Hi,

Please find a new version of the requirements for DNSSEC client validators
<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-02.txt>.


I added the requirements at the end of the body, so feel free to have a
look at them and comment them.

I think that most of the discussion should be about the use of "private
KSK/ZSK". I would be happy to have your opinion on whether we should keep
these requirements or not. Here is the text on private ZKS/KSK. Feel free
to comment.

8.  Private KSK/ZSK

DNSSEC may also be used in some private environment.  Corporate
networks and home networks, for example, may want to take advantage of
DNSSEC for a local scope network.  Typically, a corporate network may
use a local scope KSK / ZSK to validate DNS RRsets provided by
authoritative DNSSEC server in the corporate network.  This use case
is also known as the "split-zone" use case.  These RRsets within the
corporate network may differ from those hosted on the public DNS
infrastructure.  Note that using different KSK/ZSK for a given zone
may expose a zone to signature invalidation.  This is especially the
case for DNSSEC validators that are expected to flip-flop between
local and public scope.  How validators have to handle the various
provisioned KSK/ZSKs is out of scope of the document.

Home network may use DNSSEC with TLDs or associated domain names that
are of local scope and not even registered in the public DNS
infrastructure.


Here are the considered requirements:


R1) DNSSEC validator MUST be provided means to appropriately update their
time.
R2) DNSSEC Validator MUST be able to check the validity of their Trust
Anchor KSKs.
R3) DNSSEC Validator MUST be able to retrieve their Trust Anchor KSKs.
R4) DNSSEC Validator MUST be able to be informed a ZSK MUST be flushed from
cache.
R5) DNSSEC Validator MUST be able to be informed a KSK MUST be flushed from
cache.
R6) DNSSEC Validator MUST be able to be informed a KSK SHOULD be trusted as
a Trust Anchor KSK.
R7) DNSSEC Validator MUST be able to be informed that a KSK or a ZSK MUST
NOT be used for RRSIG validation.
R8) The DNSSEC Validator MUST be able to be informed that a KSK or a ZSK is
known "back to secure".
R9) DNSSEC Validator MUST be able to be provided KSK for private use.
R10) DNSSEC Validator MUST be able to be provided ZSK for private use.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:36 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-02.txt
To: Daniel Migault <[email protected]>



A new version of I-D, draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Daniel Migault and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements
Revision:       02
Title:          DNSSEC Validators Requirements
Document date:  2015-02-16
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          10
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-02.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements/
Htmlized:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-02
Diff:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-02

Abstract:
   DNSSEC provides data integrity and authentication for DNSSEC
   validators.  However, without valid trust anchor(s) and an acceptable
   value for the current time, DNSSEC validation cannot be performed.
   This document lists the requirements to be addressed so resolvers can
   have DNSSEC validation can be always-on.




Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat




-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to