path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9615.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      P. Thomassen
Request for Comments: 9615       deSEC, Secure Systems Engineering (SSE)
Updates: 7344, 8078                                            N. Wisiol
Category: Standards Track           deSEC, Technische Universität Berlin
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                July 2024


  Automatic DNSSEC Bootstrapping Using Authenticated Signals from the
                            Zone's Operator

Abstract

   This document introduces an in-band method for DNS operators to
   publish arbitrary information about the zones for which they are
   authoritative, in an authenticated fashion and on a per-zone basis.
   The mechanism allows managed DNS operators to securely announce
   DNSSEC key parameters for zones under their management, including for
   zones that are not currently securely delegated.

   Whenever DS records are absent for a zone's delegation, this signal
   enables the parent's registry or registrar to cryptographically
   validate the CDS/CDNSKEY records found at the child's apex.  The
   parent can then provision DS records for the delegation without
   resorting to out-of-band validation or weaker types of cross-checks
   such as "Accept after Delay".

   This document establishes the DS enrollment method described in
   Section 4 of this document as the preferred method over those from
   Section 3 of RFC 8078.  It also updates RFC 7344.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9615.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Terminology
     1.2.  Requirements Notation
   2.  Updates to RFCs
   3.  Signaling
     3.1.  Chain of Trust
     3.2.  Signaling Names
   4.  Bootstrapping a DNSSEC Delegation
     4.1.  Signaling Consent to Act as the Child's Signer
       4.1.1.  Example
     4.2.  Validating CDS/CDNSKEY Records for DNSSEC Bootstrapping
       4.2.1.  Example
     4.3.  Triggers
     4.4.  Limitations
   5.  Operational Recommendations
     5.1.  Child DNS Operator
     5.2.  Parental Agent
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  IANA Considerations
   8.  References
     8.1.  Normative References
     8.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   Securing a DNS delegation for the first time requires that the
   child's DNSSEC parameters be conveyed to the parent through some
   trusted channel.  While the communication conceptually has to occur
   between the parent registry and the DNSSEC key holder, what that
   means exactly and how communication is coordinated traditionally
   depends on the relationship the child has with the parent.

   A typical situation is that the key is held by the child DNS
   operator; thus, the communication often involves this entity.  In
   addition, depending on the circumstances, it may also involve the
   registrar, possibly via the registrant (for details, see Appendix A
   of [RFC7344].

   As observed in [RFC7344], these dependencies often result in a manual
   process that is susceptible to mistakes and/or errors.  In addition,
   due to the annoyance factor of the process, involved parties may
   avoid the process of getting a DS resource record set (RRset)
   published in the first place.

   To alleviate these problems, automated provisioning of DS records has
   been specified in [RFC8078].  It is based on the parental agent
   (registry or registrar) fetching DNSSEC key parameters from the CDS
   and CDNSKEY records ([RFC7344]) located at the child zone's apex, and
   validating them somehow.  This validation can be done using the
   child's existing DNSSEC chain of trust if the objective is to update
   an existing DS RRset (such as during key rollover).  However, when
   bootstrapping a DNSSEC delegation, the child zone has no existing
   DNSSEC validation path, so other means to ensure the CDS/CDNSKEY
   records' legitimacy must be found.

   Due to the lack of a comprehensive DNS-innate solution, either out-
   of-band methods have been used so far to complete the chain of trust,
   or cryptographic validation has been entirely dispensed with, in
   exchange for weaker types of cross-checks such as "Accept after
   Delay" (Section 3.3 of [RFC8078]).  [RFC8078] does not define an in-
   band validation method for enabling DNSSEC.

   This document aims to close this gap by introducing an in-band method
   for DNS operators to publish arbitrary information about the zones
   for which they are authoritative, in an authenticated manner and on a
   per-zone basis.  The mechanism allows managed DNS operators to
   securely announce DNSSEC key parameters for zones under their
   management.  The parent can then use this signal to cryptographically
   validate the CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets found at an insecure child zone's
   apex and, upon success, secure the delegation.

   While applicable to the vast majority of domains, the protocol does
   not support certain edge cases, such as excessively long child zone
   names, or DNSSEC bootstrapping for domains with in-domain nameservers
   only (see Section 4.4).

   DNSSEC bootstrapping is just one application of the generic signaling
   mechanism specified in this document.  Other applications might arise
   in the future, such as publishing operational metadata or auxiliary
   information that the DNS operator likes to make known (e.g., API
   endpoints for third-party interaction).

   Readers are expected to be familiar with DNSSEC [BCP237].

1.1.  Terminology

   This section defines the terminology used in this document.

   CDS/CDNSKEY:  This notation refers to CDS and/or CDNSKEY, i.e., one
      or both.

   Child:  See Section 7 of [RFC9499].

   Child DNS operator:  The entity that maintains and publishes the zone
      information for the child DNS.

   Parent:  See Section 7 of [RFC9499].

   Parental agent:  The entity that has the authority to insert DS
      records into the parent zone on behalf of the child.  (It could be
      the registry, registrar, a reseller, or some other authorized
      entity.)

   Signaling domain:  A domain name constructed by prepending the label
      _signal to a hostname taken from a delegation's NS RRset.  There
      are as many signaling domains as there are distinct NS targets.

   Signaling name:  The labels that are prefixed to a signaling domain
      in order to identify a signaling type and a child zone's name (see
      Section 3.2).

   Signaling record:  A DNS record located at a signaling name under a
      signaling domain.  Signaling records are used by the child DNS
      operator to publish information about the child.

   Signaling type:  A signal type identifier, such as _dsboot for DNSSEC
      bootstrapping.

   Signaling zone:  The zone that is authoritative for a given signaling
      record.

1.2.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Updates to RFCs

   The DS enrollment methods described in Section 3 of [RFC8078] are
   less secure than the method described in Section 4 of this document.
   Therefore, child DNS operators and parental agents wishing to use
   CDS/CDNSKEY records for initial DS enrollment SHOULD support the
   authentication protocol described here.

   In order to facilitate publication of signaling records for the
   purpose of DNSSEC bootstrapping (see Section 4.1), the first bullet
   ("Location") of Section 4.1 of [RFC7344] is removed.

3.  Signaling

   This section describes the general mechanism by which a child DNS
   operator can publish an authenticated signal about a child zone.
   Parental agents (or any other party) can then discover and process
   the signal.  Authenticity is ensured through standard DNSSEC
   validation.

3.1.  Chain of Trust

   If a child DNS operator implements this specification, each signaling
   zone MUST be signed and be validatable by the parental agent (i.e.,
   have a valid publicly resolvable DNSSEC chain of trust).  This is
   typically achieved by securely delegating each signaling zone.

   For example, when publishing a signal that relates to a child zone
   with NS records ns1.example.net and ns2.example.org, the child DNS
   operator needs to ensure that the parental agent has a valid DNSSEC
   chain of trust for the zone(s) that are authoritative for the
   signaling domains _signal.ns1.example.net and
   _signal.ns2.example.org.

3.2.  Signaling Names

   To publish information about the child zone in an authenticated
   fashion, the child DNS operator MUST publish one or more signaling
   records at a signaling name under each signaling domain.

   Signaling records MUST be accompanied by RRSIG records created with
   the corresponding signaling zone's key(s).  The type and contents of
   these signaling records depend on the type of signal.

   The signaling name identifies the child and the signaling type.  It
   is identical to the child name (with the final root label removed),
   prefixed with a label containing the signaling type.

4.  Bootstrapping a DNSSEC Delegation

   When the child zone's CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets are used for setting up
   initial trust, they need to be authenticated.  This is achieved by
   copublishing the child's CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets as an authenticated
   signal as described in Section 3.  The parent can discover and
   validate it, thus transferring trust from the child DNS operator
   nameservers' chain of trust to the child zone.

   This protocol is not intended for updating an existing DS RRset.  For
   this purpose, the parental agent can validate the child's CDS/CDNSKEY
   RRsets directly, using the chain of trust established by the existing
   DS RRset (Section 4 of [RFC7344]).

4.1.  Signaling Consent to Act as the Child's Signer

   To confirm its willingness to act as the child's delegated signer and
   authenticate the child's CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets, the child DNS operator
   MUST copublish them at the corresponding signaling name under each
   signaling domain, excluding those that would fall within the child
   domain (Section 3.2).  For simplicity, the child DNS operator MAY
   also copublish the child's CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets under signaling domains
   within the child domain, although those signaling domains are not
   used for validation (Section 4.2).

   Unlike the CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets at the child's apex, a signaling RRset
   MUST be signed with the corresponding signaling zone's key(s).  Its
   contents MUST be identical to the corresponding RRset published at
   the child's apex.

   Existing use of CDS/CDNSKEY records was specified at the child apex
   only (Section 4.1 of [RFC7344]).  This protocol extends the use of
   these record types to non-apex owner names for the purpose of DNSSEC
   bootstrapping.  To exclude the possibility of semantic collision,
   there MUST NOT be a zone cut at a signaling name.

4.1.1.  Example

   For the purposes of bootstrapping the child zone example.co.uk with
   NS records ns1.example.net, ns2.example.org, and ns3.example.co.uk,
   the required signaling domains are _signal.ns1.example.net and
   _signal.ns2.example.org.

   In the zones containing these domains, the child DNS operator
   authenticates the CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets found at the child's apex by
   copublishing them as CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets at the names:

   _dsboot.example.co.uk._signal.ns1.example.net
   _dsboot.example.co.uk._signal.ns2.example.org

   These RRsets are signed with DNSSEC just like any other zone data.

   Publication of signaling records under the in-domain name
   _signal.ns3.example.co.uk is not required.

4.2.  Validating CDS/CDNSKEY Records for DNSSEC Bootstrapping

   To validate a child's CDS/CDNSKEY RRset for DNSSEC bootstrapping, the
   parental agent, knowing both the child zone name and its NS
   hostnames, MUST execute the following steps:

   Step 1:  verify that the child has no DS records published at the
            parent and that at least one of its nameservers is outside
            the child domain;

   Step 2:  query the CDS/CDNSKEY RRset at the child zone apex directly
            from each of the authoritative servers as determined by the
            delegation's (parent-side) NS RRset, without caching;

   Step 3:  query the CDS/CDNSKEY RRset located at the signaling name
            under each signaling domain (except those falling within the
            child domain) using a trusted DNS resolver and enforce
            DNSSEC validation;

   Step 4:  check (separately by record type) that all RRsets retrieved
            in Steps 2 and 3 have equal contents;

   If the above steps succeed without error, the CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets are
   successfully verified, and the parental agent can proceed with the
   publication of the DS RRset under the precautions described in
   Section 5 of [RFC8078].

   The parental agent MUST abort the procedure if an error condition
   occurs, in particular:

   *  in Step 1: the child is already securely delegated or has in-
      domain nameservers only;

   *  in Step 2: any failure during the retrieval of the CDS/CDNSKEY
      RRset located at the child apex from any of the authoritative
      nameservers;

   *  in Step 3: any failure to retrieve the CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets located
      at the signaling name under any signaling domain, including
      failure of DNSSEC validation, or unauthenticated data (AD bit not
      set);

   *  in Step 4: inconsistent responses (for at least one of the types),
      including an RRset that is empty in one of Steps 2 or 3, but non-
      empty in the other.

4.2.1.  Example

   To verify the CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets for the child example.co.uk, the
   parental agent (assuming that the child delegation's NS records are
   ns1.example.net, ns2.example.org, and ns3.example.co.uk)

   1.  checks that the child domain is not yet securely delegated;

   2.  queries the CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets for example.co.uk directly from
       ns1.example.net, ns2.example.org, and ns3.example.co.uk (without
       caching);

   3.  queries and validates the CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets located at (see
       Section 3.2; ns3.example.co.uk is ignored because it is in-
       domain)

      _dsboot.example.co.uk._signal.ns1.example.net
      _dsboot.example.co.uk._signal.ns2.example.org

   4.  checks that the CDS/CDNSKEY RRsets retrieved in Steps 2 and 3
       agree across responses.

   If all of these steps succeed, the parental agent can proceed to
   publish a DS RRset as indicated by the validated CDS/CDNSKEY RRset.

   As in-domain signaling names do not have a chain of trust at
   bootstrapping time, the parental agent does not consider them during
   validation.  Consequently, if all NS hostnames are in-domain,
   validation cannot be completed and DS records are not published.

4.3.  Triggers

   Parental agents SHOULD trigger the procedure described in Section 4.2
   once one of the following conditions is fulfilled:

   *  The parental agent receives a new or updated NS RRset for a child;

   *  The parental agent receives a notification indicating that the
      child wishes to have its CDS/CDNSKEY RRset processed;

   *  The parental agent encounters a signaling record during a
      proactive, opportunistic scan (e.g., daily queries of signaling
      records for some or all of its delegations);

   *  The parental agent encounters a signaling record during an NSEC
      walk or when parsing a signaling zone (e.g., when made available
      via AXFR by the child DNS operator);

   *  Any other condition deemed appropriate by local policy.

   Timer-based trigger mechanisms (such as scans) exhibit undesirable
   properties with respect to processing delay and scaling; on-demand
   triggers (like notifications) are preferable.  Whenever possible,
   child DNS operators and parental agents are thus encouraged to use
   them, reducing both delays and the amount of scanning traffic.

   Most types of discovery (such as daily scans of delegations) are
   based directly on the delegation's NS RRset.  In this case, these NS
   names can be used as is by the bootstrapping algorithm (Section 4.2)
   for querying signaling records.

   Some discovery methods, however, do not imply reliable knowledge of
   the delegation's NS RRset.  For example, when discovering signaling
   names by performing an NSEC walk or zone transfer of a signaling
   zone, the parental agent MUST NOT assume that a nameserver under
   whose signaling domain a signaling record appears is actually
   authoritative for the corresponding child.

   Instead, whenever a list of "bootstrappable domains" is obtained by
   means other than directly from the parent, the parental agent MUST
   ascertain that the delegation actually contains the nameserver
   hostname seen during discovery, and ensure that signaling-record
   queries are only made against the proper set of nameservers as listed
   in the child's delegation from the parent.

4.4.  Limitations

   As a consequence of Step 3 in Section 4.2, DS bootstrapping does not
   work for fully in-domain delegations, as no preexisting chain of
   trust to the child domain is available during bootstrapping.  (As a
   workaround, one can add an out-of-domain nameserver to the initial NS
   RRset and remove it once bootstrapping is completed.  Automation for
   this is available via CSYNC records, see [RFC7477].)

   Fully qualified signaling names must by valid DNS names.  Label count
   and length requirements for DNS names (Section 3.1 of [RFC1035])
   imply that the protocol does not work for unusually long child domain
   names or NS hostnames.

5.  Operational Recommendations

5.1.  Child DNS Operator

   It is possible to add CDS/CDNSKEY records and corresponding signaling
   records to a zone without the domain owner's explicit knowledge.  To
   spare domain owners from being caught off guard by the ensuing DS
   changes, child DNS operators following this practice are advised to
   make that transparent, such as by informing the domain owner during
   zone creation (e.g., in a GUI) or by notifying them via email.

   When transferring a zone to another DNS operator, the old and new
   child DNS operators need to cooperate to achieve a smooth transition,
   e.g., by using the multi-signer protocols described in [RFC8901].  If
   all else fails, the domain owner might have to request the removal of
   all DS records and have the transfer performed insecurely (see
   [INSEC]).

   Signaling domains SHOULD be delegated as standalone zones, so that
   the signaling zone's apex coincides with the signaling domain (such
   as _signal.ns1.example.net).  While it is permissible for the
   signaling domain to be contained in a signaling zone of fewer labels
   (such as example.net), a zone cut ensures that bootstrapping
   activities do not require modifications of the zone containing the
   nameserver hostname.

   Once a child DNS operator determines that specific signaling record
   sets have been processed (e.g., by seeing the result in the parent
   zone), they are advised to remove them.  This will reduce the size of
   the signaling zone and facilitate more efficient bulk processing
   (such as via zone transfers).

5.2.  Parental Agent

   In order to ensure timely DNSSEC bootstrapping of insecure domains,
   stalemate situations due to mismatch of stale cached records (Step 4
   of Section 4.2) need to be avoided.  It is thus RECOMMENDED that
   queries into signaling domains be performed with an (initially) empty
   resolver cache, or that some other method for retrieving fresh data
   from authoritative servers be used.

   It is also RECOMMENDED that QNAME minimization [RFC9156] be used when
   resolving queries for signaling records to guard against certain
   attacks (see Section 6).

6.  Security Considerations

   The DNSSEC bootstrapping method introduced in this document is based
   on the approaches described in Section 3 of [RFC8078], but adds
   authentication to the CDS/CDNSKEY concept.  Its security level is
   therefore strictly higher than that of existing approaches described
   in that document (e.g., "Accept after Delay").  Apart from this
   general improvement, the same Security Considerations apply as in
   [RFC8078].

   The level of rigor in Section 4.2 is needed to prevent publication of
   an ill-conceived DS RRset (authorized only under a subset of NS
   hostnames).  This ensures, for example, that an operator in a multi-
   homed setup cannot enable DNSSEC unless all other operators agree.

   In any case, as the child DNS operator has authoritative knowledge of
   the child's CDS/CDNSKEY records, it can readily detect fraudulent
   provisioning of DS records.

   In order to prevent the parents of nameserver hostnames from becoming
   a single point of failure for a delegation (both in terms of
   resolution availability and for the trust model of this protocol),
   diversifying the path from the root to the child's nameserver
   hostnames is advisable.  For example, different and independently
   operated TLDs may be used for each one.

   If QNAME minimization [RFC9156] is not used when querying for
   signaling records, an upstream parent of a signaling domain will see
   those CDS/CDNSKEY queries and could respond with an authoritative
   answer signed with its own key, instead of sending the referral.
   Enabling QNAME minimization reduces the attack surface for such
   forgery.

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has added the following entries to the "Underscored and Globally
   Scoped DNS Node Names" registry [RFC8552]:

                   +=========+============+===========+
                   | RR Type | _NODE NAME | Reference |
                   +=========+============+===========+
                   | CDS     | _signal    | RFC 9615  |
                   +---------+------------+-----------+
                   | CDNSKEY | _signal    | RFC 9615  |
                   +---------+------------+-----------+

                                 Table 1

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC7344]  Kumari, W., Gudmundsson, O., and G. Barwood, "Automating
              DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance", RFC 7344,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7344, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7344>.

   [RFC7477]  Hardaker, W., "Child-to-Parent Synchronization in DNS",
              RFC 7477, DOI 10.17487/RFC7477, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7477>.

   [RFC8078]  Gudmundsson, O. and P. Wouters, "Managing DS Records from
              the Parent via CDS/CDNSKEY", RFC 8078,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8078, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8078>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8552]  Crocker, D., "Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource
              Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute Leaves",
              BCP 222, RFC 8552, DOI 10.17487/RFC8552, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8552>.

   [RFC9156]  Bortzmeyer, S., Dolmans, R., and P. Hoffman, "DNS Query
              Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy", RFC 9156,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9156, November 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9156>.

   [RFC9499]  Hoffman, P. and K. Fujiwara, "DNS Terminology", BCP 219,
              RFC 9499, DOI 10.17487/RFC9499, March 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9499>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [BCP237]   Best Current Practice 237,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp237>.
              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

              Hoffman, P., "DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", BCP 237,
              RFC 9364, DOI 10.17487/RFC9364, February 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9364>.

   [INSEC]    Hardaker, W., "Intentionally Temporarily Degraded or
              Insecure", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              hardaker-dnsop-intentionally-temporary-insec-01, 21
              October 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-hardaker-dnsop-intentionally-temporary-insec-01>.

   [RFC8901]  Huque, S., Aras, P., Dickinson, J., Vcelak, J., and D.
              Blacka, "Multi-Signer DNSSEC Models", RFC 8901,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8901, September 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8901>.

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Brian Dickson, Ondřej Caletka, John R. Levine, Christian
   Elmerot, Oli Schacher, Donald Eastlake, Libor Peltan, Warren Kumari,
   Scott Rose, Linda Dunbar, Tim Wicinski, Paul Wouters, Paul Hoffman,
   Peter Yee, Benson Muite, Roman Danyliw, Éric Vyncke, and Joe Abley
   for reviewing draft proposals and offering comments and suggestions.

   Thanks also to Steve Crocker, Hugo Salgado, and Ulrich Wisser for
   early-stage brainstorming.

Authors' Addresses

   Peter Thomassen
   deSEC, Secure Systems Engineering (SSE)
   Berlin
   Germany
   Email: peter@desec.io


   Nils Wisiol
   deSEC, Technische Universität Berlin
   Berlin
   Germany
   Email: nils@desec.io