF-approved specification that registered the code and/or an authoritative specification that describes the meaning of this code.

The Sub-Error Code registry is initially be populated with the following values: Initial Sub-Error Code Registry

Number	Meaning	EDE Codes Applicability	Reference
0	Reserved	Not used	of this document
1	Malware	"Blocked", "Blocked by Upstream Server", "Filtered"	Section 5.5 of
2	Phishing	"Blocked", "Blocked by Upstream Server", "Filtered"	Section 5.5 of
3	Spam	"Blocked", "Blocked by Upstream Server", "Filtered"	Page 289 of
4	Spyware	"Blocked", "Blocked by Upstream Server", "Filtered"	Page 291 of
5	Network operator policy	"Blocked"	of this document
6	DNS operator policy	"Blocked"	of this document

The registration procedure to add New Sub-Error Codes are registered via IETF Review as defined in .

New Extended DNS Error Code IANA is requested to assign the following Extended DNS Error code from the "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters, Extended DNS Error Codes" registry : New DNS Error Code

INFO-CODE	Purose	Reference
TBA1	Blocked by Upstream Server	RFCXXXX

References Normative References 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. 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. I-JSON (short for "Internet JSON") is a restricted profile of JSON designed to maximize interoperability and increase confidence that software can process it successfully with predictable results. JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data. This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based interoperability guidance. This document specifies the URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) scheme "tel". The "tel" URI describes resources identified by telephone numbers. This document obsoletes RFC 2806. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document provides clarifications and guidelines concerning the use of the SIPS URI scheme in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). It also makes normative changes to SIP. [STANDARDS-TRACK] The Internet today is in need of a standardized form for the transmission of internationalized "text" information, paralleling the specifications for the use of ASCII that date from the early days of the ARPANET. This document specifies that format, using UTF-8 with normalization and specific line-ending sequences. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document describes the structure, content, construction, and semantics of language tags for use in cases where it is desirable to indicate the language used in an information object. It also describes how to register values for use in language tags and the creation of user-defined extensions for private interchange. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. 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 document discusses usage profiles, based on one or more authentication mechanisms, which can be used for DNS over Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Datagram TLS (DTLS). These profiles can increase the privacy of DNS transactions compared to using only cleartext DNS. This document also specifies new authentication mechanisms -- it describes several ways that a DNS client can use an authentication domain name to authenticate a (D)TLS connection to a DNS server. Additionally, it defines (D)TLS protocol profiles for DNS clients and servers implementing DNS over (D)TLS. This document updates RFC 7858. 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. This document defines the format of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) to identify resources that are reached using Internet mail. It adds better internationalization and compatibility with Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs; RFC 3987) to the previous syntax of 'mailto' URIs (RFC 2368). [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document extends the Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) defined in RFC 5070 to support the reporting of phishing events, which is a particular type of fraud. These extensions are flexible enough to support information gleaned from activities throughout the entire electronic fraud cycle -- from receipt of the phishing lure to the disablement of the collection site. Both simple reporting and complete forensic reporting are possible, as is consolidating multiple incidents. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This Glossary provides definitions, abbreviations, and explanations of terminology for information system security. The 334 pages of entries offer recommendations to improve the comprehensibility of written material that is generated in the Internet Standards Process (RFC 2026). The recommendations follow the principles that such writing should (a) use the same term or definition whenever the same concept is mentioned; (b) use terms in their plainest, dictionary sense; (c) use terms that are already well-established in open publications; and (d) avoid terms that either favor a particular vendor or favor a particular technology or mechanism over other, competing techniques that already exist or could be developed. This memo provides information for the Internet community. Informative References IANA The Domain Name System (DNS) is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs. The terminology used by implementers and developers of DNS protocols, and by operators of DNS systems, has changed in the decades since the DNS was first defined. This document gives current definitions for many of the terms used in the DNS in a single document. This document updates RFC 2308 by clarifying the definitions of "forwarder" and "QNAME". It obsoletes RFC 8499 by adding multiple terms and clarifications. Comprehensive lists of changed and new definitions can be found in Appendices A and B. 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. This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide privacy for DNS. Encryption provided by TLS eliminates opportunities for eavesdropping and on-path tampering with DNS queries in the network, such as discussed in RFC 7626. In addition, this document specifies two usage profiles for DNS over TLS and provides advice on performance considerations to minimize overhead from using TCP and TLS with DNS. This document focuses on securing stub-to-recursive traffic, as per the charter of the DPRIVE Working Group. It does not prevent future applications of the protocol to recursive-to-authoritative traffic. This document describes the use of QUIC to provide transport confidentiality for DNS. The encryption provided by QUIC has similar properties to those provided by TLS, while QUIC transport eliminates the head-of-line blocking issues inherent with TCP and provides more efficient packet-loss recovery than UDP. DNS over QUIC (DoQ) has privacy properties similar to DNS over TLS (DoT) specified in RFC 7858, and latency characteristics similar to classic DNS over UDP. This specification describes the use of DoQ as a general-purpose transport for DNS and includes the use of DoQ for stub to recursive, recursive to authoritative, and zone transfer scenarios. JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a lightweight, text-based, language-independent data interchange format. It was derived from the ECMAScript Programming Language Standard. JSON defines a small set of formatting rules for the portable representation of structured data. This document removes inconsistencies with other specifications of JSON, repairs specification errors, and offers experience-based interoperability guidance. This document defines Discovery of Designated Resolvers (DDR), a set of mechanisms for DNS clients to use DNS records to discover a resolver's encrypted DNS configuration. An Encrypted DNS Resolver discovered in this manner is referred to as a "Designated Resolver". These mechanisms can be used to move from unencrypted DNS to encrypted DNS when only the IP address of a resolver is known. These mechanisms are designed to be limited to cases where Unencrypted DNS Resolvers and their Designated Resolvers are operated by the same entity or cooperating entities. It can also be used to discover support for encrypted DNS protocols when the name of an Encrypted DNS Resolver is known. This document provides guidelines for the implementation of DNS proxies, as found in broadband gateways and other similar network devices. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. This document defines two strategies for handling long lines in width-bounded text content. One strategy, called the "single backslash" strategy, is based on the historical use of a single backslash ('\') character to indicate where line-folding has occurred, with the continuation occurring with the first character that is not a space character (' ') on the next line. The second strategy, called the "double backslash" strategy, extends the first strategy by adding a second backslash character to identify where the continuation begins and is thereby able to handle cases not supported by the first strategy. Both strategies use a self-describing header enabling automated reconstitution of the original content. This document specifies a method for DNS resolvers to publish information about themselves. DNS clients can use the resolver information to identify the capabilities of DNS resolvers. How DNS clients use such information is beyond the scope of this document.

Interoperation with RPZ Servers This appendix provides a non-normative guidance for operation with an Response Policy Zones (RPZ) server that indicates filtering with a NXDOMAIN response with the Recursion Available bit cleared (RA=0). This guidance is provided to ease interoperation with RPZ. When a DNS client supports this specification, it includes the EDE option in its DNS query. If the server does not support this specification and is performing RPZ filtering, the server ignores the EDE option in the DNS query and replies with NXDOMAIN and RA=0. The DNS client can continue to accept such responses. If the server does support this specification and is performing RPZ filtering, the server can use the EDE option in the query to identify an EDE-aware client and respond appropriately (that is, by generating a response described in ) as NXDOMAIN and RA=0 are not necessary when generating a response to such a client.

Implementation Status

• Note to the RFC Editor: please remove this appendix prior publication.

At IETF#116, Gianpaolo Scalone (Vodafone) and Ralf Weber (Akamai) presented an implementation of this specification. More details can be found at .

Acknowledgements Thanks to Vittorio Bertola, Wes Hardaker, Ben Schwartz, Erid Orth, Viktor Dukhovni, Warren Kumari, Paul Wouters, John Levine, Bob Harold, Mukund Sivaraman, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Gianpaolo Angelo Scalone, Mark Nottingham, Stephane Bortzmeyer, and Daniel Migault for the comments. Thanks to Ralf Weber and Gianpaolo Scalone for sharing details about their implementation. Thanks Di Ma and Matt Brown for the DNS directorate reviews, and Joseph Salowey for the Security directorate review. Thanks Paul Kyzivat for the Art review. Thanks to Éric Vyncke for the AD review.