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"/>
<date year="2025" month="June" day="04"/> <area>OPS</area>
<workgroup>dnsop</workgroup>
<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 ves the implementations support. This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 8624 and mo ves 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 the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries. This is don
the list of requirements to be more easily updated, and to allow the list to e to allow
be more easily the list of requirements to be more easily updated and referenced.
referenced. Future extensions to this registry can be made under new, Extensions to these registries can be made in future RFCs.
incremental update RFCs. This document also incorporates the revised This document also updates RFC 9157 and incorporates the revised
IANA DNSSEC considerations from RFC9157.</t> IANA DNSSEC considerations from that RFC.</t>
<t>The document does not change the status (MUST, MAY, RECOMMENDED, etc.)
of the algorithms listed in RFC8624; that is the work of future documents.</t
>
<t>This document does not change the recommendation status (<bcp14>MUST</b
cp14>, <bcp14>MAY</bcp14>, <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>, etc.)
of the algorithms listed in RFC 8624; that is the work of future documents.</
t>
</abstract> </abstract>
</front> </front>
<middle> <middle>
<?line 78?> <section anchor="introduction">
<name>Introduction</name>
<section anchor="introduction"><name>Introduction</name> <t>"DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)" <xref target="RFC9364"/> is used to
provide
<t>DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) <xref target="RFC9364"></xref> is used to pr
ovide
authentication of DNS data. The DNSSEC signing algorithms are authentication of DNS data. The DNSSEC signing algorithms are
defined by various RFCs, including <xref target="RFC4034"></xref>, <xref targ defined by various RFCs, including <xref target="RFC4034"/>, <xref target="RF
et="RFC4509"></xref>, <xref target="RFC5155"></xref>, C4509"/>, <xref target="RFC5155"/>,
<xref target="RFC5702"></xref>, <xref target="RFC5933"></xref>, <xref target= <xref target="RFC5702"/>, <xref target="RFC5933"/>, <xref target="RFC6605"/>,
"RFC6605"></xref>, <xref target="RFC8080"></xref>.</t> and <xref target="RFC8080"/>.</t>
<t>To ensure interoperability, a set of "mandatory-to-implement"
<t>To ensure interoperability, a set of "mandatory to implement" DNS Public Key (DNSKEY) algorithms are defined in <xref target="RFC8624"/>.
DNSKEY algorithms are defined in <xref target="RFC8624"></xref>. To make the To make the current
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">
<section anchor="document-audience"><name>Document Audience</name> <name>Document Audience</name>
<t>The columns added to the IANA <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA">"DNS Securit
<t>The columns added to the IANA <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA">"DNS Security Algori y Algorithm Numbers"</xref>
thm Numbers"</xref> and <xref target="DS-IANA">"Digest Algorithms"</xref> registries target DNSSE
and <xref target="DS-IANA">"DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR C operators and implementers.</t>
) Type Digest <t>Implementations need to meet high security expectations as
Algorithms"</xref> registries target DNSSEC operators and implementers.</t>
<t>Implementations need to meet both 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
<t>Validating recursive resolvers are encouraged to retain support for all ll
algorithms not marked as MUST NOT.</t> algorithms not marked as <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>.</t>
</section>
</section> <section anchor="requirements-notation">
<section anchor="requirements-notation"><name>Requirements notation</name> <name>Requirements Notation</name>
<t>
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQU
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", IRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>
in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only wh RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
en, they appear "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to
in all capitals, as shown here.</t> be interpreted as
described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/>
<t><xref target="RFC2119"></xref> considers the term SHOULD to be equivalent to when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
RECOMMENDED, and </t>
SHOULD NOT equivalent to NOT RECOMMENDED. This document has <t><xref target="RFC2119"/> considers the term <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> to
chosen to use the terms RECOMMENDED and NOT RECOMMENDED, as this 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> more clearly expresses the recommendations to implementers.</t>
</section>
</section> </section>
</section> <section anchor="adding-usage-and-implementation-recommendations-to-the-iana
<section anchor="adding-usage-and-implementation-recommendations-to-the-iana-dns -dnssec-registries">
sec-registries"><name>Adding usage and implementation recommendations to the IAN <name>Adding Usage and Implementation Recommendations to the IANA DNSSEC A
A DNSSEC registries</name> lgorithm Registries</name>
<t>Per this document, the following columns have been added to the
<t>Per this document, the following columns are being added to the corresponding DNSSEC algorithm registries maintained by IANA:</t>
following DNSSEC algorithm registries maintained with IANA:</t> <table anchor="columns">
<name>Columns Added to Existing DNSSEC Algorithm Registries</name>
<texttable title="Columns to add to existing DNSSEC algorithm registries" anchor <thead>
="columns"> <tr>
<ttcol align='left'>Registry</ttcol> <th align="left">Registry</th>
<ttcol align='left'>Column added</ttcol> <th align="left">Column Added</th>
<c>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c> </tr>
<c>Use for DNSSEC Signing</c> </thead>
<c>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c> <tbody>
<c>Use for DNSSEC Validation</c> <tr>
<c>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c> <td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</td>
<c>Implement for DNSSEC Signing</c> <td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Signing</td>
<c>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</c> </tr>
<c>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</c> <tr>
<c>Digest Algorithm</c> <td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</td>
<c>Use for DNSSEC Delegation</c> <td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</td>
<c>Digest Algorithm</c> </tr>
<c>Use for DNSSEC Validation</c> <tr>
<c>Digest Algorithm</c> <td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</td>
<c>Implement for DNSSEC Delegation</c> <td align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Signing</td>
<c>Digest Algorithm</c> </tr>
<c>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</c> <tr>
</texttable> <td align="left">DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</td>
<td align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Validation</td>
<section anchor="column-descriptions"><name>Column Descriptions</name> </tr>
<tr>
<t>The intended usage of the four columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm <td align="left">Digest Algorithms</td>
Numbers" table are:</t> <td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Delegation</td>
</tr>
<dl> <tr>
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Signing:</dt> <td align="left">Digest Algorithms</td>
<dd> <td align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</td>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm within </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> authoritative servers.</t>
</dd> </dd>
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Validation:</dt> <dt>Use for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd> <dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm in DNSSEC <t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm in DNSSEC
validators.</t> validators.</t>
</dd> </dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Signing:</dt> <dt>Implement for DNSSEC Signing:</dt>
<dd> <dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within <t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm withi
n
DNSSEC signing software.</t> DNSSEC signing software.</t>
</dd> </dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Validation:</dt> <dt>Implement for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd> <dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within <t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm withi
n
DNSSEC validators.</t> DNSSEC validators.</t>
</dd> </dd>
</dl> </dl>
<t>The intended usage of the four columns in the "Digest Algorithms" reg
<t>The intended usage of the four columns in the "Digest Algorithm" table are:</ istry is as follows:</t>
t> <dl>
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Delegation:</dt>
<dl> <dd>
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Delegation:</dt> <t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm within
<dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm within
authoritative servers.</t> authoritative servers.</t>
</dd> </dd>
<dt>Use for DNSSEC Validation:</dt> <dt>Use for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd> <dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm in DNSSEC <t>Indicates the recommendation for using the algorithm in DNSSEC
validators.</t> validators.</t>
</dd> </dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Delegation:</dt> <dt>Implement for DNSSEC Delegation:</dt>
<dd> <dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within <t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm withi
n
authoritative servers.</t> authoritative servers.</t>
</dd> </dd>
<dt>Implement for DNSSEC Validation:</dt> <dt>Implement for DNSSEC Validation:</dt>
<dd> <dd>
<t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm within <t>Indicates the recommendation for implementing the algorithm withi
n
validating resolvers.</t> validating resolvers.</t>
</dd> </dd>
</dl> </dl>
</section>
</section> <section anchor="adding-and-changing-values">
<section anchor="adding-and-changing-values"><name>Adding and Changing Values</n <name>Adding and Changing Values</name>
ame> <t>
The following note describing the procedures for adding and
<t>Adding a new entry to the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry changing values has been added to the "DNS Security Algorithm
with a recommended value of "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Signing", Numbers" registry:
</t>
<blockquote><t>Adding a new entry to the "DNS Security 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 "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or
"Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns will subject to the "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns will be subject to the
"Specification Required" policy as defined in <xref target="RFC8126"></xref> Specification Required policy as defined in <xref target="RFC8126"/> in order
in order to to
promote continued evolution of DNSSEC algorithms and DNSSEC promote continued evolution of DNSSEC algorithms and DNSSEC
agility. New entries added through the "Specification Required" agility. New entries added through the Specification Required
process will have the value of "MAY" for all columns. (Ed note (RFC process will have the value of "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" for all columns.
Editor - please delete this before publication): As a reminder: the </t>
"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, <!--Note for RFC Editor:
the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for Ask IANA to remove the quote marks around the
Specification Required policy in the notes in
both registries, and update both notes to match
the edited doc.
-->
<t>Adding a new entry to, or changing an existing value in,
the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry that has any value other than "
<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>" in 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 requires Standa
any other value than "MAY" requires a Standards Action.</t> rds Action.</t>
<t>If an item is not marked as "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", it does not necess
<t>Adding a new entry to the "Digest Algorithms" registry with a arily
recommended value of "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either
has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited
applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases.</t></blockquote>
<t>
The following note has been added to the "Digest Algorithms" registry:
</t>
<blockquote><t>Adding a new entry to the "Digest Algorithms" registry wi
th 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 an existing value in,
the "Digest Algorithms" registry that has any value other than "<bcp14>MAY</
<t>Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in, bcp14>"
the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for in the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement f
DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for or
DNSSEC Delegation", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns DNSSEC Delegation", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns requires
to any other value than "MAY" requires a Standards Action.</t> 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></blockquote>
<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 to be populated <t>The following sections state the initial values that have been popula
into these rows. The "Implement for" column values are transcribed ted
from <xref target="RFC8624"></xref>. The "Use for" columns are set to the sam into these columns. The values in the "Implement for" columns are transcribed
e values as from <xref target="RFC8624"/>. The "Use for" columns are set to the same valu
the "Implement for" values since the general interpretation to date es as
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>
<t>Initial values for the use and implementation
recommendation columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry under
the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry group are
shown in <xref target="algtable"/>.</t>
</section> <t>When there are multiple
</section> <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> algorithms in the "Use for" columns, operators sho
<section anchor="dns-system-algorithm-numbers-column-values"><name>DNS System Al uld choose
gorithm Numbers Column Values</name> the best algorithm according to local policy.</t>
<table anchor="algtable">
<t>Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation <name>Initial Values for the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers Registry Col
recommendations for the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) umns</name>
Algorithm Numbers" are shown in Table 2.</t> <thead>
<tr>
<t>When there are multiple <th align="left">No.</th>
RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "use" column, operators should choose <th align="left">Mnemonics</th>
the best algorithm according to local policy.</t> <th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Signing</th>
<th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</th>
<texttable title="Initial values for the DNS System Algorithm Numbers columns" a <th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Signing</th>
nchor="algtable"> <th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Validation</th>
<ttcol align='left'>N</ttcol> </tr>
<ttcol align='left'>Mnemonics</ttcol> </thead>
<ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Signing</ttcol> <tbody>
<ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol> <tr>
<ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Signing</ttcol> <td align="left">1</td>
<ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol> <td align="left">RSAMD5</td>
<c>1</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>RSAMD5</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> </tr>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <tr>
<c>3</c> <td align="left">3</td>
<c>DSA</c> <td align="left">DSA</td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>5</c> </tr>
<c>RSASHA1</c> <tr>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left">5</td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left">RSASHA1</td>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>6</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>DSA-NSEC3-SHA1</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> </tr>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <tr>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left">6</td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left">DSA-NSEC3-SHA1</td>
<c>7</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>RSASHA1-NSEC3- SHA1</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c> </tr>
<c>MUST</c> <tr>
<c>8</c> <td align="left">7</td>
<c>RSASHA256</c> <td align="left">RSASHA1-NSEC3- SHA1</td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<c>10</c> </tr>
<c>RSASHA512</c> <tr>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left">8</td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left">RSASHA256</td>
<c>NOT RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>12</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<c>ECC-GOST</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> </tr>
<c>MAY</c> <tr>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left">10</td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left">RSASHA512</td>
<c>13</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>ECDSAP256SHA256</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST</c> </tr>
<c>MUST</c> <tr>
<c>14</c> <td align="left">12</td>
<c>ECDSAP384SHA384</c> <td align="left">ECC-GOST</td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<c>15</c> </tr>
<c>ED25519</c> <tr>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left">13</td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left">ECDSAP256SHA256</td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>16</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<c>ED448</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> </tr>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <tr>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left">14</td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left">ECDSAP384SHA384</td>
<c>17</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<c>SM2/SM3</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> </tr>
<c>MAY</c> <tr>
<c>23</c> <td align="left">15</td>
<c>GOST R 34.10-2012</c> <td align="left">ED25519</td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>253</c> </tr>
<c>private algorithm</c> <tr>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left">16</td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left">ED448</td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>254</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<c>private algorithm OID</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> </tr>
<c>MAY</c> <tr>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left">17</td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left">SM2SM3</td>
</texttable> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
</section> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<section anchor="dnssec-delegation-signer-ds-resource-record-rr-type-digest-algo <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
rithms-column-values"><name>DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) T </tr>
ype Digest Algorithms Column Values</name> <tr>
<td align="left">23</td>
<t>Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation <td align="left">ECC-GOST12</td>
recommendations for the "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" registry are shown in Table 3.</t> <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">PRIVATEDNS</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">PRIVATEOID</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>When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "use" column, <name>Digest Algorithms Registry Column Values</name>
<t>Initial values for the use and implementation
recommendation columns in the "Digest Algorithms" registry under the "DNSSEC
Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" registry gro
up are shown in <xref target="dstable"/>.</t>
<t>When there are multiple <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> algorithms in the "U
se for" columns,
operators should choose the best algorithm according to local operators should choose the best algorithm according to local
policy.</t> policy.</t>
<table anchor="dstable">
<texttable title="Initial values for the DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource <name>Initial Values for the Digest Algorithms Registry Columns</name>
Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms columns" anchor="dstable"> <thead>
<ttcol align='left'>Number</ttcol> <tr>
<ttcol align='left'>Mnemonics</ttcol> <th align="left">Value</th>
<ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Delegation</ttcol> <th align="left">Description</th>
<ttcol align='left'>Use for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol> <th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Delegation</th>
<ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Delegation</ttcol> <th align="left">Use for DNSSEC Validation</th>
<ttcol align='left'>Implement for DNSSEC Validation</ttcol> <th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Delegation</th>
<c>0</c> <th align="left">Implement for DNSSEC Validation</th>
<c>NULL (CDS only)</c> </tr>
<c>MUST NOT</c> </thead>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <tbody>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <tr>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left">0</td>
<c>1</c> <td align="left">NULL (CDS only)</td>
<c>SHA-1</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST</c> </tr>
<c>2</c> <tr>
<c>SHA-256</c> <td align="left">1</td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left">SHA-1</td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MUST</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>3</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<c>GOST R 34.11-94</c> </tr>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <tr>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left">2</td>
<c>MUST NOT</c> <td align="left">SHA-256</td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>4</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>SHA-384</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST</bcp14></td>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> </tr>
<c>MAY</c> <tr>
<c>RECOMMENDED</c> <td align="left">3</td>
<c>5</c> <td align="left">GOST R 34.11-94</td>
<c>GOST R 34.11-2012</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> </tr>
<c>6</c> <tr>
<c>SM3</c> <td align="left">4</td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left">SHA-384</td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
<c>MAY</c> <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
</texttable> <td align="left"><bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14></td>
</tr>
</section> <tr>
<section anchor="security-considerations"><name>Security Considerations</name> <td align="left">5</td>
<td align="left">GOST R 34.11-2012</td>
<t>The security of cryptographic systems depends on both the strength of <td align="left"><bcp14>MAY</bcp14></td>
the cryptographic algorithms chosen and the strength of the keys used <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 with those algorithms. The security also depends on the engineering
of the protocol used by the system to ensure that there are no non- 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> cryptographic ways to bypass the security of the overall system.</t>
<t>This document concerns itself with the selection of cryptographic algor
<t>This document concerns itself with the selection of cryptographic algorithms ithms
for the use of DNSSEC, specifically with the selection of for the use of DNSSEC, specifically with the selection of
"mandatory to implement" algorithms. The algorithms identified in this "mandatory-to-implement" algorithms. In this document, the algorithms identi
document as "MUST" or "RECOMMENDED" to implement are not known to be broken a fied as <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> or <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> to implement are not k
t nown to be broken at
the current time, and cryptographic research so far leads us to believe that the current time, and cryptographic research so far leads us to believe that
they are likely to remain adequately secure unless significant and they are likely to remain adequately secure unless significant and
unexpected discovery is made. However, this isn't necessarily forever, 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 it is expected that future documents will be issued from time to time to
reflect the current best practices in this area.</t> reflect the current best practices in this area.</t>
<t>Retiring an algorithm too soon would result in a zone signed with
<t>Retiring an algorithm too soon would result in a zone signed with
the retired algorithm being downgraded to the equivalent of an the retired algorithm being downgraded to the equivalent of an
unsigned zone. Therefore, algorithm deprecation must be done only unsigned zone. Therefore, algorithm deprecation must be done only
after careful consideration and ideally slowly when possible.</t> after careful consideration and ideally slowly when possible.</t>
</section>
</section> <section anchor="operational-considerations">
<section anchor="operational-considerations"><name>Operational Considerations</n <name>Operational Considerations</name>
ame> <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
<t>DNSKEY algorithm rollover in a live zone is a complex process. See o perform algorithm
<xref target="RFC6781"></xref> and <xref target="RFC7583"></xref> for guideli
nes on how to perform algorithm
rollovers.</t> rollovers.</t>
<t>DS algorithm rollover in a live zone is also a complex process.
<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
Upgrading algorithm at the same time as rolling to the new Key
Signing Key (KSK) key will lead to DNSSEC validation failures, and Signing Key (KSK) key will lead to DNSSEC validation failures, and
users MUST upgrade the DS algorithm first before rolling to a new users <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> upgrade the DS algorithm first before rolling to a new
KSK.</t> 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>
</section> <t>Additionally, IANA has completed the following actions for the "DNS Sec
<section anchor="iana-considerations"><name>IANA Considerations</name> urity
Algorithm Numbers" registry <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"/>:</t>
<t>The IANA is requested to update the <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"></xref> and <x <ul spacing="normal">
ref target="DS-IANA"></xref> registries <li>Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or
according to the following sections.</t> Specification Required.
</li>
<section anchor="update-to-the-dns-security-algorithm-numbers-registry"><name>Up <li>Added a note to the registry that describes the values not marked as
date to the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry</name> "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" per <xref target="adding-and-changing-values"
/>.
<t>This document requests IANA update the "DNS Security Algorithm </li>
Numbers" registry (<xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"></xref>) registry with the follo <li>Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.
wing </li>
additional columns:</t> </ul>
</section>
<t><list style="symbols"> <section anchor="update-to-the-digest-algorithms-registry">
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Signing"</t> <name>Update to the Digest Algorithms Registry</name>
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Validation"</t> <t>IANA has updated the "Digest Algorithms" registry
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Signing"</t> <xref target="DS-IANA"/> with the following columns and has populated these co
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Validation"</t> lumns with the values from <xref target="dstable"/> of this document:</t>
</list></t> <ul spacing="normal">
<li>
<t>These values must be populated using values from Table 2 of this <t>"Use for DNSSEC Delegation"</t>
document.</t> </li>
<li>
<t>Additionally, the registration policy for the <xref target="DNSKEY-IANA"></xr <t>"Use for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
ef> registry </li>
should match the text describing the requirements in this document, <li>
and Section 2's note concerning values not marked as "RECOMMENDED" <t>"Implement for DNSSEC Delegation"</t>
should be added to the registry.</t> </li>
<li>
<t>This document should be listed as a reference to the "DNS Security <t>"Implement for DNSSEC Validation"</t>
Algorithm Numbers" registry.</t> </li>
</ul>
</section> <t>Additionally, IANA has completed the following actions for the "Digest
<section anchor="update-to-the-digest-algorithms-registry"><name>Update to the " Algorithms" registry <xref target="DS-IANA"/>:
Digest Algorithms" registry</name> </t>
<ul spacing="normal">
<t>This document requests IANA update the "Digest Algorithms" registry <li>
(<xref target="DS-IANA"></xref>) registry with the following additional column <t>Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or Specifi
s:</t> cation Required.</t>
</li>
<t><list style="symbols"> <li>Added a note to the registry that describes the values not marked a
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Delegation"</t> s
<t>"Use for DNSSEC Validation"</t> "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>" per <xref target="adding-and-changing-values"
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Delegation"</t> />.
<t>"Implement for DNSSEC Validation"</t> </li>
</list></t> <li>Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.
</li>
<t>These values must be populated using values from Table 3 of this <li>
document.</t> <t>Marked values 128-252 as "Reserved".</t>
</li>
<t><list style="symbols"> <li>
<t>Update the registration policy for the <xref target="DS-IANA"></xref> regis <t>Marked values 253 and 254 as "Reserved for Private Use".</t>
try to </li>
match the text describing update requirements above</t> <li>
<t>Mark values 128 - 252 as "Reserved"</t> <t>Deleted the (now superfluous) column "Status" from the registry.<
<t>Mark values 253 and 254 as "Reserved for Private Use"</t> /t>
<t>Delete the (now superfluous) column "Status" from the registry</t> </li>
</list></t> </ul>
</section>
<t>Section 2's note concerning values not marked as "RECOMMENDED" </section>
should be added to the registry.</t>
<t>This document should be listed as a reference to the "Digest Algorithms" regi
stry.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="acknowledgments"><name>Acknowledgments</name>
<t>This document is based on, and extends, RFC 8624, which was authored by Paul
Wouters and 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 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>
</middle> </middle>
<back> <back>
<references anchor="sec-combined-references">
<references title='References' anchor="sec-combined-references"> <name>References</name>
<references anchor="sec-normative-references">
<references title='Normative References' anchor="sec-normative-references"> <name>Normative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2
<reference anchor="RFC2119"> 119.xml"/>
<front> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8
<title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title> 126.xml"/>
<author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8
<date month="March" year="1997"/> 174.xml"/>
<abstract> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.91
<t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the 57.xml"/>
requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This docu <reference anchor="DNSKEY-IANA" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments
ment defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This d /dns-sec-alg-numbers">
ocument specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, <front>
and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t> <title>DNS Security Algorithm Numbers</title>
</abstract> <author>
</front> <organization>IANA</organization>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/> </author>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/> </front>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/> </reference>
</reference> <reference anchor="DS-IANA" target="http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-r
<reference anchor="RFC8126"> r-types">
<front> <front>
<title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title> <title>Digest Algorithms</title>
<author fullname="M. Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton"/> <author>
<author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/> <organization>IANA</organization>
<author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/> </author>
<date month="June" year="2017"/> </front>
<abstract> </reference>
<t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants t </references>
o identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these field <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
s do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocation <name>Informative References</name>
s are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that rol <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4
e is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t> 034.xml"/>
<t>To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4
the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and ho 509.xml"/>
w modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5
a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, 155.xml"/>
in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is cl <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5
ear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a regis 702.xml"/>
try.</t> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5
<t>This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.</t> 933.xml"/>
</abstract> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6
</front> 605.xml"/>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/> 781.xml"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7
</reference> 583.xml"/>
<reference anchor="RFC8174"> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8
<front> 080.xml"/>
<title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8
<author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/> 624.xml"/>
<date month="May" year="2017"/> <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9
<abstract> 364.xml"/>
<t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specif <reference anchor="TLS-ciphersuites" target="https://www.iana.org/assign
ications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPP ments/tls-parameters">
ERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t> <front>
</abstract> <title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters</title>
</front> <author>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/> <organization>IANA</organization>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/> </author>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/> </front>
</reference> </reference>
<reference anchor="RFC9157"> </references>
<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
-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xml#dns-sec-alg-numbers-1">
<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>
<references title='Informative References' anchor="sec-informative-reference
s">
<reference anchor="RFC4034">
<front>
<title>Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions</title>
<author fullname="R. Arends" initials="R." surname="Arends"/>
<author fullname="R. Austein" initials="R." surname="Austein"/>
<author fullname="M. Larson" initials="M." surname="Larson"/>
<author fullname="D. Massey" initials="D." surname="Massey"/>
<author fullname="S. Rose" initials="S." surname="Rose"/>
<date month="March" year="2005"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document is part of a family of documents that describe the DNS Se
curity Extensions (DNSSEC). The DNS Security Extensions are a collection of reso
urce records and protocol modifications that provide source authentication for t
he DNS. This document defines the public key (DNSKEY), delegation signer (DS), r
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">
<front>
<title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters</title>
<author initials="" surname="IANA" fullname="IANA">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date year="n.d."/>
</front>
</reference>
</references> </references>
<section anchor="acknowledgments" numbered="false">
</references> <name>Acknowledgments</name>
<t>This document is based on, and extends, RFC 8624, which was authored
<?line 480?> by <contact fullname="Paul Wouters"/> and <contact fullname="Ondrej
Sury"/>.</t>
<section anchor="changelog"><name>ChangeLog</name> <t>The content of this document was heavily discussed by participants of
the DNSOP Working Group. The authors appreciate the thoughtfulness of
<t>(RFC Editor: please remove this ChangeLog section upon publication.)</t> the many opinions expressed by working group participants that all
helped shaped this document. We thank <contact fullname="Paul Hoffman"/>
<section anchor="changes-from-ietf-10-to-ietf-11"><name>Changes from ietf-10 to and <contact fullname="Paul Wouters"/> for their contributed text and
ietf-11:</name> also <contact fullname="Nabeel Cocker"/>, <contact fullname="Shumon
Huque"/>, <contact fullname="Nicolai Leymann"/>, <contact fullname="S.
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[ Moonesamy"/>, <contact fullname="Magnus Nyström"/>, <contact
* Many more comments to address IESG reviews fullname="Peter Thomassen"/>, <contact fullname="Stefan Ubbink"/>, and
]]></artwork></figure> <contact fullname="Loganaden Velvindron"/> for their reviews and
comments.</t>
</section> </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>
<section anchor="changes-since-rfc8624"><name>Changes since RFC8624</name>
<t><list style="symbols">
<t>The primary purpose of this revision is to introduce the new
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>
</section>
</back> </back>
<!-- ##markdown-source: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</rfc> </rfc>
 End of changes. 65 change blocks. 
1131 lines changed or deleted 680 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.