<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
  <!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version 1.5.6 -->

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
]>

<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>

<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-03" category="std" consensus="true" updates="5155, 6014, 8624">

  <front>
    <title abbrev="IANA revisions for DNSSEC">Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC</title>

    <author initials="P." surname="Hoffman" fullname="Paul Hoffman">
      <organization>ICANN</organization>
      <address>
        <email>paul.hoffman@icann.org</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2021" month="September" day="16"/>

    
    
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>

    <abstract>


<t>This document changes the review requirements needed to get DNSSEC algorithms
and resource records added to IANA registries.
It updates RFC 6014 to include hash algorithms for DS records and NSEC3 parameters.
It also updates RFC 5155 and RFC 6014, which have requirements for DNSSEC
algorithms, and
updates RFC 8624 to say that algorithms that are described in RFCs that
are not on standards track are only at the “MAY” level of implementation recommendation.
The rationale for these changes is to bring the requirements for DS records
and for the hash algorithms used in NSEC3 in line with the requirements for
all other DNSSEC algorithms.</t>



    </abstract>


  </front>

  <middle>


<section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">

<t>DNSSEC is primarily described in <xref target="RFC4033"/>, <xref target="RFC4034"/>, and <xref target="RFC4035"/>.
DNSSEC commonly uses two resource records beyond those defined in RFC 4034:
DS <xref target="RFC3658"/> (which was obsoleted by RFC 4034) and NSEC3 <xref target="RFC5155"/>.</t>

<t><xref target="RFC8126"/> gives guidelines for listing in the myriad IANA registries.</t>

<t><xref target="RFC6014"/> updated the requirements for how DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm
identifiers in the IANA registries are assigned, reducing the requirements
from being “Standards Action” to “RFC Required”.
However, the IANA registry requirements for hash algorithms for DS records
<xref target="RFC3658"/>
and for the hash algorithms used in NSEC3 <xref target="RFC5155"/> are still “Standards Action”.
This document updates those IANA registry requirements.
(For reference on how IANA registries can be updated in general, see <xref target="RFC8126"/>.)</t>

<t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="update-to-rfc-6014" title="Update to RFC 6014">

<t><xref target="iana"/> updates RFC 6014 to bring the requirements for DS records
and NSEC3 hash algorithms in line with the rest of the DNSSEC cryptographic algorithms
by allowing any DS or NSEC3 hash algorithms that are fully described in an RFC
to have identifiers assigned in the IANA registries.
This is an addition to the IANA considerations in RFC 6014.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="update-to-rfc-8624" title="Update to RFC 8624">

<t>This document updates <xref target="RFC8624"/> for all DNSKEY and DS algorithms that are not
on standards track.</t>

<t>The second paragraph of Section 1.2 of RFC 8624 currently says:</t>

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

<t>That paragraph is now replaced with the following:</t>

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

<t>This update is also reflected in the IANA considerations in <xref target="iana"/>.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">

<t>In the “Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) NextSECure3 (NSEC3) Parameters”
registry, the registration procedure for “DNSSEC NSEC3 Flags”, “DNSSEC NSEC3
Hash Algorithms”, and “DNSSEC NSEC3PARAM Flags” are changed from “Standards
Action” to “RFC Required”.</t>

<t>In the “Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms”
registry, the registration procedure for “Digest Algorithms” is changed from
“Standards Action” to “RFC Required”.</t>

</section>
<section anchor="security-considerations" title="Security Considerations">

<t>Changing the requirements for getting security algorithms added to IANA
registries as described in this document will make it easier to get good
algorithms added to the registries, and will make it easier to get bad
algorithms added to the registries.
It is impossible to weigh the security impact of those two changes.</t>

<t>Administrators of DNSSEC-signed zones, and of validating resolvers, may have been making
security decisions based on the contents of the IANA registries.
This was a bad idea in the past, and now is an even worse idea because there will be more
algorithms in those registries that may not have gone through IETF review.
Security decisions about which algorithms are safe and not safe should be made by
reading the security literature, not by looking in IANA registries.</t>

</section>


  </middle>

  <back>

    <references title='Normative References'>





<reference anchor='RFC2119' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119'>
<front>
<title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author fullname='S. Bradner' initials='S.' surname='Bradner'><organization/></author>
<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 document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents.  This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14'/>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2119'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC2119'/>
</reference>

<reference anchor='RFC4033' xml:base='https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4033.xml' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033'>
<front>
<title>DNS Security Introduction and Requirements</title>
<author fullname='R. Arends' initials='R.' surname='Arends'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='R. Austein' initials='R.' surname='Austein'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='M. Larson' initials='M.' surname='Larson'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='D. Massey' initials='D.' surname='Massey'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='S. Rose' initials='S.' surname='Rose'><organization/></author>
<date month='March' year='2005'/>
<abstract><t>The Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) add data origin authentication and data integrity to the Domain Name System.  This document introduces these extensions and describes their capabilities and limitations.  This document also discusses the services that the DNS security extensions do and do not provide.  Last, this document describes the interrelationships between the documents that collectively describe DNSSEC.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4033'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC4033'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC4034' xml:base='https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4034.xml' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034'>
<front>
<title>Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions</title>
<author fullname='R. Arends' initials='R.' surname='Arends'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='R. Austein' initials='R.' surname='Austein'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='M. Larson' initials='M.' surname='Larson'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='D. Massey' initials='D.' surname='Massey'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='S. Rose' initials='S.' surname='Rose'><organization/></author>
<date month='March' year='2005'/>
<abstract><t>This document is part of a family of documents that describe the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC).  The DNS Security Extensions are a collection of resource records and protocol modifications that provide source authentication for the DNS.  This document defines the public key (DNSKEY), delegation signer (DS), resource record digital signature (RRSIG), and authenticated denial of existence (NSEC) resource records.  The purpose and format of each resource record is described in detail, and an example of each resource record is given. </t><t> This document obsoletes RFC 2535 and incorporates changes from all updates to RFC 2535.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4034'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC4034'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC4035' xml:base='https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4035.xml' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035'>
<front>
<title>Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions</title>
<author fullname='R. Arends' initials='R.' surname='Arends'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='R. Austein' initials='R.' surname='Austein'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='M. Larson' initials='M.' surname='Larson'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='D. Massey' initials='D.' surname='Massey'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='S. Rose' initials='S.' surname='Rose'><organization/></author>
<date month='March' year='2005'/>
<abstract><t>This document is part of a family of documents that describe the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC).  The DNS Security Extensions are a collection of new resource records and protocol modifications that add data origin authentication and data integrity to the DNS.  This document describes the DNSSEC protocol modifications.  This document defines the concept of a signed zone, along with the requirements for serving and resolving by using DNSSEC.  These techniques allow a security-aware resolver to authenticate both DNS resource records and authoritative DNS error indications. </t><t> This document obsoletes RFC 2535 and incorporates changes from all updates to RFC 2535.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='4035'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC4035'/>
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC5155' xml:base='https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5155.xml' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5155'>
<front>
<title>DNS Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence</title>
<author fullname='B. Laurie' initials='B.' surname='Laurie'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='G. Sisson' initials='G.' surname='Sisson'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='R. Arends' initials='R.' surname='Arends'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='D. Blacka' initials='D.' surname='Blacka'><organization/></author>
<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 introduces an alternative resource record, NSEC3, which similarly provides authenticated denial of existence.  However, it also provides measures against zone enumeration 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='RFC6014' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6014'>
<front>
<title>Cryptographic Algorithm Identifier Allocation for DNSSEC</title>
<author fullname='P. Hoffman' initials='P.' surname='Hoffman'><organization/></author>
<date month='November' year='2010'/>
<abstract><t>This document specifies how DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm identifiers in the IANA registries are allocated.  It changes the requirement from &quot;standard required&quot; to &quot;RFC Required&quot;.  It does not change the list of algorithms that are recommended or required for DNSSEC implementations.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6014'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC6014'/>
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC8126' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126'>
<front>
<title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
<author fullname='M. Cotton' initials='M.' surname='Cotton'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='B. Leiba' initials='B.' surname='Leiba'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='T. Narten' initials='T.' surname='Narten'><organization/></author>
<date month='June' year='2017'/>
<abstract><t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters.  To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper.  For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</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 how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed.  This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.</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' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174'>
<front>
<title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
<author fullname='B. Leiba' initials='B.' surname='Leiba'><organization/></author>
<date month='May' year='2017'/>
<abstract><t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol  specifications.  This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the  defined special meanings.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14'/>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='8174'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC8174'/>
</reference>



<reference anchor='RFC8624' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8624'>
<front>
<title>Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC</title>
<author fullname='P. Wouters' initials='P.' surname='Wouters'><organization/></author>
<author fullname='O. Sury' initials='O.' surname='Sury'><organization/></author>
<date month='June' year='2019'/>
<abstract><t>The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in order to provide authentication of DNS data and proof of nonexistence.  To ensure interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative servers, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidelines to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations support.  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>




    </references>

    <references title='Informative References'>





<reference anchor='RFC3658' target='https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3658'>
<front>
<title>Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR)</title>
<author fullname='O. Gudmundsson' initials='O.' surname='Gudmundsson'><organization/></author>
<date month='December' year='2003'/>
<abstract><t>The delegation signer (DS) resource record (RR) is inserted at a zone cut (i.e., a delegation point) to indicate that the delegated zone is digitally signed and that the delegated zone recognizes the indicated key as a valid zone key for the delegated zone.  The DS RR is a modification to the DNS Security Extensions definition, motivated by operational considerations.  The intent is to use this resource record as an explicit statement about the delegation, rather than relying on inference.  This document defines the DS RR, gives examples of how it is used and describes the implications on resolvers.  This change is not backwards compatible with RFC 2535.  This document updates RFC 1035, RFC 2535, RFC 3008 and RFC 3090.</t></abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='3658'/>
<seriesInfo name='DOI' value='10.17487/RFC3658'/>
</reference>




    </references>


<section anchor="acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">

<t>Donald Eastlake, Murray Kucherawy, and Dan Harkins contributed to this document.</t>

</section>


  </back>

<!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>

