rfc9904xml2.original.xml   rfc9904.xml 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.29 (Ruby 3.
4.2) -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc [ <!DOCTYPE rfc [
<!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;"> <!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
<!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;"> <!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;">
<!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;"> <!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;">
<!ENTITY wj "&#8288;"> <!ENTITY wj "&#8288;">
]> ]>
<?rfc docmapping="yes"?> <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft -ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-13" number="9904" category="std" consensus="true" submis sionType="IETF" obsoletes="8624" updates="9157" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true " symRefs="true" xml:lang="en" version="3">
<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-13" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" obsoletes="8624" updates="9157" tocInclud e="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true">
<front> <front>
<title abbrev="DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process">DNSSEC Cryptographic Algori thm Recommendation Update Process</title> <title abbrev="DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process">DNSSEC Cryptographic Algori thm Recommendation Update Process</title>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9904"/>
<author initials="W." surname="Hardaker" fullname="Wes Hardaker"> <author initials="W." surname="Hardaker" fullname="Wes Hardaker">
<organization>USC/ISI</organization> <organization>USC/ISI</organization>
<address> <address>
<email>ietf@hardakers.net</email> <email>ietf@hardakers.net</email>
</address> </address>
</author> </author>
<author initials="W." surname="Kumari" fullname="Warren Kumari"> <author initials="W." surname="Kumari" fullname="Warren Kumari">
<organization>Google</organization> <organization>Google</organization>
<address> <address>
<email>warren@kumari.net</email> <email>warren@kumari.net</email>
</address> </address>
</author> </author>
<date year="2025" month="October"/>
<area>OPS</area>
<workgroup>dnsop</workgroup>
<date year="2025" month="June" day="04"/> <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->
<abstract> <abstract>
<t>The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms to pr
<?line 60?> ovide
authentication of DNS data and proof of nonexistence. To ensure
<t>The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms to provide
authentication of DNS data and proof of non-existence. To ensure
interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative servers, it is interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative servers, it is
necessary to specify both a set of algorithm implementation requirements and necessary to specify both a set of algorithm implementation requirements and
usage guidelines to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all usage guidelines to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all
implementations support. This document replaces and obsoletes RFC8624 and mo implementations support.
ves the
<!--[rfced] In the first sentence, should "an IANA registry" be
updated to "the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries"? In the second
sentence, should "this registry" be updated to "these
registries"? If not, should the registry name be included for
clarity?
Also, please clarify "incremental update RFCs". Is the intended
meaning that future extensions can be made under new,
incremental RFCs that update this document?
Current:
This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 8624 and moves the canonical
source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for
DNSSEC from RFC 8624 to an IANA registry.
Future extensions to this registry can be made under new, incremental
update RFCs.
Perhaps:
This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 8624 and moves the canonical
source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for
DNSSEC from RFC 8624 to the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries.
Future extensions to these registries can be made under new,
incremental RFCs that update this document.
-->
This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 8624 and moves the
canonical source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance canonical source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance
for DNSSEC from RFC8624 to an IANA registry. This is done both to allow for DNSSEC from RFC 8624 to an IANA registry.
the list of requirements to be more easily 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 incorporates the revised
IANA DNSSEC considerations from RFC9157.</t>
<t>The document does not change the status (MUST, MAY, RECOMMENDED, etc.) <!--[rfced] We assume that the second instance of "the list" is "the
of the algorithms listed in RFC8624; that is the work of future documents.</t list of requirements"; therefore, we have updated this sentence
> for clarity as shown below. Please let us know if this is
incorrect.
</abstract> Original:
This is done both to allow the list of requirements to be more
easily updated, and to allow the list to be more easily referenced.
</front> Current:
This is done to allow the list of requirements to be more
easily updated and referenced.
-->
<middle> This is done to allow the list of requirements to be more easily updated and referenced.
<?line 78?> <!--[rfced] FYI: We added that this document "updates RFC 9157" in the
Abstract as shown below.
<section anchor="introduction"><name>Introduction</name> Original:
This document also incorporates the revised IANA DNSSEC
considerations from RFC9157.
<t>DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) <xref target="RFC9364"></xref> is used to pr Current:
ovide This document also updates RFC 9157 and incorporates the revised
authentication of DNS data. The DNSSEC signing algorithms are IANA DNSSEC considerations from that RFC.
defined by various RFCs, including <xref target="RFC4034"></xref>, <xref targ -->
et="RFC4509"></xref>, <xref target="RFC5155"></xref>,
<xref target="RFC5702"></xref>, <xref target="RFC5933"></xref>, <xref target=
"RFC6605"></xref>, <xref target="RFC8080"></xref>.</t>
<t>To ensure interoperability, a set of "mandatory to implement" Future extensions to this registry can be made under new,
DNSKEY algorithms are defined in <xref target="RFC8624"></xref>. To make the incremental update RFCs.
current This document also updates RFC 9157 and incorporates the revised
IANA DNSSEC considerations from that RFC.</t>
<!--[rfced] Should "MUST", "MAY", and "RECOMMENDED" be referred to as
the "recommendation status" or the "DNSSEC delegation, signing,
or validation status" rather than "status" for clarity?
Original:
The document does not change the status (MUST, MAY, RECOMMENDED,
etc.) of the algorithms listed in RFC8624; that is the work of
future documents.
Perhaps:
This document does not change the recommendation status (MUST, MAY,
RECOMMENDED, etc.) of the algorithms listed in RFC 8624; that is
the work of future documents.
-->
<t>This document does not change the status (<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>, <bcp14>M
AY</bcp14>, <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>, etc.)
of the algorithms listed in RFC 8624; that is the work of future documents.</
t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="introduction">
<name>Introduction</name>
<t>"DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)" <xref target="RFC9364"/> is used to
provide
authentication of DNS data. The DNSSEC signing algorithms are
defined by various RFCs, including <xref target="RFC4034"/>, <xref target="RF
C4509"/>, <xref target="RFC5155"/>,
<xref target="RFC5702"/>, <xref target="RFC5933"/>, <xref target="RFC6605"/>,
and <xref target="RFC8080"/>.</t>
<t>To ensure interoperability, a set of "mandatory-to-implement"
DNS Public Key (DNSKEY) algorithms are defined in <xref target="RFC8624"/>.
To make the current
status of the algorithms more easily accessible and understandable, status of the algorithms more easily accessible and understandable,
and to make future changes to these recommendations easier to and to make future changes to these recommendations easier to
publish, this document moves the canonical status of the algorithms publish, this document moves the canonical status of the algorithms
from <xref target="RFC8624"></xref> to the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries. from <xref target="RFC8624"/> to the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries.
Additionally, as advice to operators, it adds recommendations for Additionally, as advice to operators, it adds recommendations for
deploying and the usage of these algorithms.</t> deploying and using these algorithms.</t>
<t>This is similar to the process used for the "TLS Cipher Suites" registr
<t>This is similar to the process used for the <xref target="TLS-ciphersuites">< y <xref target="TLS-ciphersuites"/>,
/xref> registry, where the canonical list of cipher suites is in the IANA registry, and
where the canonical list of ciphersuites is in the IANA registry, and the
RFCs reference the IANA registry.</t> RFCs reference the IANA registry.</t>
<section anchor="document-audience">
<name>Document Audience</name>
<section anchor="document-audience"><name>Document Audience</name> <!--[rfced] FYI: We updated the second IANA registry listed below to
reflect the registry name rather than the registry group for
clarity and consistency.
<t>The columns added to the IANA <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA">"DNS Security Algori Original:
thm Numbers"</xref> The columns added to the IANA "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
and <xref target="DS-IANA">"DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR [DNSKEY-IANA] and "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR)
) Type Digest Type Digest Algorithms" [DS-IANA] registries target DNSSEC operators
Algorithms"</xref> registries target DNSSEC operators and implementers.</t> and implementers.
<t>Implementations need to meet both high security expectations as Current:
The columns added to the IANA "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
[DNSKEY-IANA] and "Digest Algorithms" [DS-IANA] registries target
DNSSEC operators and implementers.
-->
<t>The columns added to the IANA <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA">"DNS Securit
y Algorithm Numbers"</xref>
and <xref target="DS-IANA">"Digest Algorithms"</xref> registries target DNSSE
C operators and implementers.</t>
<t>Implementations need to meet high security expectations as
well as provide interoperability between various implementations and with well as provide interoperability between various implementations and with
different versions.</t> different versions.</t>
<t>The field of cryptography evolves continuously. New, stronger algori
<t>The field of cryptography evolves continuously. New, stronger algorithms thms
appear, and existing algorithms may be found to be less secure than appear, and existing algorithms may be found to be less secure than
originally thought. Therefore, algorithm implementation requirements and originally thought. Therefore, algorithm implementation requirements and
usage guidance need to be updated from time to time in order to reflect the usage guidance need to be updated from time to time in order to reflect the
new reality, and to allow for a smooth transition to more secure algorithms, new reality and to allow for a smooth transition to more secure algorithms
as well as deprecation of algorithms deemed to no longer be secure.</t> as well as the deprecation of algorithms deemed to no longer be secure.</t>
<t>Implementations need to be conservative in the selection of
<t>Implementations need to be conservative in the selection of
algorithms they implement in order to minimize both code complexity algorithms they implement in order to minimize both code complexity
and the attack surface.</t> and the attack surface.</t>
<t>The perspective of implementers may differ from that of an operator
<t>The perspective of implementers may differ from that of an operator
who wishes to deploy and configure DNSSEC with only the safest who wishes to deploy and configure DNSSEC with only the safest
algorithm. As such this document also adds new recommendations algorithm. As such, this document also adds new recommendations
about which algorithms should be deployed regardless of about which algorithms should be deployed regardless of
implementation status. In general, it is expected that deployment implementation status. In general, it is expected that deployment
of aging algorithms should generally be reduced before of aging algorithms should generally be reduced before
implementations stop supporting them.</t> implementations stop supporting them.</t>
</section>
</section> <section anchor="updating-algorithm-requirement-levels">
<section anchor="updating-algorithm-requirement-levels"><name>Updating Algorithm <name>Updating Algorithm Requirement Levels</name>
Requirement Levels</name> <t>By the time a DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm is made
<t>By the time a DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm is made
mandatory to implement, it should already be available in most mandatory to implement, it should already be available in most
implementations. This document defines an IANA registration implementations. This document defines an IANA registration
modification to allow future documents to specify the modification to allow future documents to specify the
implementation recommendations for each algorithm, as the implementation recommendations for each algorithm, as the
recommendation status of each DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm is recommendation status of each DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm is
expected to change over time. For example, there is no guarantee expected to change over time. For example, there is no guarantee
that newly introduced algorithms will become mandatory to implement that newly introduced algorithms will become mandatory to implement
in the future. Likewise, published algorithms are continuously in the future. Likewise, published algorithms are continuously
subjected to cryptographic attack and may become too weak, or even subjected to cryptographic attack and may become too weak, or even
be completely broken, and will require deprecation in the future.</t> be completely broken, and will require deprecation in the future.</t>
<t>It is expected that the deprecation of an algorithm will be performed
<t>It is expected that the deprecation of an algorithm will be performed
gradually. This provides time for implementations to update gradually. This provides time for implementations to update
their implemented algorithms while remaining interoperable. Unless their implemented algorithms while remaining interoperable. Unless
there are strong security reasons, an algorithm is expected to be there are strong security reasons, an algorithm is expected to be
downgraded from MUST to NOT RECOMMENDED or MAY, instead of directly downgraded from <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> to <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14> or <bcp
from MUST to MUST NOT. Similarly, an algorithm that has not been 14>MAY</bcp14>, instead of directly
from <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> to <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>. Similarly, an algorithm
that has not been
mentioned as mandatory to implement is expected to be first introduced mentioned as mandatory to implement is expected to be first introduced
as RECOMMENDED instead of a MUST.</t> as <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> instead of a <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>.</t>
<t>Since the effect of using an unknown DNSKEY algorithm is that the
<t>Since the effect of using an unknown DNSKEY algorithm is that the
zone is treated as insecure, it is recommended that algorithms zone is treated as insecure, it is recommended that algorithms
which have been downgraded to NOT RECOMMENDED or lower not be used that have been downgraded to <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14> or lower not be u sed
by authoritative nameservers and DNSSEC signers to create new by authoritative nameservers and DNSSEC signers to create new
DNSKEY's. This ensures that the use of deprecated algorithms DNSKEYs. This ensures that the use of deprecated algorithms
decreases over time. Once an algorithm has reached a sufficiently decreases over time. Once an algorithm has reached a sufficiently
low level of deployment, it can be marked as MUST NOT, so that low level of deployment, it can be marked as <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>, so that
recursive resolvers can remove support for validating it.</t> recursive resolvers can remove support for validating it.</t>
<t>Validating recursive resolvers are encouraged to retain support for a
ll
algorithms not marked as <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="requirements-notation">
<name>Requirements Notation</name>
<t>
The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQU
IRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>
RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to
be interpreted as
described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/>
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
</t>
<t><xref target="RFC2119"/> considers the term <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> to
be equivalent to <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>, and
<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> equivalent to <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>. This
document has
chosen to use the terms <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> and <bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED
</bcp14>, as this
more clearly expresses the recommendations to implementers.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="adding-usage-and-implementation-recommendations-to-the-iana
-dnssec-registries">
<name>Adding Usage and Implementation Recommendations to the IANA DNSSEC A
lgorithm Registries</name>
<t>Per this document, the following columns have been added to the
corresponding DNSSEC algorithm registries maintained by IANA:</t>
<table anchor="columns">
<name>Columns Added to Existing DNSSEC Algorithm Registries</name>
<thead>
<tr>
<th align="left">Registry</th>
<th align="left">Column Added</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</td>
<td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Signing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</td>
<td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</td>
<td align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Signing</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</td>
<td align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Validation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">Digest Algorithms</td>
<td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Delegation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">Digest Algorithms</td>
<td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">Digest Algorithms</td>
<td align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Delegation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">Digest Algorithms</td>
<td align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Validation</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<section anchor="column-descriptions">
<name>Column Descriptions</name>
<t>The intended usage of the four columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm
Numbers" registry is as follows:</t>
<dl>
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Signing:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm within
authoritative servers.</t>
</dd>
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm in DNSSEC
validators.</t>
</dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Signing:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm withi
n
DNSSEC signing software.</t>
</dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm withi
n
DNSSEC validators.</t>
</dd>
</dl>
<t>The intended usage of the four columns in the "Digest Algorithms" reg
istry is as follows:</t>
<dl>
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Delegation:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm within
authoritative servers.</t>
</dd>
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm in DNSSEC
validators.</t>
</dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Delegation:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm withi
n
authoritative servers.</t>
</dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm withi
n
validating resolvers.</t>
</dd>
</dl>
</section>
<section anchor="adding-and-changing-values">
<name>Adding and Changing Values</name>
<t>Adding a new entry to the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry
with a recommended value of "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" in the "Use for DNSSEC Signi
ng",
"Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or
"Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns will be subject to the
Specification Required policy as defined in <xref target="RFC8126"/> in order
to
promote continued evolution of DNSSEC algorithms and DNSSEC
agility. New entries added through the Specification Required
process will have the value of "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" for all columns.
</t>
<t>Validating recursive resolvers are encouraged to retain support for all <!--[rfced] Questions about Section 2.2
algorithms not marked as MUST NOT.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="requirements-notation"><name>Requirements notation</name>
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", a) In this section, may we put the notes that appear in the IANA
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", registry within <blockquote>? Should lead-in sentences be added
and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described for clarity? If so, please provide the desired text.
in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only wh
en, they appear
in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
<t><xref target="RFC2119"></xref> considers the term SHOULD to be equivalent to Perhaps:
RECOMMENDED, and The following note describing the procedures for adding and
SHOULD NOT equivalent to NOT RECOMMENDED. This document has changing values has been added to the "DNS Security Algorithm
chosen to use the terms RECOMMENDED and NOT RECOMMENDED, as this Numbers" registry:
more clearly expresses the recommendations to implementers.</t>
</section> Note: ...
</section>
<section anchor="adding-usage-and-implementation-recommendations-to-the-iana-dns
sec-registries"><name>Adding usage and implementation recommendations to the IAN
A DNSSEC registries</name>
<t>Per this document, the following columns are being added to the The following note has been added to the "Digest Algorithms" registry:
following DNSSEC algorithm registries maintained with IANA:</t>
<texttable title="Columns to add to existing DNSSEC algorithm registries" anchor Note: ...
="columns">
<ttcol align='left'>Registry</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Column added</ttcol>
<c>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c>
<c>Use for DNSSEC Signing</c>
<c>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c>
<c>Use for DNSSEC Validation</c>
<c>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c>
<c>Implement for DNSSEC Signing</c>
<c>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c>
<c>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</c>
<c>Digest Algorithm</c>
<c>Use for DNSSEC Delegation</c>
<c>Digest Algorithm</c>
<c>Use for DNSSEC Validation</c>
<c>Digest Algorithm</c>
<c>Implement for DNSSEC Delegation</c>
<c>Digest Algorithm</c>
<c>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</c>
</texttable>
<section anchor="column-descriptions"><name>Column Descriptions</name> b) May we update the phrasing of these two paragraphs for ease of
reading as shown below (i.e., make "existing values" singular for
consistency and move the '"any value other than "May"' phrasing up)?
If agreeable, we will ask IANA to make the same updates to the notes
in the corresponding registries.
<t>The intended usage of the four columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm c) In the first example below, should the "DNS System Algorithm
Numbers" table are:</t> Numbers" registry be updated to the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
registry? Note that this registry name also appears in the first
paragraph in Section 2.2.
<dl> d) Note: Per IANA's note, we have updated the "DNS System Algorithm
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Signing:</dt> Numbers" registry to the "Digest Algorithms" registry in the
<dd> second example shown below.
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm within
authoritative servers.</t>
</dd>
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm in DNSSEC
validators.</t>
</dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Signing:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within
DNSSEC signing software.</t>
</dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within
DNSSEC validators.</t>
</dd>
</dl>
<t>The intended usage of the four columns in the "Digest Algorithm" table are:</ Original:
t> 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.
<dl> Perhaps:
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Delegation:</dt> Adding a new entry to, or changing an existing value in, the "DNS
<dd> Security Algorithm Numbers" registry that has any value other than
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm within "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Signing", "Use for DNSSEC Validation",
authoritative servers.</t> "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or "Implement for DNSSEC
</dd> Validation" columns requires Standards Action.
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm in DNSSEC
validators.</t>
</dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Delegation:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within
authoritative servers.</t>
</dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within
validating resolvers.</t>
</dd>
</dl>
</section> ...
<section anchor="adding-and-changing-values"><name>Adding and Changing Values</n Original:
ame> Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in, the "DNS System
Algorithm Numbers" 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.
<t>Adding a new entry to the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry Perhaps:
with a recommended value of "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Signing", Adding a new entry to, or changing an existing value in, the
"Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or "Digest Algorithm Numbers" registry that has any value other than
"Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns will subject to the "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC
"Specification Required" policy as defined in <xref target="RFC8126"></xref> Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", or "Implement for
in order to DNSSEC Validation" columns requires Standards Action.
promote continued evolution of DNSSEC algorithms and DNSSEC -->
agility. New entries added through the "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.)</t>
<t>Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in, <t>Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in,
the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for
DNSSEC Signing", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for
DNSSEC Signing", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns to DNSSEC Signing", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns to any other va
any other value than "MAY" requires a Standards Action.</t> lue than "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" requires a Standards Action.</t>
<t>Adding a new entry to the "Digest Algorithms" registry with a <!--Note for RFC Editor:
recommended value of "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", Ask IANA to remove the quote marks around the
Specification Required policy in the notes in
both registries.
-->
<t>Adding a new entry to the "Digest Algorithms" registry with a
recommended value of "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" in the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation",
"Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation",
or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns SHALL follow the or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns <bcp14>SHALL</bcp14> follow the
"Specification Required" policy as defined in <xref target="RFC8126"></xref>. Specification Required policy as defined in <xref target="RFC8126"/>.</t>
</t> <t>Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in,
the "Digest Algorithms" registry for the "Use for
<t>Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in,
the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for
DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for
DNSSEC Delegation", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns DNSSEC Delegation", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns to any other
to any other value than "MAY" requires a Standards Action.</t> value than "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" requires a Standards Action.</t>
<t>If an item is not marked as "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", it does not
<t>If an item is not marked as "RECOMMENDED", it does not necessarily necessarily
mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either
has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited
applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases.</t> applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases.</t>
<t>Only values of "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<
<t>Only values of "MAY", "RECOMMENDED", "MUST NOT", and "NOT bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>NOT
RECOMMENDED" may be placed into the "Use for DNSSEC Signing" and RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" may be placed into the "Use for DNSSEC Signing" and
"Use for DNSSEC Validation" columns. Only values of "MAY", "Use for DNSSEC Validation" columns. Only values of "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>",
"RECOMMENDED", "MUST", "MUST NOT", and "NOT RECOMMENDED" may be "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>
", and "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" may be
placed into the "Implement for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for placed into the "Implement for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for
DNSSEC Validation" columns. Note that a value of "MUST" is not an DNSSEC Validation" columns. Note that a value of "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>" is no t an
allowed value for the two "Use for" columns.</t> allowed value for the two "Use for" columns.</t>
<t>The following sections state the initial values that have been popula
<t>The following sections state the initial values to be populated ted
into these rows. The "Implement for" column values are transcribed into these columns. The values in the "Implement for" columns are transcribed
from <xref target="RFC8624"></xref>. The "Use for" columns are set to the sam from <xref target="RFC8624"/>. The "Use for" columns are set to the same valu
e values as es as
the "Implement for" values since the general interpretation to date those in the "Implement for" columns since the general interpretation to date
indicates they have been treated as values for both indicates they have been treated as values for both
"implementation" and "use". Note that the "Use for" "use" and "implementation". Note that the value in the "Use for"
columns values use "RECOMMENDED" when the corresponding "Implement column is "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" when the value in the corresponding "I
for" column is a "MUST" value. We note that the values for mplement
for" column is "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>". We note that the values for
"Implement for" and "Use for" may diverge in the future as "Implement for" and "Use for" may diverge in the future as
implementations generally precede deployments.</t> implementations generally precede deployments.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="dns-system-algorithm-numbers-column-values">
<name>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers Registry Column Values</name>
</section> <!--[rfced] Section 3. Since there are multiple registries under the
</section> "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry
<section anchor="dns-system-algorithm-numbers-column-values"><name>DNS System Al group, we added the registry name for clarity as shown below.
gorithm Numbers Column Values</name>
<t>Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation Also, to avoid using "recommendation" twice, do you prefer option A,
recommendations for the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) which matches the title of Table 2, or option B? Note that there is
Algorithm Numbers" are shown in Table 2.</t> similar text in Section 4 that we would also apply this update to.
<t>When there are multiple Original:
RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "use" column, operators should choose Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation
the best algorithm according to local policy.</t> recommendations for the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC)
Algorithm Numbers" are shown in Table 2.
<texttable title="Initial values for the DNS System Algorithm Numbers columns" a Perhaps A:
nchor="algtable"> Initial values for the use and implementation recommendation
<ttcol align='left'>N</ttcol> columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry
<ttcol align='left'>Mnemonics</ttcol> under the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers"
<ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Signing</ttcol> registry group are shown in Table 2.
<ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Signing</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol>
<c>1</c>
<c>RSAMD5</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>3</c>
<c>DSA</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>5</c>
<c>RSASHA1</c>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>MUST</c>
<c>6</c>
<c>DSA-NSEC3-SHA1</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>7</c>
<c>RSASHA1-NSEC3- SHA1</c>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>MUST</c>
<c>8</c>
<c>RSASHA256</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>MUST</c>
<c>MUST</c>
<c>10</c>
<c>RSASHA512</c>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>MUST</c>
<c>12</c>
<c>ECC-GOST</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>13</c>
<c>ECDSAP256SHA256</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>MUST</c>
<c>MUST</c>
<c>14</c>
<c>ECDSAP384SHA384</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>15</c>
<c>ED25519</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>16</c>
<c>ED448</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>17</c>
<c>SM2/SM3</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>23</c>
<c>GOST R 34.10-2012</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>253</c>
<c>private algorithm</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>254</c>
<c>private algorithm OID</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
</texttable>
</section> or
<section anchor="dnssec-delegation-signer-ds-resource-record-rr-type-digest-algo Perhaps B:
rithms-column-values"><name>DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) T Initial use and implementation recommendation columns in the
ype Digest Algorithms Column Values</name> "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry under the "Domain
Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry
group are shown in Table 2.
-->
<t>Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation <t>Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation
recommendations for the "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource recommendations for the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry under the "
Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" registry are shown in Table 3.</t> Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry group are shown
in <xref target="algtable"/>.</t>
<t>When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "use" column, <!--[rfced] Should "use" be "Use for" and "column" be "columns"? If
operators should choose the best algorithm according to local not, please clarify which "use" column this is referring to. Note
policy.</t> that this sentence occurs in Sections 3 and 4.
<texttable title="Initial values for the DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Original:
Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms columns" anchor="dstable"> When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "use" column,
<ttcol align='left'>Number</ttcol> operators should choose the best algorithm according to local policy.
<ttcol align='left'>Mnemonics</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Delegation</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Delegation</ttcol>
<ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol>
<c>0</c>
<c>NULL (CDS only)</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>1</c>
<c>SHA-1</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MUST</c>
<c>2</c>
<c>SHA-256</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>MUST</c>
<c>MUST</c>
<c>3</c>
<c>GOST R 34.11-94</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MUST NOT</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>4</c>
<c>SHA-384</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c>
<c>5</c>
<c>GOST R 34.11-2012</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>6</c>
<c>SM3</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
<c>MAY</c>
</texttable>
</section> Perhaps:
<section anchor="security-considerations"><name>Security Considerations</name> When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "Use for" columns,
operators should choose the best algorithm according to local policy.
-->
<t>The security of cryptographic systems depends on both the strength of <t>When there are multiple
the cryptographic algorithms chosen and the strength of the keys used <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> algorithms in the "use" column, operators should c
with those algorithms. The security also depends on the engineering hoose
of the protocol used by the system to ensure that there are no non- the best algorithm according to local policy.</t>
cryptographic ways to bypass the security of the overall system.</t>
<t>This document concerns itself with the selection of cryptographic algorithms <!--[rfced] Questions about Table 2
for the use of DNSSEC, specifically with the selection of
"mandatory to implement" algorithms. The algorithms identified in this
document as "MUST" or "RECOMMENDED" to implement are not known to be broken a
t
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.</t>
<t>Retiring an algorithm too soon would result in a zone signed with a) In Table 2, some of the values in the "Use for" and
the retired algorithm being downgraded to the equivalent of an "Implement for" columns are different than what is listed in "DNS
unsigned zone. Therefore, algorithm deprecation must be done only Security Algorithm Numbers" registry (specifically, see numbers
after careful consideration and ideally slowly when possible.</t> 5, 7, and 12). Should Table 2 be updated to match the IANA
registry as shown below, or should the IANA registry be updated
to match Table 2?
</section> b) In Table 2, numbers 17, 23, 253, and 254 use terms from the
<section anchor="operational-considerations"><name>Operational Considerations</n Description column in the registry whereas the rest of the numbers use
ame> terms from the Mnemonic column. Should these numbers be updated to use
the mnemonic terms for consistency as shown below, or do you prefer
otherwise?
<t>DNSKEY algorithm rollover in a live zone is a complex process. See Registry URL: <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/>
<xref target="RFC6781"></xref> and <xref target="RFC7583"></xref> for guideli
nes on how to perform algorithm
rollovers.</t>
<t>DS algorithm rollover in a live zone is also a complex process. Original:
Upgrading 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.</t>
</section> 5 RSASHA1 NOT RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|NOT RECOMMENDED|MUST
<section anchor="iana-considerations"><name>IANA Considerations</name> 7 RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 NOT RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|NOT RECOMMENDED|MUST
12 ECC-GOST MUST NOT | MAY |MUST NOT |MAY
17 SM2/SM3 ...
23 GOST R
34.10-2012
253 private algorithm
254 private algorithm OID
<t>The IANA is requested to update the <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"></xref> and <x Perhaps (to match the IANA registry):
ref target="DS-IANA"></xref> registries
according to the following sections.</t>
<section anchor="update-to-the-dns-security-algorithm-numbers-registry"><name>Up 5 RSASHA1 MUST NOT |RECOMMENDED |NOT RECOMMENDED |MUST
date to the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry</name> 7 RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 MUST NOT |RECOMMENDED |NOT RECOMMENDED |MUST
12 ECC-GOST MUST NOT |MUST NOT |MUST NOT |MUST NOT
17 SM2SM3 ...
23 ECC-GOST12
253 PRIVATEDNS
254 PRIVATEOID
-->
<t>This document requests IANA update the "DNS Security Algorithm <table anchor="algtable">
Numbers" registry (<xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"></xref>) registry with the follo <name>Initial Values for the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers Registry Col
wing umns</name>
additional columns:</t> <thead>
<tr>
<th align="left">No.</th>
<th align="left">Mnemonics</th>
<th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Signing</th>
<th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</th>
<th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Signing</th>
<th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Validation</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left">1</td>
<td align="left">RSAMD5</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">3</td>
<td align="left">DSA</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">5</td>
<td align="left">RSASHA1</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">6</td>
<td align="left">DSA-NSEC3-SHA1</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">7</td>
<td align="left">RSASHA1-NSEC3- SHA1</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">8</td>
<td align="left">RSASHA256</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">10</td>
<td align="left">RSASHA512</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">12</td>
<td align="left">ECC-GOST</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">13</td>
<td align="left">ECDSAP256SHA256</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">14</td>
<td align="left">ECDSAP384SHA384</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">15</td>
<td align="left">ED25519</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">16</td>
<td align="left">ED448</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">17</td>
<td align="left">SM2/SM3</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">23</td>
<td align="left">GOST R 34.10-2012</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">253</td>
<td align="left">private algorithm</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">254</td>
<td align="left">private algorithm OID</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</section>
<section anchor="dnssec-delegation-signer-ds-resource-record-rr-type-digest-
algorithms-column-values">
<t><list style="symbols"> <!--[rfced] FYI: We updated the titles of Section 4 and Table 3
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Signing"</t> to reflect the registry name rather than the registry group name
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Validation"</t> for clarity and consistency as shown below.
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Signing"</t>
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
</list></t>
<t>These values must be populated using values from Table 2 of this Original (Section 4):
document.</t> 4. DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest
Algorithms Column Values
<t>Additionally, the registration policy for the <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"></xr Current:
ef> registry 4. Digest Algorithms Registry Column Values
should match the text describing the requirements in this document,
and Section 2's note concerning values not marked as "RECOMMENDED"
should be added to the registry.</t>
<t>This document should be listed as a reference to the "DNS Security ...
Algorithm Numbers" registry.</t> Original (Table 3 title):
Initial values for the DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS)
Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms columns
</section> Current:
<section anchor="update-to-the-digest-algorithms-registry"><name>Update to the " Initial Values for the Digest Algorithms Registry Columns
Digest Algorithms" registry</name> -->
<t>This document requests IANA update the "Digest Algorithms" registry <name>Digest Algorithms Registry Column Values</name>
(<xref target="DS-IANA"></xref>) registry with the following additional column <t>Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation
s:</t> recommendations for the "Digest Algorithms" registry under the "DNSSEC Delega
tion Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" registry group are
shown in <xref target="dstable"/>.</t>
<t>When there are multiple <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> algorithms in the "u
se" column,
operators should choose the best algorithm according to local
policy.</t>
<table anchor="dstable">
<t><list style="symbols"> <!--[rfced] We note differences between Table 3 and the "Digest
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Delegation"</t> Algorithms" registry. Should this document be updated to match
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Validation"</t> the registry as shown below, or should the registry be updated to
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Delegation"</t> match this document?
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
</list></t>
<t>These values must be populated using values from Table 3 of this We also note that this document is listed as a reference for values
document.</t> 128-252 and 253-254. Should this document be listed as a reference for
any other values in the registry?
<t><list style="symbols"> Registry URL: <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/>
<t>Update the registration policy for the <xref target="DS-IANA"></xref> regis
try to
match the text describing update requirements above</t>
<t>Mark values 128 - 252 as "Reserved"</t>
<t>Mark values 253 and 254 as "Reserved for Private Use"</t>
<t>Delete the (now superfluous) column "Status" from the registry</t>
</list></t>
<t>Section 2's note concerning values not marked as "RECOMMENDED" Original:
should be added to the registry.</t>
<t>This document should be listed as a reference to the "Digest Algorithms" regi 0 NULL
stry.</t> (CDS only) MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT
</section> 3 GOST R
</section> 34.11-94 MUST NOT | MAY | MUST NOT | MAY
<section anchor="acknowledgments"><name>Acknowledgments</name>
<t>This document is based on, and extends, RFC 8624, which was authored by Paul Perhaps (to match the IANA registry):
Wouters and Ondrej Sury.</t>
<t>The content of this document was heavily discussed by participants 0 Reserved MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT
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.</t>
</section> 3 GOST R
34.11-94 MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT | MUST NOT
-->
</middle> <name>Initial Values for the Digest Algorithms Registry Columns</name>
<thead>
<tr>
<th align="left">Value</th>
<th align="left">Description</th>
<th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Delegation</th>
<th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</th>
<th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Delegation</th>
<th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Validation</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left">0</td>
<td align="left">NULL (CDS only)</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">1</td>
<td align="left">SHA-1</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">2</td>
<td align="left">SHA-256</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">3</td>
<td align="left">GOST R 34.11-94</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">4</td>
<td align="left">SHA-384</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">5</td>
<td align="left">GOST R 34.11-2012</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left">6</td>
<td align="left">SM3</td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations">
<name>Security Considerations</name>
<t>The security of cryptographic systems depends on the strength of
both the cryptographic algorithms chosen and 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.</t>
<t>This document concerns itself with the selection of cryptographic algor
ithms
for the use of DNSSEC, specifically with the selection of
"mandatory-to-implement" algorithms. In this document, the algorithms identi
fied as <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> or <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> to implement are not k
nown 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.</t>
<t>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.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="operational-considerations">
<name>Operational Considerations</name>
<t>DNSKEY algorithm rollover in a live zone is a complex process. See
<xref target="RFC6781"/> and <xref target="RFC7583"/> for guidelines on how t
o perform algorithm
rollovers.</t>
<t>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 <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> upgrade the DS algorithm first before rolling to a
new
KSK.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="iana-considerations">
<name>IANA Considerations</name>
<t>IANA has updated the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" <xref target="DNS
KEY-IANA"/> and "Digest Algorithms" <xref target="DS-IANA"/> registries
according to the sections that follow.</t>
<section anchor="update-to-the-dns-security-algorithm-numbers-registry">
<name>Update to the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers Registry</name>
<t>IANA has updated the "DNS Security Algorithm
Numbers" registry <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"/> with the following
columns and has populated these columns with the values from <xref target="alg
table"/> of this document:</t>
<ul spacing="normal">
<li>
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Signing"</t>
</li>
<li>
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
</li>
<li>
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Signing"</t>
</li>
<li>
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
</li>
</ul>
<back> <!--[rfced] In Section 7.1, we made the following text into a bulleted
list to match Section 7.2. We also updated "Section 2" to
"Section 2.2" in both sections. Please let us know of any
objection to these changes.
<references title='References' anchor="sec-combined-references"> Original:
Additionally, the registration policy for the [DNSKEY-IANA]
registry should match the text describing the requirements in this
document, and Section 2's note concerning values not marked as
"RECOMMENDED" should be added to the registry.
<references title='Normative References' anchor="sec-normative-references"> This document should be listed as a reference to the "DNS Security
Algorithm Numbers" registry.
<reference anchor="RFC2119"> Current:
<front> Additionally, IANA has completed the following actions for the "DNS Security
<title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title> Algorithm Numbers" registry [DNSKEY-IANA]:
<author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
<date month="March" year="1997"/>
<abstract>
<t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the
requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This docu
ment defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This d
ocument specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community,
and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8126">
<front>
<title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
<author fullname="M. Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton"/>
<author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
<author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/>
<date month="June" year="2017"/>
<abstract>
<t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants t
o identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these field
s do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocation
s are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that rol
e is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t>
<t>To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing
the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and ho
w 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 cl
ear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a regis
try.</t>
<t>This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8174">
<front>
<title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
<author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
<date month="May" year="2017"/>
<abstract>
<t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specif
ications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPP
ERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC9157">
<front>
<title>Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC</title>
<author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
<date month="December" year="2021"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document changes the review requirements needed to get DNSSEC algo
rithms and resource records added to IANA registries. It updates RFC 6014 to inc
lude hash algorithms for Delegation Signer (DS) records and NextSECure version 3
(NSEC3) parameters (for Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence). It also upda
tes RFCs 5155 and 6014, which have requirements for DNSSEC algorithms, and updat
es RFC 8624 to clarify the implementation recommendation related to the algorith
ms described in RFCs that are not on the standards track. The rationale for thes
e changes is to bring the requirements for DS records and hash algorithms used i
n NSEC3 in line with the requirements for all other DNSSEC algorithms.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9157"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9157"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="DNSKEY-IANA" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec * Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or
-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xml#dns-sec-alg-numbers-1"> Specification Required.
<front>
<title>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</title>
<author initials="" surname="IANA" fullname="IANA">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="n.d."/>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="DS-IANA" target="http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types"
>
<front>
<title>Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms</t
itle>
<author initials="" surname="IANA" fullname="IANA">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="n.d."/>
</front>
</reference>
</references> * Added a note to the registry that describes the values not marked as
"RECOMMENDED" per Section 2.2.
<references title='Informative References' anchor="sec-informative-reference * Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.
s"> -->
<reference anchor="RFC4034"> <t>Additionally, IANA has completed the following actions for the "DNS Sec
<front> urity
<title>Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions</title> Algorithm Numbers" registry <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"/>:</t>
<author fullname="R. Arends" initials="R." surname="Arends"/> <ul spacing="normal">
<author fullname="R. Austein" initials="R." surname="Austein"/> <li>Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or
<author fullname="M. Larson" initials="M." surname="Larson"/> Specification Required.
<author fullname="D. Massey" initials="D." surname="Massey"/> </li>
<author fullname="S. Rose" initials="S." surname="Rose"/> <li>Added a note to the registry that describes the values not marked as
<date month="March" year="2005"/> "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" per <xref target="adding-and-changing-values"
<abstract> />.
<t>This document is part of a family of documents that describe the DNS Se </li>
curity Extensions (DNSSEC). The DNS Security Extensions are a collection of reso <li>Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.
urce records and protocol modifications that provide source authentication for t </li>
he DNS. This document defines the public key (DNSKEY), delegation signer (DS), r </ul>
esource record digital signature (RRSIG), and authenticated denial of existence
(NSEC) resource records. The purpose and format of each resource record is descr
ibed in detail, and an example of each resource record is given.</t>
<t>This document obsoletes RFC 2535 and incorporates changes from all upda
tes to RFC 2535. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4034"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4034"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4509">
<front>
<title>Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs
)</title>
<author fullname="W. Hardaker" initials="W." surname="Hardaker"/>
<date month="May" year="2006"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document specifies how to use the SHA-256 digest type in DNS Deleg
ation Signer (DS) Resource Records (RRs). DS records, when stored in a parent zo
ne, point to DNSKEYs in a child zone. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4509"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4509"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5155">
<front>
<title>DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence</title
>
<author fullname="B. Laurie" initials="B." surname="Laurie"/>
<author fullname="G. Sisson" initials="G." surname="Sisson"/>
<author fullname="R. Arends" initials="R." surname="Arends"/>
<author fullname="D. Blacka" initials="D." surname="Blacka"/>
<date month="March" year="2008"/>
<abstract>
<t>The Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Extensions introduced the NSEC
resource record (RR) for authenticated denial of existence. This document intro
duces an alternative resource record, NSEC3, which similarly provides authentica
ted denial of existence. However, it also provides measures against zone enumera
tion and permits gradual expansion of delegation-centric zones. [STANDARDS-TRACK
]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5155"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5155"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5702">
<front>
<title>Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records
for DNSSEC</title>
<author fullname="J. Jansen" initials="J." surname="Jansen"/>
<date month="October" year="2009"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document describes how to produce RSA/SHA-256 and RSA/SHA-512 DNSK
EY and RRSIG resource records for use in the Domain Name System Security Extensi
ons (RFC 4033, RFC 4034, and RFC 4035). [STANDARDS TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5702"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5702"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5933">
<front>
<title>Use of GOST Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records
for DNSSEC</title>
<author fullname="V. Dolmatov" initials="V." role="editor" surname="Dolmatov
"/>
<author fullname="A. Chuprina" initials="A." surname="Chuprina"/>
<author fullname="I. Ustinov" initials="I." surname="Ustinov"/>
<date month="July" year="2010"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document describes how to produce digital signatures and hash func
tions using the GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.11-94 algorithms for DNSKEY, RRS
IG, and DS resource records, for use in the Domain Name System Security Extensio
ns (DNSSEC).</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5933"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5933"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6605">
<front>
<title>Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) for DNSSEC</title>
<author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
<author fullname="W.C.A. Wijngaards" initials="W.C.A." surname="Wijngaards"/
>
<date month="April" year="2012"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document describes how to specify Elliptic Curve Digital Signature
Algorithm (DSA) keys and signatures in DNS Security (DNSSEC). It lists curves o
f different sizes and uses the SHA-2 family of hashes for signatures. [STANDARDS
-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6605"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6605"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC6781">
<front>
<title>DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2</title>
<author fullname="O. Kolkman" initials="O." surname="Kolkman"/>
<author fullname="W. Mekking" initials="W." surname="Mekking"/>
<author fullname="R. Gieben" initials="R." surname="Gieben"/>
<date month="December" year="2012"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document describes a set of practices for operating the DNS with s
ecurity extensions (DNSSEC). The target audience is zone administrators deployin
g DNSSEC.</t>
<t>The document discusses operational aspects of using keys and signatures
in the DNS. It discusses issues of key generation, key storage, signature gener
ation, key rollover, and related policies.</t>
<t>This document obsoletes RFC 4641, as it covers more operational ground
and gives more up-to-date requirements with respect to key sizes and the DNSSEC
operations.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6781"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6781"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC7583">
<front>
<title>DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations</title>
<author fullname="S. Morris" initials="S." surname="Morris"/>
<author fullname="J. Ihren" initials="J." surname="Ihren"/>
<author fullname="J. Dickinson" initials="J." surname="Dickinson"/>
<author fullname="W. Mekking" initials="W." surname="Mekking"/>
<date month="October" year="2015"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document describes the issues surrounding the timing of events in
the rolling of a key in a DNSSEC-secured zone. It presents timelines for the key
rollover and explicitly identifies the relationships between the various parame
ters affecting the process.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7583"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7583"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8080">
<front>
<title>Edwards-Curve Digital Security Algorithm (EdDSA) for DNSSEC</title>
<author fullname="O. Sury" initials="O." surname="Sury"/>
<author fullname="R. Edmonds" initials="R." surname="Edmonds"/>
<date month="February" year="2017"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document describes how to specify Edwards-curve Digital Security A
lgorithm (EdDSA) keys and signatures in DNS Security (DNSSEC). It uses EdDSA wit
h the choice of two curves: Ed25519 and Ed448.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8080"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8080"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8624">
<front>
<title>Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC</
title>
<author fullname="P. Wouters" initials="P." surname="Wouters"/>
<author fullname="O. Sury" initials="O." surname="Sury"/>
<date month="June" year="2019"/>
<abstract>
<t>The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in or
der to provide authentication of DNS data and proof of nonexistence. To ensure i
nteroperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative servers, it is neces
sary to specify a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guideli
nes to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations supp
ort. This document defines the current algorithm implementation requirements and
usage guidance for DNSSEC. This document obsoletes RFC 6944.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8624"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8624"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC9364">
<front>
<title>DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)</title>
<author fullname="P. Hoffman" initials="P." surname="Hoffman"/>
<date month="February" year="2023"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document describes the DNS Security Extensions (commonly called "D
NSSEC") that are specified in RFCs 4033, 4034, and 4035, as well as a handful of
others. One purpose is to introduce all of the RFCs in one place so that the re
ader can understand the many aspects of DNSSEC. This document does not update an
y of those RFCs. A second purpose is to state that using DNSSEC for origin authe
ntication of DNS data is the best current practice. A third purpose is to provid
e a single reference for other documents that want to refer to DNSSEC.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="237"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9364"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9364"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="TLS-ciphersuites" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/tl <!--
s-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-4"> <t>Additionally, the registration policy for the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers
<front> " registry <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"/> should match the text describing the req
<title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters</title> uirements in this document,
<author initials="" surname="IANA" fullname="IANA"> and <xref target="adding-usage-and-implementation-recommendations-to-the-iana-
<organization></organization> dnssec-registries"/>'s note concerning values not marked as "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED<
</author> /bcp14>"
<date year="n.d."/> should be added to the registry.</t>
</front> <t>This document has been listed as a reference for the "DNS Security
</reference> Algorithm Numbers" registry.</t>
-->
</section>
<section anchor="update-to-the-digest-algorithms-registry">
<name>Update to the Digest Algorithms Registry</name>
<t>IANA has updated the "Digest Algorithms" registry
<xref target="DS-IANA"/> with the following columns and has populated these co
lumns with the values from <xref target="dstable"/> of this document:</t>
<ul spacing="normal">
<li>
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Delegation"</t>
</li>
<li>
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
</li>
<li>
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Delegation"</t>
</li>
<li>
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
</li>
</ul>
<t>Additionally, IANA has completed the following actions for the "Digest
Algorithms" registry <xref target="DS-IANA"/>:
</t>
<ul spacing="normal">
<li>
<t>Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or Specifi
cation Required.</t>
</li>
<li>Added a note to the registry that describes the values not marked a
s
"<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" per <xref target="adding-and-changing-values"
/>.
</li>
<li>Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.
</li>
<li>
<t>Marked values 128-252 as "Reserved".</t>
</li>
<li>
<t>Marked values 253 and 254 as "Reserved for Private Use".</t>
</li>
<li>
<t>Deleted the (now superfluous) column "Status" from the registry.<
/t>
</li>
</ul>
<!-- <t><xref target="adding-usage-and-implementation-recommendations-to-
the-iana-dnssec-registries"/>'s note concerning values not marked as "<bcp14>REC
OMMENDED</bcp14>"
should be added to the registry.</t>
<t>This document should be listed as a reference to the "Digest Algorith
ms" registry.</t>-->
</section>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references anchor="sec-combined-references">
<name>References</name>
<references anchor="sec-normative-references">
<name>Normative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2
119.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8
126.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8
174.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.91
57.xml"/>
<reference anchor="DNSKEY-IANA" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments
/dns-sec-alg-numbers">
<front>
<title>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</title>
<author>
<organization>IANA</organization>
</author>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="DS-IANA" target="http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-r
r-types">
<front>
<title>DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Diges
t Algorithms</title>
<author>
<organization>IANA</organization>
</author>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<references anchor="sec-informative-references">
<name>Informative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4
034.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4
509.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5
155.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5
702.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5
933.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6
605.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6
781.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7
583.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8
080.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8
624.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9
364.xml"/>
<reference anchor="TLS-ciphersuites" target="https://www.iana.org/assign
ments/tls-parameters">
<front>
<title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters</title>
<author>
<organization>IANA</organization>
</author>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
</references> </references>
<section anchor="acknowledgments" numbered="false">
<name>Acknowledgments</name>
<t>This document is based on, and extends, RFC 8624, which was authored
by <contact fullname="Paul Wouters"/> and <contact fullname="Ondrej
Sury"/>.</t>
<t>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 <contact fullname="Paul Hoffman"/>
and <contact fullname="Paul Wouters"/> for their contributed text and
also <contact fullname="Nabeel Cocker"/>, <contact fullname="Shumon
Huque"/>, <contact fullname="Nicolai Leymann"/>, <contact fullname="S.
Moonesamy"/>, <contact fullname="Magnus Nyström"/>, <contact
fullname="Peter Thomassen"/>, <contact fullname="Stefan Ubbink"/>, and
<contact fullname="Loganaden Velvindron"/> for their reviews and
comments.</t>
</section>
</back>
</references> <!--[rfced] Terminology
<?line 480?>
<section anchor="changelog"><name>ChangeLog</name>
<t>(RFC Editor: please remove this ChangeLog section upon publication.)</t>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-10-to-ietf-11"><name>Changes from ietf-10 to
ietf-11:</name>
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* Many more comments to address IESG reviews
]]></artwork></figure>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-09-to-ietf-10"><name>Changes from ietf-09 to
ietf-10:</name>
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* Many comments addressed from IESG reviews
]]></artwork></figure>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-08-to-ietf-09"><name>Changes from ietf-08 to
ietf-09</name>
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* Added missing alogirthms (SM2/SM3 and GOST R 34.10-2012)
]]></artwork></figure>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-07-to-ietf-08"><name>Changes from ietf-07 to
ietf-08</name>
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* Handle issues raised during IETF last call:
* updates 9157
* other nit fixes
]]></artwork></figure>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-06-to-ietf-07"><name>Changes from ietf-06 to
ietf-07</name>
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* changed to a standards track document
]]></artwork></figure>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-05-to-ietf-06"><name>Changes from ietf-05 to
ietf-06</name>
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* Address Eric Vyncke (RAD!) AD review comments.
]]></artwork></figure>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-03-to-ietf-05"><name>Changes from ietf-03 to
ietf-05</name>
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
* 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
]]></artwork></figure>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-02-to-ietf-03"><name>Changes from ietf-02 to
ietf-03</name>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Fixed the reference in the Abstract (no links in Abstracts)</t>
<t>Added Updates: to the header.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-01-to-ietf-02"><name>Changes from ietf-01 to
ietf-02</name>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Changed the MUST values in the tables for the Use columns to
RECOMMENDED based on discussions on the dnsop mailing list.</t>
<t>Other minor wording and formatting changes</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-00-to-ietf-01"><name>Changes from ietf-00 to
ietf-01</name>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Only NIT fixing</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-hardaker-04-to-ietf-00"><name>Changes from hardake
r-04 to ietf-00</name>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Just a draft name and number change.</t>
</list></t>
</section>
<section anchor="changes-from-03-to-04"><name>Changes from -03 to -04</name>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>Changed the columns being added from 2 per table to 4, based on
discussion within the dnsop working group mailing list. This was
a fairly major set of changes.</t>
</list></t>
</section> FYI: We have updated the following terms to the form on the right for consistenc
<section anchor="changes-since-rfc8624"><name>Changes since RFC8624</name> y.
Please let us know of any objection.
<t><list style="symbols"> ciphersuite -> cipher suite (to match the "TLS Cipher Suites" registry)
<t>The primary purpose of this revision is to introduce the new non-existence -> nonexistence (per RFC 8624)
columns to existing registries. It makes no changes to the -->
previously defined values.</t>
<t>Merged in RFC9157 updates.</t>
<t>Set authors as Wes Hardaker, Warren Kumari.</t>
</list></t>
</section> <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have added an expansion for the following abbreviation
</section> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review this and each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
</back> DNS Public Key (DNSKEY)
-->
<!-- ##markdown-source: <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
H4sIAAAAAAAAA+09a3MbOY7f9St4zoeNtySN33G8dVXrsz0bXxw7FzkzNZVy Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
XVHdkMR1N9lDsqVod+Zv3R+4P3YFgOyHXn7M4zI7k6rdabe6QQAEQAAE0b1e and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
r+OVz+BEbJ1fDwYXZ+LMzgtvxlYWE5WI02xsrPKTXHyAxOQ56FR6ZbT4WKTS result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.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Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
--> -->
</rfc> </rfc>
 End of changes. 113 change blocks. 
1093 lines changed or deleted 978 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.