Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) W. Hardaker
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9904 USC/ISI
Obsoletes: 8624 (if approved) W. Kumari
Updates: 9157 (if approved) Google
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track 4 June 2025
Expires: 6 December October 2025
ISSN: 2070-1721
DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendation Update Process
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-13
Abstract
The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms to
provide authentication of DNS data and proof of non-existence. nonexistence. To
ensure interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative
servers, it is necessary to specify both a set of algorithm
implementation requirements and usage guidelines to ensure that there
is at least one algorithm that all implementations support. This
document replaces and obsoletes RFC8624 RFC 8624 and moves the canonical
source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance
for DNSSEC from RFC8624 RFC 8624 to an IANA registry. This is done both to allow
the list of requirements to be more easily updated, updated and to
allow the list to be more easily referenced.
Future extensions to this registry can be made under new, incremental
update RFCs. This document also updates RFC 9157 and incorporates
the revised IANA DNSSEC considerations from RFC9157.
The that RFC.
This document does not change the status (MUST, MAY, RECOMMENDED,
etc.) of the algorithms listed in RFC8624; RFC 8624; that is the work of
future documents.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 December 2025.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9904.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Document Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Updating Algorithm Requirement Levels . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Notation
2. Adding usage Usage and implementation recommendations Implementation Recommendations to the IANA
DNSSEC registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Algorithm Registries
2.1. Column Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Adding and Changing Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. DNS System Security Algorithm Numbers Registry Column Values . . . . . . . . . 7
4. DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms Registry Column Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Update to the "DNS DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Numbers Registry
7.2. Update to the "Digest Algorithms" registry . . . . . . . 11 Digest Algorithms Registry
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1.
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2.
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. ChangeLog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Changes from ietf-10 to ietf-11: . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Changes from ietf-09 to ietf-10: . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.3. Changes from ietf-08 to ietf-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.4. Changes from ietf-07 to ietf-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.5. Changes from ietf-06 to ietf-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.6. Changes from ietf-05 to ietf-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.7. Changes from ietf-03 to ietf-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.8. Changes from ietf-02 to ietf-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.9. Changes from ietf-01 to ietf-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.10. Changes from ietf-00 to ietf-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.11. Changes from hardaker-04 to ietf-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.12. Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.13. Changes since RFC8624 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
DNS
"DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) (DNSSEC)" [RFC9364] is used to provide
authentication of DNS data. The DNSSEC signing algorithms are
defined by various RFCs, including [RFC4034], [RFC4509], [RFC5155],
[RFC5702], [RFC5933], [RFC6605], and [RFC8080].
To ensure interoperability, a set of "mandatory to implement" DNSKEY "mandatory-to-implement" DNS
Public Key (DNSKEY) algorithms are defined in [RFC8624]. To make the
current status of the algorithms more easily accessible and
understandable, and to make future changes to these recommendations
easier to publish, this document moves the canonical status of the
algorithms from [RFC8624] to the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries.
Additionally, as advice to operators, it adds recommendations for
deploying and the usage of using these algorithms.
This is similar to the process used for the [TLS-ciphersuites]
registry, "TLS Cipher Suites"
registry [TLS-ciphersuites], where the canonical list of ciphersuites cipher
suites is in the IANA registry, and the RFCs reference the IANA registry.
1.1. Document Audience
The columns added to the IANA "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
[DNSKEY-IANA] and "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR)
Type Digest "Digest Algorithms" [DS-IANA] registries target
DNSSEC operators and implementers.
Implementations need to meet both high security expectations as well as
provide interoperability between various implementations and with
different versions.
The field of cryptography evolves continuously. New, stronger
algorithms appear, and existing algorithms may be found to be less
secure than originally thought. Therefore, algorithm implementation
requirements and usage guidance need to be updated from time to time
in order to reflect the new reality, reality and to allow for a smooth
transition to more secure algorithms, algorithms as well as the deprecation of
algorithms deemed to no longer be secure.
Implementations need to be conservative in the selection of
algorithms they implement in order to minimize both code complexity
and the attack surface.
The perspective of implementers may differ from that of an operator
who wishes to deploy and configure DNSSEC with only the safest
algorithm. As such such, this document also adds new recommendations
about which algorithms should be deployed regardless of
implementation status. In general, it is expected that deployment of
aging algorithms should generally be reduced before implementations
stop supporting them.
1.2. Updating Algorithm Requirement Levels
By the time a DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm is made mandatory to
implement, it should already be available in most implementations.
This document defines an IANA registration modification to allow
future documents to specify the implementation recommendations for
each algorithm, as the recommendation status of each DNSSEC
cryptographic algorithm is expected to change over time. For
example, there is no guarantee that newly introduced algorithms will
become mandatory to implement in the future. Likewise, published
algorithms are continuously subjected to cryptographic attack and may
become too weak, or even be completely broken, and will require
deprecation in the future.
It is expected that the deprecation of an algorithm will be performed
gradually. This provides time for implementations to update their
implemented algorithms while remaining interoperable. Unless there
are strong security reasons, an algorithm is expected to be
downgraded from MUST to NOT RECOMMENDED or MAY, instead of directly
from MUST to MUST NOT. Similarly, an algorithm that has not been
mentioned as mandatory to implement is expected to be first
introduced as RECOMMENDED instead of a MUST.
Since the effect of using an unknown DNSKEY algorithm is that the
zone is treated as insecure, it is recommended that algorithms which that
have been downgraded to NOT RECOMMENDED or lower not be used by
authoritative nameservers and DNSSEC signers to create new DNSKEY's. DNSKEYs.
This ensures that the use of deprecated algorithms decreases over
time. Once an algorithm has reached a sufficiently low level of
deployment, it can be marked as MUST NOT, so that recursive resolvers
can remove support for validating it.
Validating recursive resolvers are encouraged to retain support for
all algorithms not marked as MUST NOT.
1.3. Requirements notation 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
[RFC2119] considers the term SHOULD to be equivalent to RECOMMENDED,
and SHOULD NOT equivalent to NOT RECOMMENDED. This document has
chosen to use the terms RECOMMENDED and NOT RECOMMENDED, as this more
clearly expresses the recommendations to implementers.
2. Adding usage Usage and implementation recommendations Implementation Recommendations to the IANA DNSSEC
registries
Algorithm Registries
Per this document, the following columns are being have been added to the
following
corresponding DNSSEC algorithm registries maintained with by IANA:
+================================+=================================+
| Registry | Column added Added |
+================================+=================================+
| DNS Security Algorithm Numbers | Use for DNSSEC Signing |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| DNS Security Algorithm Numbers | Use for DNSSEC Validation |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| DNS Security Algorithm Numbers | Implement for DNSSEC Signing |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| DNS Security Algorithm Numbers | Implement for DNSSEC Validation |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Digest Algorithm Algorithms | Use for DNSSEC Delegation |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Digest Algorithm Algorithms | Use for DNSSEC Validation |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Digest Algorithm Algorithms | Implement for DNSSEC Delegation |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Digest Algorithm Algorithms | Implement for DNSSEC Validation |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Table 1: Columns Added to add to existing Existing DNSSEC algorithm registries Algorithm Registries
2.1. Column Descriptions
The intended usage of the four columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm
Numbers" table are: registry is as follows:
Use for DNSSEC Signing: Indicates the recommendation for using the
algorithm within authoritative servers.
Use for DNSSEC Validation: Indicates the recommendation for using
the algorithm in DNSSEC validators.
Implement for DNSSEC Signing: Indicates the recommendation for
implementing the algorithm within DNSSEC signing software.
Implement for DNSSEC Validation: Indicates the recommendation for
implementing the algorithm within DNSSEC validators.
The intended usage of the four columns in the "Digest Algorithm"
table are: Algorithms"
registry is as follows:
Use for DNSSEC Delegation: Indicates the recommendation for using
the algorithm within authoritative servers.
Use for DNSSEC Validation: Indicates the recommendation for using
the algorithm in DNSSEC validators.
Implement for DNSSEC Delegation: Indicates the recommendation for
implementing the algorithm within authoritative servers.
Implement for DNSSEC Validation: Indicates the recommendation for
implementing the algorithm within validating resolvers.
2.2. Adding and Changing Values
Adding a new entry to the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry
with a recommended value of "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Signing",
"Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or
"Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns will be subject to the
"Specification Required"
Specification Required policy as defined in [RFC8126] in order to
promote continued evolution of DNSSEC algorithms and DNSSEC agility.
New entries added through the "Specification Required" Specification Required process will
have the value of "MAY" for all columns. (Ed note (RFC Editor -
please delete this before publication): As a reminder: the
"Specification Required" policy includes a requirement for a
designated expert to review the request.)
Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in, the "DNS
System Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for DNSSEC Signing",
"Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or
"Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns to any other value than
"MAY" requires a Standards Action.
Adding a new entry to the "Digest Algorithms" registry with a
recommended value of "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use
for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", or
"Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns SHALL follow the
"Specification Required"
Specification Required policy as defined in [RFC8126].
Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in, the "DNS
System Algorithm Numbers" "Digest
Algorithms" registry for the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for
DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", or "Implement
for DNSSEC Validation" columns to any other value than "MAY" requires
a Standards Action.
If an item is not marked as "RECOMMENDED", it does not necessarily
mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either has
not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited
applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases.
Only values of "MAY", "RECOMMENDED", "MUST NOT", and "NOT
RECOMMENDED" may be placed into the "Use for DNSSEC Signing" and "Use
for DNSSEC Validation" columns. Only values of "MAY", "RECOMMENDED",
"MUST", "MUST NOT", and "NOT RECOMMENDED" may be placed into the
"Implement for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for DNSSEC Validation"
columns. Note that a value of "MUST" is not an allowed value for the
two "Use for" columns.
The following sections state the initial values to be that have been
populated into these rows. columns. The values in the "Implement for" column values
columns are transcribed from [RFC8624]. The "Use for" columns are
set to the same values as those in the "Implement for" values columns since
the general interpretation to date indicates they have been treated
as values for both "implementation" "use" and "use". "implementation". Note that the value
in the "Use for" columns values use column is "RECOMMENDED" when the value in the
corresponding "Implement for" column is a "MUST" value. "MUST". We note that the
values for "Implement for" and "Use for" may diverge in the future as
implementations generally precede deployments.
3. DNS System Security Algorithm Numbers Registry Column Values
Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation
recommendations for the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry
under the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers"
registry group are shown in Table 2.
When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "use" column,
operators should choose the best algorithm according to local policy.
+===+===============+===========+===========+===========+===========+
|N |Mnemonics
|No.|Mnemonics |Use for |Use for |Implement |Implement |
| | |DNSSEC |DNSSEC |for DNSSEC |for DNSSEC |
| | |Signing |Validation |Signing |Validation |
+===+===============+===========+===========+===========+===========+
|1 |RSAMD5 |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|3 |DSA |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|5 |RSASHA1 |NOT |RECOMMENDED|NOT |MUST |
| | |RECOMMENDED| |RECOMMENDED| |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|6 |DSA-NSEC3-SHA1 |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|7 |RSASHA1-NSEC3- |NOT |RECOMMENDED|NOT |MUST |
| |SHA1 |RECOMMENDED| |RECOMMENDED| |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|8 |RSASHA256 |RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|MUST |MUST |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|10 |RSASHA512 |NOT |RECOMMENDED|NOT |MUST |
| | |RECOMMENDED| |RECOMMENDED| |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|12 |ECC-GOST |MUST NOT |MAY |MUST NOT |MAY |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|13 |ECDSAP256SHA256|RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|MUST |MUST |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|14 |ECDSAP384SHA384|MAY |RECOMMENDED|MAY |RECOMMENDED|
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|15 |ED25519 |RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|16 |ED448 |MAY |RECOMMENDED|MAY |RECOMMENDED|
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|17 |SM2/SM3 |MAY |MAY |MAY |MAY |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|23 |GOST R |MAY |MAY |MAY |MAY |
| |34.10-2012 | | | | |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|253|private |MAY |MAY |MAY |MAY |
| |algorithm | | | | |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|254|private |MAY |MAY |MAY |MAY |
| |algorithm OID | | | | |
+---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
Table 2: Initial values Values for the DNS System Security Algorithm Numbers columns
Registry Columns
4. DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms Registry Column Values
Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation
recommendations for the "Digest Algorithms" registry under the
"DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest
Algorithms" registry group are shown in Table 3.
When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "use" column,
operators should choose the best algorithm according to local policy.
+======+==========+===========+===========+==========+=============+
|Number|Mnemonics |Use
+=====+===========+===========+===========+==========+=============+
|Value|Description|Use for |Use for |Implement | Implement |
| | |DNSSEC |DNSSEC |for DNSSEC| for DNSSEC |
| | |Delegation |Validation |Delegation| Validation |
+======+==========+===========+===========+==========+=============+
+=====+===========+===========+===========+==========+=============+
|0 |NULL (CDS |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |MUST NOT | MUST NOT |
| |only) | | | | |
+------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
|1 |SHA-1 |MUST NOT |RECOMMENDED|MUST NOT | MUST |
+------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
|2 |SHA-256 |RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|MUST | MUST |
+------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
|3 |GOST R |MUST NOT |MAY |MUST NOT | MAY |
| |34.11-94 | | | | |
+------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
|4 |SHA-384 |MAY |RECOMMENDED|MAY | RECOMMENDED |
+------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
|5 |GOST R |MAY |MAY |MAY | MAY |
| |34.11-2012| |34.11-2012 | | | | |
+------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
|6 |SM3 |MAY |MAY |MAY | MAY |
+------+----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
+-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
Table 3: Initial values Values for the DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS)
Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms columns Registry Columns
5. Security Considerations
The security of cryptographic systems depends on both the strength of both
the cryptographic algorithms chosen and the strength of the keys used with those
algorithms. The security also depends on the engineering of the
protocol used by the system to ensure that there are no non-
cryptographic ways to bypass the security of the overall system.
This document concerns itself with the selection of cryptographic
algorithms for the use of DNSSEC, specifically with the selection of
"mandatory to implement"
"mandatory-to-implement" algorithms. The In this document, the
algorithms identified in
this document as "MUST" MUST or "RECOMMENDED" RECOMMENDED to implement are not
known to be broken at the current time, and cryptographic research so
far leads us to believe that they are likely to remain adequately
secure unless significant and unexpected discovery is made. However,
this isn't necessarily forever, and it is expected that future
documents will be issued from time to time to reflect the current
best practices in this area.
Retiring an algorithm too soon would result in a zone signed with the
retired algorithm being downgraded to the equivalent of an unsigned
zone. Therefore, algorithm deprecation must be done only after
careful consideration and ideally slowly when possible.
6. Operational Considerations
DNSKEY algorithm rollover in a live zone is a complex process. See
[RFC6781] and [RFC7583] for guidelines on how to perform algorithm
rollovers.
DS algorithm rollover in a live zone is also a complex process.
Upgrading an algorithm at the same time as rolling to the new Key
Signing Key (KSK) key will lead to DNSSEC validation failures, and
users MUST upgrade the DS algorithm first before rolling to a new
KSK.
7. IANA Considerations
The
IANA is requested to update has updated the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" [DNSKEY-IANA]
and "Digest Algorithms" [DS-IANA] registries according to the following sections.
sections that follow.
7.1. Update to the "DNS DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry
This document requests Numbers Registry
IANA update has updated the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry ([DNSKEY-IANA]) registry
[DNSKEY-IANA] with the following
additional columns: columns and has populated these
columns with the values from Table 2 of this document:
* "Use for DNSSEC Signing"
* "Use for DNSSEC Validation"
* "Implement for DNSSEC Signing"
* "Implement for DNSSEC Validation"
These values must be populated using values from Table 2 of this
document.
Additionally, IANA has completed the registration policy following actions for the [DNSKEY-IANA] "DNS
Security Algorithm Numbers" registry
should match the text describing [DNSKEY-IANA]:
* Changed the requirements in this document,
and Section 2's registration procedure to Standards Action or
Specification Required.
* Added a note concerning to the registry that describes the values not marked
as "RECOMMENDED"
should be added to the registry.
This per Section 2.2.
* Listed this document should be listed as a an additional reference to for the "DNS Security
Algorithm Numbers" registry.
7.2. Update to the "Digest Algorithms" registry
This document requests Digest Algorithms Registry
IANA update has updated the "Digest Algorithms" registry
([DS-IANA]) registry [DS-IANA] with the
following additional columns: columns and has populated these columns with the values
from Table 3 of this document:
* "Use for DNSSEC Delegation"
* "Use for DNSSEC Validation"
* "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation"
* "Implement for DNSSEC Validation"
These values must be populated using values from Table 3 of this
document.
* Update
Additionally, IANA has completed the registration policy following actions for the [DS-IANA]
"Digest Algorithms" registry [DS-IANA]:
* Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or
Specification Required.
* Added a note to match the text describing update requirements above registry that describes the values not marked
as "RECOMMENDED" per Section 2.2.
* Mark Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.
* Marked values 128 - 252 128-252 as "Reserved" "Reserved".
* Mark Marked values 253 and 254 as "Reserved for Private Use" Use".
* Delete Deleted the (now superfluous) column "Status" from the registry
Section 2's note concerning values not marked as "RECOMMENDED" should
be added to the registry.
This document should be listed as a reference to the "Digest
Algorithms" registry.
8. Acknowledgments
This document is based on, and extends, RFC 8624, which was authored
by Paul Wouters and Ondrej Sury.
The content of this document was heavily discussed by participants of
the DNSOP working group. The authors appreciate the thoughtfulness
of the many opinions expressed by working group participants that all
helped shaped this document. We thank Paul Hoffman and Paul Wouters
for their contributed text, and also Nabeel Cocker, Shumon Huque,
Nicolai Leymann, S Moonesamy, Magnus Nyström, Peter Thomassen, Stefan
Ubbink, and Loganaden Velvindron for their reviews and comments.
9. References
9.1.
8.1. Normative References
[DNSKEY-IANA]
IANA, "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers", n.d.,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-
sec-alg-numbers.xml#dns-sec-alg-numbers-1>.
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers>.
[DS-IANA] IANA, "Delegation "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR)
Type Digest Algorithms", n.d.,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types>.
[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/rfc/rfc2119>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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/rfc/rfc8126>.
<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/rfc/rfc8174>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9157] Hoffman, P., "Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC",
RFC 9157, DOI 10.17487/RFC9157, December 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9157>.
9.2.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9157>.
8.2. Informative References
[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/rfc/rfc4034>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC4509] Hardaker, W., "Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer
(DS) Resource Records (RRs)", RFC 4509,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4509, May 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4509>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4509>.
[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/rfc/rfc5155>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5155>.
[RFC5702] Jansen, J., "Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY
and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5702, October 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5702>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5702>.
[RFC5933] Dolmatov, V., Ed., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of
GOST Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource
Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, DOI 10.17487/RFC5933, July
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5933>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5933>.
[RFC6605] Hoffman, P. and W.C.A. Wijngaards, "Elliptic Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (DSA) for DNSSEC", RFC 6605,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6605, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6605>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6605>.
[RFC6781] Kolkman, O., Mekking, W., and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC
Operational Practices, Version 2", RFC 6781,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6781, December 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6781>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6781>.
[RFC7583] Morris, S., Ihren, J., Dickinson, J., and W. Mekking,
"DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations", RFC 7583,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7583, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7583>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7583>.
[RFC8080] Sury, O. and R. Edmonds, "Edwards-Curve Digital Security
Algorithm (EdDSA) for DNSSEC", RFC 8080,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8080, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8080>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8080>.
[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/rfc/rfc8624>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8624>.
[RFC9364] Hoffman, P., "DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", BCP 237,
RFC 9364, DOI 10.17487/RFC9364, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9364>.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9364>.
[TLS-ciphersuites]
IANA, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters", n.d.,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-
parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-4>.
Appendix A. ChangeLog
(RFC Editor: please remove this ChangeLog section upon publication.)
A.1. Changes from ietf-10 to ietf-11:
* Many more comments to address IESG reviews
A.2. Changes from ietf-09 to ietf-10:
* Many comments addressed from IESG reviews
A.3. Changes from ietf-08 to ietf-09
* Added missing alogirthms (SM2/SM3 and GOST R 34.10-2012)
A.4. Changes from ietf-07 to ietf-08
* Handle issues raised during IETF last call:
* updates 9157
* other nit fixes
A.5. Changes from ietf-06 to ietf-07
* changed to a standards track
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters>.
Acknowledgments
This document
A.6. Changes from ietf-05 to ietf-06
* Address Eric Vyncke (RAD!) AD review comments.
A.7. Changes from ietf-03 to ietf-05
* Updated "entry requirements" to be "Specification Required".
* Marked values 128 - 252 as "Reserved" in "Digest Algorithms" as
break-glass mechanism in case we get a flood of these. To align with the
"DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry (that reserves 123 - ...)
* Marked values 253 and 254 as "Reserved for Private Use" in "Digest
Algorithms"
* Deleted the (now superfluous) column "Status" from the "Digest
A.8. Changes from ietf-02 to ietf-03
* Fixed the reference in the Abstract (no links in Abstracts)
* Added Updates: to the header.
A.9. Changes from ietf-01 to ietf-02
* Changed the MUST values in the tables for the Use columns to
RECOMMENDED is based on discussions on the dnsop mailing list.
* Other minor wording and formatting changes
A.10. Changes from ietf-00 to ietf-01
* Only NIT fixing
A.11. Changes from hardaker-04 to ietf-00
* Just a draft name on, and number change.
A.12. Changes from -03 to -04
* Changed the columns being added from 2 per table to 4, based on
discussion within the dnsop working group mailing list. This extends, RFC 8624, which was
a fairly major set of changes.
A.13. Changes since RFC8624
* authored
by Paul Wouters and Ondrej Sury.
The primary purpose content of this revision is to introduce the new
columns to existing registries. It makes no changes to document was heavily discussed by participants of
the
previously defined values.
* Merged in RFC9157 updates.
* Set DNSOP Working Group. The authors as Wes Hardaker, Warren Kumari. appreciate the thoughtfulness
of the many opinions expressed by working group participants that all
helped shaped this document. We thank Paul Hoffman and Paul Wouters
for their contributed text and also Nabeel Cocker, Shumon Huque,
Nicolai Leymann, S. Moonesamy, Magnus Nyström, Peter Thomassen,
Stefan Ubbink, and Loganaden Velvindron for their reviews and
comments.
Authors' Addresses
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
Email: ietf@hardakers.net
Warren Kumari
Google
Email: warren@kumari.net