xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification
Author(s): Donald Eastlake
The Domain Name System (DNS) has long provided means, such as CNAME (Canonical Name), where a query can be redirected to a different name. A DNS response header has an RCODE (Response Code) field, used for indicating errors,...
Network Working Group Donald Eastlake 3rd INTERNET-DRAFT Huawei Intended status: Proposed Standard Expires: July 10, 2012 January 11, 2012 xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> Abstract The Domain Name System (DNS) has long provided means, such as CNAME (Canonical Name), where a query can be redirected to a different name. A DNS response header has an RCODE (Response Code) field, used for indicating errors, and response status bits. This document clarifies, in the case of such redirected queries, how the RCODE and status bits correspond to the initial query cycle (where the CNAME or the like was detected) and subsequent or final query cycles. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent to the DNSEXT working group mailing list: <email@example.com>. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html D. Eastlake [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT xNAME RCODE Clarification Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................3 1.1 Conventions used in this document......................3 2. Status Bits.............................................4 2.1 The Authoritative Answer Bit...........................4 2.2 The Authentic Data Bit.................................4 3. RCODE Clarification.....................................5 4. Security Considerations.................................6 5. IANA Considerations.....................................6 6. References..............................................7 6.1 Normative References...................................7 6.2 Informative References.................................7 Change History.............................................8 D. Eastlake [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT xNAME RCODE Clarification 1. Introduction The Domain Name System (DNS) has long provided means, such as the CNAME (Canonical Name [RFC1035]) and DNAME [RFC2672] RRs (Resource Records), whereby a DNS query can be redirected to a different name. In particular, CNAME normally causes a query to its owner name to be redirected, while DNAME normally causes a query to any lower level name to be redirected. There has been a proposal for another redirection RR. In addition, as specified in [RFC2672], redirection through a DNAME also results in the synthesis of a CNAME RR in the response. In this document, we will refer to all RRs causing such redirection as xNAME RRs. xNAME RRs can be explicitly retrieved by querying for the xNAME type. When a different type is queried and an xNAME RR is encountered, the xNAME RR (and possibly a synthesized CNAME) is added to the answer of the response, DNSSEC RRs applicable to the xNAME RR may be added to the response, and the query is restarted with the name to which it was redirected. An xNAME may redirect a query to a name at which there is another xNAME and so on. In this document, we use "xNAME chain" to refer to a series of one or more xNAMEs each of which refers to another xNAME except the last, which refers to a non-xNAME or results in an error. A DNS response header has an RCODE (Response Code) field, used for indicating errors, and status bits that indicate whether an answer is authoritative and/or authentic. This document clarifies, in the case of such redirected queries, how the RCODE and status bits correspond to the initial query cycle (where the (first) xNAME was detected) and subsequent or final query cycles. 1.1 Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. D. Eastlake [Page 3] INTERNET-DRAFT xNAME RCODE Clarification 2. Status Bits There are two status bits returned in query responses for which a question could arise as to how, in the case of an xNAME chain, they relate to the first, possible intermediate, and/or last queries, as follows: 2.1 The Authoritative Answer Bit The AA, or Authoritative Answer bit, in the DNS response header indicates that the answer returned is from a DNS server authoritative for the zone containing that answer. For an xNAME chain, this "authoritative" status could be different for each answer in that chain. [RFC1035] states that the AA bit is to be set based on whether the server providing the answer with the first owner name in the answer section is authoritative. This specification of the AA bit has not been changed. 2.2 The Authentic Data Bit The AD, or Authentic Data bit, indicates that the response returned is authentic according to the dictates of DNSSEC [RFC4035]. [RFC4035] unambiguously states that the AD bit is to be set in a DNS response header only if the DNSSEC enabled server believes all RRs in the answer and authority sections of that response to be authentic. This specification of the AD bit has not been changed. D. Eastlake [Page 4] INTERNET-DRAFT xNAME RCODE Clarification 3. RCODE Clarification The RCODE (Response Code) field in a DNS query response header is non-zero to indicate an error. Section 4.3.2 of [RFC1034] has a resolution algorithm that includes CNAME processing but has been found to be unclear concerning the ultimate setting of RCODE in the case of such redirection. Section 2.1 of [RFC2308] implies that the RCODE should be set based on the last query cycle in the case of an xNAME chain but Section 2.2.1 of [RFC2308] says that some servers don't do that! When there is an xNAME chain, the RCODE field is set as follows: When an xNAME chain is followed, all but the last query cycle necessarily had no error. The RCODE in the ultimate DNS response MUST BE set based on the final query cycle leading to that response. If the xNAME chain was terminated by an error, it will be that error code. If the xNAME chain terminated without error, it will be zero. D. Eastlake [Page 5] INTERNET-DRAFT xNAME RCODE Clarification 4. Security Considerations The AA header flag bit is not protected by DNSSEC [RFC4033]. To secure it, secure communications are needed between the querying resolver and the DNS server. Such security can be provided by DNS transaction security, either TSIG [RFC2845] or SIG(0) [RFC2931]. An AD header flag bit and the RCODE in a response are not, in general, protected by DNSSEC, so the same conditions as stated in the previous paragraph generally apply to them; however, this is not always true. In particular, if the following apply, then the AD bit or an NXDOMAIN RCODE are protected by DNSSEC in the sense that the querier can calculate whether they are correct: 1. The zone where an NXDOMAIN RCODE occurs or all the zones where the data whose authenticity would be indicated by the AD flag bit are signed zones. 2. The query or queries involved indicate that DNSSEC RRs are OK in responses. 3. The responses providing these indications are from servers that include the additional DNSSEC RRs required by DNSSEC. 4. The querier has appropriate trust anchor(s) and appropriately validates and processes the DNSSEC RRs in the response. 5. IANA Considerations This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: please remove this section on publication. D. Eastlake [Page 6] INTERNET-DRAFT xNAME RCODE Clarification 6. References Normative and informative references for this document are given below. 6.1 Normative References [RFC1034] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD 13, RFC1034, November 1987. [RFC1035] - Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC1035, November 1987. [RFC 2119] - Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2672] - Crawford, M., "Non-Terminal DNS Name Redirection", RFC 2672, August 1999. [RFC4035] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC4035, March 2005 6.2 Informative References [RFC2308] - Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS NCACHE)", RFC2308, March 1998. [RFC2845] - Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B. Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)", RFC2845, May 2000. [RFC2931] - Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures ( SIG(0)s )", RFC2931, September 2000. [RFC4033] - Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC4033, March 2005. D. Eastlake [Page 7] INTERNET-DRAFT xNAME RCODE Clarification Authors' Addresses Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Huawei R&D USA 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 Phone: +1-508-333-2270 email: firstname.lastname@example.org Change History RFC Editor: Please delete this section before publication. Personal Version -02 to version -03: Drop interpretation opion A and leave only option B, no longer so labeled. Add this change history section. Update date and version. Personal Version -03 to -04 Remove the word "unambiguously". Update dates, version number, author information. Personal Version -04 to -05 Just update dates and version number. Personal Version -05 to WG Version -00 Change file name, version, and dates. D. Eastlake [Page 8] INTERNET-DRAFT xNAME RCODE Clarification Copyright and IPR Provisions Copyright (c) 2012 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 (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties, including those that are translated into other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including those that are translated into other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. D. Eastlake [Page 9]