Dnsop Workgroup RFCs

Browse Dnsop Workgroup RFCs by Number

RFC2870 - Root Name Server Operational Requirements: The primary focus of this document is to provide guidelines for operation of the root name servers. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC3258 - Distributing Authoritative Name Servers via Shared Unicast Addresses: This memo describes a set of practices intended to enable an authoritative name server operator to provide access to a single named server in multiple locations. The primary motivation for the development and deployment of these practices is to increase the distribution of Domain Name System (DNS) servers to previously under- served areas of the network topology and to reduce the latency for DNS query responses in those areas. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC3901 - DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines: This memo provides guidelines and Best Current Practice for operating DNS in a world where queries and responses are carried in a mixed environment of IPv4 and IPv6 networks. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC4074 - Common Misbehavior Against DNS Queries for IPv6 Addresses: There is some known misbehavior of DNS authoritative servers when they are queried for AAAA resource records. Such behavior can block IPv4 communication that should actually be available, cause a significant delay in name resolution, or even make a denial of service attack. This memo describes details of known cases and discusses their effects. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC4339 - IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server Information Approaches: This document describes three approaches for IPv6 recursive DNS server address configuration. It details the operational attributes of three solutions: RA option, DHCPv6 option, and well-known anycast addresses for recursive DNS servers. Additionally, it suggests the deployment scenarios in four kinds of networks (ISP, enterprise, 3GPP, and unmanaged networks) considering multi-solution resolution. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC4472 - Operational Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNS: This memo presents operational considerations and issues with IPv6 Domain Name System (DNS), including a summary of special IPv6 addresses, documentation of known DNS implementation misbehavior, recommendations and considerations on how to perform DNS naming for service provisioning and for DNS resolver IPv6 support, considerations for DNS updates for both the forward and reverse trees, and miscellaneous issues. This memo is aimed to include a summary of information about IPv6 DNS considerations for those who have experience with IPv4 DNS. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC4641 - DNSSEC Operational Practices: This document describes a set of practices for operating the DNS with security extensions (DNSSEC). The target audience is zone administrators deploying DNSSEC.; The document discusses operational aspects of using keys and signatures in the DNS. It discusses issues of key generation, key storage, signature generation, key rollover, and related policies.; This document obsoletes RFC 2541, as it covers more operational ground and gives more up-to-date requirements with respect to key sizes and the new DNSSEC specification. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC4697 - Observed DNS Resolution Misbehavior: This memo describes DNS iterative resolver behavior that results in a significant query volume sent to the root and top-level domain (TLD) name servers. We offer implementation advice to iterative resolver developers to alleviate these unnecessary queries. The recommendations made in this document are a direct byproduct of observation and analysis of abnormal query traffic patterns seen at two of the thirteen root name servers and all thirteen com/net TLD name servers. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC4892 - Requirements for a Mechanism Identifying a Name Server Instance: With the increased use of DNS anycast, load balancing, and other mechanisms allowing more than one DNS name server to share a single IP address, it is sometimes difficult to tell which of a pool of name servers has answered a particular query. A standardized mechanism to determine the identity of a name server responding to a particular query would be useful, particularly as a diagnostic aid for administrators. Existing ad hoc mechanisms for addressing this need have some shortcomings, not the least of which is the lack of prior analysis of exactly how such a mechanism should be designed and deployed. This document describes the existing convention used in some widely deployed implementations of the DNS protocol, including advantages and disadvantages, and discusses some attributes of an improved mechanism. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC5358 - Preventing Use of Recursive Nameservers in Reflector Attacks: This document describes ways to prevent the use of default configured recursive nameservers as reflectors in Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. It provides recommended configuration as measures to mitigate the attack. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC6168 - Requirements for Management of Name Servers for the DNS: Management of name servers for the Domain Name System (DNS) has traditionally been done using vendor-specific monitoring, configuration, and control methods. Although some service monitoring platforms can test the functionality of the DNS itself, there is not an interoperable way to manage (monitor, control, and configure) the internal aspects of a name server itself.; This document discusses the requirements of a management system for name servers and can be used as a shopping list of needed features for such a system. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC6303 - Locally Served DNS Zones: Experience with the Domain Name System (DNS) has shown that there are a number of DNS zones that all iterative resolvers and recursive nameservers should automatically serve, unless configured otherwise. RFC 4193 specifies that this should occur for D.F.IP6.ARPA. This document extends the practice to cover the IN-ADDR.ARPA zones for RFC 1918 address space and other well-known zones with similar characteristics. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
RFC6304 - AS112 Nameserver Operations: Many sites connected to the Internet make use of IPv4 addresses that are not globally unique. Examples are the addresses designated in RFC 1918 for private use within individual sites.; Devices in such environments may occasionally originate Domain Name System (DNS) queries (so-called "reverse lookups") corresponding to those private-use addresses. Since the addresses concerned have only local significance, it is good practice for site administrators to ensure that such queries are answered locally. However, it is not uncommon for such queries to follow the normal delegation path in the public DNS instead of being answered within the site.; It is not possible for public DNS servers to give useful answers to such queries. In addition, due to the wide deployment of private-use addresses and the continuing growth of the Internet, the volume of such queries is large and growing. The AS112 project aims to provide a distributed sink for such queries in order to reduce the load on the IN-ADDR.ARPA authoritative servers. The AS112 project is named after the Autonomous System Number (ASN) that was assigned to it.; This document describes the steps required to install a new AS112 node and offers advice relating to such a node's operation. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC6305 - I'm Being Attacked by PRISONER.IANA.ORG!: Many sites connected to the Internet make use of IPv4 addresses that are not globally unique. Examples are the addresses designated in RFC 1918 for private use within individual sites.; Hosts should never normally send DNS reverse-mapping queries for those addresses on the public Internet. However, such queries are frequently observed. Authoritative servers are deployed to provide authoritative answers to such queries as part of a loosely coordinated effort known as the AS112 project.; Since queries sent to AS112 servers are usually not intentional, the replies received back from those servers are typically unexpected. Unexpected inbound traffic can trigger alarms on intrusion detection systems and firewalls, and operators of such systems often mistakenly believe that they are being attacked.; This document provides background information and technical advice to those firewall operators. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC6781 - DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2: This document describes a set of practices for operating the DNS with security extensions (DNSSEC). The target audience is zone administrators deploying DNSSEC.; The document discusses operational aspects of using keys and signatures in the DNS. It discusses issues of key generation, key storage, signature generation, key rollover, and related policies.; 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.
RFC6841 - A Framework for DNSSEC Policies and DNSSEC Practice Statements: This document presents a framework to assist writers of DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) Policies and DNSSEC Practice Statements, such as domain managers and zone operators on both the top level and secondary level, who are managing and operating a DNS zone with Security Extensions implemented.; In particular, the framework provides a comprehensive list of topics that should be considered for inclusion into a DNSSEC Policy definition and Practice Statement. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC7344 - Automating DNSSEC Delegation Trust Maintenance: This document describes a method to allow DNS Operators to more easily update DNSSEC Key Signing Keys using the DNS as a communication channel. The technique described is aimed at delegations in which it is currently hard to move information from the Child to Parent.
RFC7477 - Child-to-Parent Synchronization in DNS: This document specifies how a child zone in the DNS can publish a record to indicate to a parental agent that the parental agent may copy and process certain records from the child zone. The existence of the record and any change in its value can be monitored by a parental agent and acted on depending on local policy.
RFC7534 - AS112 Nameserver Operations: Many sites connected to the Internet make use of IPv4 addresses that are not globally unique. Examples are the addresses designated in RFC 1918 for private use within individual sites.; Devices in such environments may occasionally originate Domain Name System (DNS) queries (so-called "reverse lookups") corresponding to those private-use addresses. Since the addresses concerned have only local significance, it is good practice for site administrators to ensure that such queries are answered locally. However, it is not uncommon for such queries to follow the normal delegation path in the public DNS instead of being answered within the site.; It is not possible for public DNS servers to give useful answers to such queries. In addition, due to the wide deployment of private-use addresses and the continuing growth of the Internet, the volume of such queries is large and growing. The AS112 project aims to provide a distributed sink for such queries in order to reduce the load on the corresponding authoritative servers. The AS112 project is named after the Autonomous System Number (ASN) that was assigned to it.; This document describes the steps required to install a new AS112 node and offers advice relating to such a node's operation.; This document obsoletes RFC 6304.
RFC7535 - AS112 Redirection Using DNAME: AS112 provides a mechanism for handling reverse lookups on IP addresses that are not unique (e.g., RFC 1918 addresses). This document describes modifications to the deployment and use of AS112 infrastructure that will allow zones to be added and dropped much more easily, using DNAME resource records.; This approach makes it possible for any DNS zone administrator to sink traffic relating to parts of the global DNS namespace under their control to the AS112 infrastructure without coordination with the operators of AS112 infrastructure.
RFC7583 - DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations: 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 parameters affecting the process.
RFC7646 - Definition and Use of DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors: DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) is now entering widespread deployment. However, domain signing tools and processes are not yet as mature and reliable as those for non-DNSSEC-related domain administration tools and processes. This document defines Negative Trust Anchors (NTAs), which can be used to mitigate DNSSEC validation failures by disabling DNSSEC validation at specified domains.
RFC7686 - The ".onion" Special-Use Domain Name: This document registers the ".onion" Special-Use Domain Name.
RFC7706 - Decreasing Access Time to Root Servers by Running One on Loopback: Some DNS recursive resolvers have longer-than-desired round-trip times to the closest DNS root server. Some DNS recursive resolver operators want to prevent snooping of requests sent to DNS root servers by third parties. Such resolvers can greatly decrease the round-trip time and prevent observation of requests by running a copy of the full root zone on a loopback address (such as 127.0.0.1). This document shows how to start and maintain such a copy of the root zone that does not pose a threat to other users of the DNS, at the cost of adding some operational fragility for the operator.
RFC7719 - DNS Terminology: The DNS is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs. The terminology used by implementers and developers of DNS protocols, and by operators of DNS systems, has sometimes changed in the decades since the DNS was first defined. This document gives current definitions for many of the terms used in the DNS in a single document.
RFC7766 - DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements: This document specifies the requirement for support of TCP as a transport protocol for DNS implementations and provides guidelines towards DNS-over-TCP performance on par with that of DNS-over-UDP. This document obsoletes RFC 5966 and therefore updates RFC 1035 and RFC 1123.
RFC7793 - Adding 100.64.0.0/10 Prefixes to the IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry: RFC 6598 specifies that "Reverse DNS queries for Shared Address Space addresses [100.64.0.0/10] MUST NOT be forwarded to the global DNS infrastructure."; This document formally directs IANA to add the associated zones to the "IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry" to prevent such queries from accidentally leaking to the global DNS infrastructure.
RFC7816 - DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy: This document describes a technique to improve DNS privacy, a technique called "QNAME minimisation", where the DNS resolver no longer sends the full original QNAME to the upstream name server.
RFC7828 - The edns-tcp-keepalive EDNS0 Option: DNS messages between clients and servers may be received over either UDP or TCP. UDP transport involves keeping less state on a busy server, but can cause truncation and retries over TCP. Additionally, UDP can be exploited for reflection attacks. Using TCP would reduce retransmits and amplification. However, clients commonly use TCP only for retries and servers typically use idle timeouts on the order of seconds.; This document defines an EDNS0 option ("edns-tcp-keepalive") that allows DNS servers to signal a variable idle timeout. This signalling encourages the use of long-lived TCP connections by allowing the state associated with TCP transport to be managed effectively with minimal impact on the DNS transaction time.
RFC7871 - Client Subnet in DNS Queries: This document describes an Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) option that is in active use to carry information about the network that originated a DNS query and the network for which the subsequent response can be cached. Since it has some known operational and privacy shortcomings, a revision will be worked through the IETF for improvement.
RFC7873 - Domain Name System (DNS) Cookies: DNS Cookies are a lightweight DNS transaction security mechanism that provides limited protection to DNS servers and clients against a variety of increasingly common denial-of-service and amplification/ forgery or cache poisoning attacks by off-path attackers. DNS Cookies are tolerant of NAT, NAT-PT (Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation), and anycast and can be incrementally deployed. (Since DNS Cookies are only returned to the IP address from which they were originally received, they cannot be used to generally track Internet users.)
RFC7901 - CHAIN Query Requests in DNS: This document defines an EDNS0 extension that can be used by a security-aware validating resolver configured to use a forwarding resolver to send a single query, requesting a complete validation path along with the regular query answer. The reduction in queries potentially lowers the latency and reduces the need to send multiple queries at once. This extension mandates the use of source-IP- verified transport such as TCP or UDP with EDNS-COOKIE, so it cannot be abused in amplification attacks.
RFC8020 - NXDOMAIN: There Really Is Nothing Underneath: This document states clearly that when a DNS resolver receives a response with a response code of NXDOMAIN, it means that the domain name which is thus denied AND ALL THE NAMES UNDER IT do not exist.; This document clarifies RFC 1034 and modifies a portion of RFC 2308: it updates both of them.
RFC8027 - DNSSEC Roadblock Avoidance: This document describes problems that a Validating DNS resolver, stub-resolver, or application might run into within a non-compliant infrastructure. It outlines potential detection and mitigation techniques. The scope of the document is to create a shared approach to detect and overcome network issues that a DNSSEC software/system may face.
RFC8078 - Managing DS Records from the Parent via CDS/CDNSKEY: RFC 7344 specifies how DNS trust can be maintained across key rollovers in-band between parent and child. This document elevates RFC 7344 from Informational to Standards Track. It also adds a method for initial trust setup and removal of a secure entry point.; Changing a domain's DNSSEC status can be a complicated matter involving multiple unrelated parties. Some of these parties, such as the DNS operator, might not even be known by all the organizations involved. The inability to disable DNSSEC via in-band signaling is seen as a problem or liability that prevents some DNSSEC adoption at a large scale. This document adds a method for in-band signaling of these DNSSEC status changes.; This document describes reasonable policies to ease deployment of the initial acceptance of new secure entry points (DS records).; It is preferable that operators collaborate on the transfer or move of a domain. The best method is to perform a Key Signing Key (KSK) plus Zone Signing Key (ZSK) rollover. If that is not possible, the method using an unsigned intermediate state described in this document can be used to move the domain between two parties. This leaves the domain temporarily unsigned and vulnerable to DNS spoofing, but that is preferred over the alternative of validation failures due to a mismatched DS and DNSKEY record.
RFC8109 - Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries: This document describes the queries that a DNS resolver should emit to initialize its cache. The result is that the resolver gets both a current NS Resource Record Set (RRset) for the root zone and the necessary address information for reaching the root servers.
RFC8145 - Signaling Trust Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC): The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) were developed to provide origin authentication and integrity protection for DNS data by using digital signatures. These digital signatures can be verified by building a chain of trust starting from a trust anchor and proceeding down to a particular node in the DNS. This document specifies two different ways for validating resolvers to signal to a server which keys are referenced in their chain of trust. The data from such signaling allow zone administrators to monitor the progress of rollovers in a DNSSEC-signed zone.
RFC8198 - Aggressive Use of DNSSEC-Validated Cache: The DNS relies upon caching to scale; however, the cache lookup generally requires an exact match. This document specifies the use of NSEC/NSEC3 resource records to allow DNSSEC-validating resolvers to generate negative answers within a range and positive answers from wildcards. This increases performance, decreases latency, decreases resource utilization on both authoritative and recursive servers, and increases privacy. Also, it may help increase resilience to certain DoS attacks in some circumstances.; This document updates RFC 4035 by allowing validating resolvers to generate negative answers based upon NSEC/NSEC3 records and positive answers in the presence of wildcards.
RFC8244 - Special-Use Domain Names Problem Statement: The policy defined in RFC 6761 for IANA registrations in the "Special-Use Domain Names" registry has been shown, through experience, to present challenges that were not anticipated when RFC 6761 was written. This memo presents a list, intended to be comprehensive, of the problems that have since been identified. In addition, it reviews the history of domain names and summarizes current IETF publications and some publications from other organizations relating to Special-Use Domain Names.; This document should be considered required reading for IETF participants who wish to express an informed opinion on the topic of Special-Use Domain Names.
RFC8482 - Providing Minimal-Sized Responses to DNS Queries That Have QTYPE=ANY: The Domain Name System (DNS) specifies a query type (QTYPE) "ANY". The operator of an authoritative DNS server might choose not to respond to such queries for reasons of local policy, motivated by security, performance, or other reasons.; The DNS specification does not include specific guidance for the behavior of DNS servers or clients in this situation. This document aims to provide such guidance.; This document updates RFCs 1034 and 1035.
RFC8490 - DNS Stateful Operations: This document defines a new DNS OPCODE for DNS Stateful Operations (DSO). DSO messages communicate operations within persistent stateful sessions using Type Length Value (TLV) syntax. Three TLVs are defined that manage session timeouts, termination, and encryption padding, and a framework is defined for extensions to enable new stateful operations. This document updates RFC 1035 by adding a new DNS header OPCODE that has both different message semantics and a new result code. This document updates RFC 7766 by redefining a session, providing new guidance on connection reuse, and providing a new mechanism for handling session idle timeouts.
RFC8499 - DNS Terminology: The Domain Name System (DNS) is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs. The terminology used by implementers and developers of DNS protocols, and by operators of DNS systems, has sometimes changed in the decades since the DNS was first defined. This document gives current definitions for many of the terms used in the DNS in a single document.; This document obsoletes RFC 7719 and updates RFC 2308.
RFC8501 - Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers: In IPv4, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) commonly provide IN-ADDR.ARPA information for their customers by prepopulating the zone with one PTR record for every available address. This practice does not scale in IPv6. This document analyzes different approaches and considerations for ISPs in managing the IP6.ARPA zone.
RFC8509 - A Root Key Trust Anchor Sentinel for DNSSEC: The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) were developed to provide origin authentication and integrity protection for DNS data by using digital signatures. These digital signatures can be verified by building a chain of trust starting from a trust anchor and proceeding down to a particular node in the DNS. This document specifies a mechanism that will allow an end user and third parties to determine the trusted key state for the root key of the resolvers that handle that user's DNS queries. Note that this method is only applicable for determining which keys are in the trust store for the root key.
RFC8552 - Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute Leaves: Formally, any DNS Resource Record (RR) may occur under any domain name. However, some services use an operational convention for defining specific interpretations of an RRset by locating the records in a DNS branch under the parent domain to which the RRset actually applies. The top of this subordinate branch is defined by a naming convention that uses a reserved node name, which begins with the underscore character (e.g., "_name"). The underscored naming construct defines a semantic scope for DNS record types that are associated with the parent domain above the underscored branch. This specification explores the nature of this DNS usage and defines the "Underscored and Globally Scoped DNS Node Names" registry with IANA. The purpose of this registry is to avoid collisions resulting from the use of the same underscored name for different services.
RFC8553 - DNS Attrleaf Changes: Fixing Specifications That Use Underscored Node Names: Using an underscore for a prefix creates a space for constrained interoperation of resource records. Original uses of an underscore character as a domain node name prefix were specified without the benefit of an IANA registry. This produced an entirely uncoordinated set of name-creation activities, all drawing from the same namespace. A registry for these names has now been defined by RFC 8552. However, the existing specifications that use underscored naming need to be modified in order to be in line with the new registry. This document specifies those changes. The changes preserve existing software and operational practice, while adapting the specifications for those practices to the newer underscore registry model.
RFC8618 - Compacted-DNS (C-DNS): A Format for DNS Packet Capture: This document describes a data representation for collections of DNS messages. The format is designed for efficient storage and transmission of large packet captures of DNS traffic; it attempts to minimize the size of such packet capture files but retain the full DNS message contents along with the most useful transport metadata. It is intended to assist with the development of DNS traffic- monitoring applications.
RFC8624 - Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC: The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in order to provide authentication of DNS data and proof of nonexistence. To ensure interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative servers, it is necessary to specify a set of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidelines to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations support. This document defines the current algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for DNSSEC. This document obsoletes RFC 6944.
RFC8749 - Moving DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) to Historic Status: This document retires DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) and reclassifies RFCs 4431 and 5074 as Historic. Furthermore, this document updates RFC 6698 by excluding the DLV resource record from certificates and updates RFC 6840 by excluding the DLV registries from the trust anchor selection.
RFC8767 - Serving Stale Data to Improve DNS Resiliency: This document defines a method (serve-stale) for recursive resolvers to use stale DNS data to avoid outages when authoritative nameservers cannot be reached to refresh expired data. One of the motivations for serve-stale is to make the DNS more resilient to DoS attacks and thereby make them less attractive as an attack vector. This document updates the definitions of TTL from RFCs 1034 and 1035 so that data can be kept in the cache beyond the TTL expiry; it also updates RFC 2181 by interpreting values with the high-order bit set as being positive, rather than 0, and suggests a cap of 7 days.
RFC8806 - Running a Root Server Local to a Resolver: Some DNS recursive resolvers have longer-than-desired round-trip times to the closest DNS root server; those resolvers may have difficulty getting responses from the root servers, such as during a network attack. Some DNS recursive resolver operators want to prevent snooping by third parties of requests sent to DNS root servers. In both cases, resolvers can greatly decrease the round-trip time and prevent observation of requests by serving a copy of the full root zone on the same server, such as on a loopback address or in the resolver software. This document shows how to start and maintain such a copy of the root zone that does not cause problems for other users of the DNS, at the cost of adding some operational fragility for the operator.; This document obsoletes RFC 7706.
RFC8901 - Multi-Signer DNSSEC Models: Many enterprises today employ the service of multiple DNS providers to distribute their authoritative DNS service. Deploying DNSSEC in such an environment may present some challenges, depending on the configuration and feature set in use. In particular, when each DNS provider independently signs zone data with their own keys, additional key-management mechanisms are necessary. This document presents deployment models that accommodate this scenario and describes these key-management requirements. These models do not require any changes to the behavior of validating resolvers, nor do they impose the new key-management requirements on authoritative servers not involved in multi-signer configurations.
RFC8906 - A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers: Failure to Communicate: The DNS is a query/response protocol. Failing to respond to queries, or responding incorrectly, causes both immediate operational problems and long-term problems with protocol development.; This document identifies a number of common kinds of queries to which some servers either fail to respond or respond incorrectly. This document also suggests procedures for zone operators to apply to identify and remediate the problem.; The document does not look at the DNS data itself, just the structure of the responses.
RFC8914 - Extended DNS Errors: This document defines an extensible method to return additional information about the cause of DNS errors. Though created primarily to extend SERVFAIL to provide additional information about the cause of DNS and DNSSEC failures, the Extended DNS Errors option defined in this document allows all response types to contain extended error information. Extended DNS Error information does not change the processing of RCODEs.
RFC8945 - Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG): This document describes a protocol for transaction-level authentication using shared secrets and one-way hashing. It can be used to authenticate dynamic updates to a DNS zone as coming from an approved client or to authenticate responses as coming from an approved name server.; No recommendation is made here for distributing the shared secrets; it is expected that a network administrator will statically configure name servers and clients using some out-of-band mechanism.; This document obsoletes RFCs 2845 and 4635.
RFC8976 - Message Digest for DNS Zones: This document describes a protocol and new DNS Resource Record that provides a cryptographic message digest over DNS zone data at rest. The ZONEMD Resource Record conveys the digest data in the zone itself. When used in combination with DNSSEC, ZONEMD allows recipients to verify the zone contents for data integrity and origin authenticity. This provides assurance that received zone data matches published data, regardless of how the zone data has been transmitted and received. When used without DNSSEC, ZONEMD functions as a checksum, guarding only against unintentional changes.; ZONEMD does not replace DNSSEC: DNSSEC protects individual RRsets (DNS data with fine granularity), whereas ZONEMD protects a zone's data as a whole, whether consumed by authoritative name servers, recursive name servers, or any other applications.; As specified herein, ZONEMD is impractical for large, dynamic zones due to the time and resources required for digest calculation. However, the ZONEMD record is extensible so that new digest schemes may be added in the future to support large, dynamic zones.
RFC9018 - Interoperable Domain Name System (DNS) Server Cookies: DNS Cookies, as specified in RFC 7873, are a lightweight DNS transaction security mechanism that provide limited protection to DNS servers and clients against a variety of denial-of-service amplification, forgery, or cache-poisoning attacks by off-path attackers.; This document updates RFC 7873 with precise directions for creating Server Cookies so that an anycast server set including diverse implementations will interoperate with standard clients, with suggestions for constructing Client Cookies in a privacy-preserving fashion, and with suggestions on how to update a Server Secret. An IANA registry listing the methods and associated pseudorandom function suitable for creating DNS Server Cookies has been created with the method described in this document as the first and, as of the time of publication, only entry.
RFC9077 - NSEC and NSEC3: TTLs and Aggressive Use: Due to a combination of unfortunate wording in earlier documents, aggressive use of NSEC and NSEC3 records may deny the existence of names far beyond the intended lifetime of a denial. This document changes the definition of the NSEC and NSEC3 TTL to correct that situation. This document updates RFCs 4034, 4035, 5155, and 8198.
RFC9108 - YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record Types: This document introduces the YANG module "iana-dns-class-rr-type", which contains derived types reflecting two IANA registries: DNS CLASSes and Resource Record (RR) TYPEs. These YANG types are intended as the minimum basis for future data modeling work.
RFC9156 - DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy: This document describes a technique called "QNAME minimisation" to improve DNS privacy, where the DNS resolver no longer always sends the full original QNAME and original QTYPE to the upstream name server. This document obsoletes RFC 7816.
RFC9157 - Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC: This document changes the review requirements needed to get DNSSEC algorithms and resource records added to IANA registries. It updates RFC 6014 to include hash algorithms for Delegation Signer (DS) records and NextSECure version 3 (NSEC3) parameters (for Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence). It also updates RFCs 5155 and 6014, which have requirements for DNSSEC algorithms, and updates RFC 8624 to clarify the implementation recommendation related to the algorithms described in RFCs that are not on the standards track. The rationale for these changes is to bring the requirements for DS records and hash algorithms used in NSEC3 in line with the requirements for all other DNSSEC algorithms.
RFC9210 - DNS Transport over TCP - Operational Requirements: This document updates RFCs 1123 and 1536. This document requires the operational practice of permitting DNS messages to be carried over TCP on the Internet as a Best Current Practice. This operational requirement is aligned with the implementation requirements in RFC 7766. The use of TCP includes both DNS over unencrypted TCP as well as over an encrypted TLS session. The document also considers the consequences of this form of DNS communication and the potential operational issues that can arise when this Best Current Practice is not upheld.
RFC9276 - Guidance for NSEC3 Parameter Settings: NSEC3 is a DNSSEC mechanism providing proof of nonexistence by asserting that there are no names that exist between two domain names within a zone. Unlike its counterpart NSEC, NSEC3 avoids directly disclosing the bounding domain name pairs. This document provides guidance on setting NSEC3 parameters based on recent operational deployment experience. This document updates RFC 5155 with guidance about selecting NSEC3 iteration and salt parameters.
RFC9364 - DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC): This document describes the DNS Security Extensions (commonly called "DNSSEC") 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 reader can understand the many aspects of DNSSEC. This document does not update any of those RFCs. A second purpose is to state that using DNSSEC for origin authentication of DNS data is the best current practice. A third purpose is to provide a single reference for other documents that want to refer to DNSSEC.
RFC9432 - DNS Catalog Zones: This document describes a method for automatic DNS zone provisioning among DNS primary and secondary name servers by storing and transferring the catalog of zones to be provisioned as one or more regular DNS zones.
RFC9460 - Service Binding and Parameter Specification via the DNS (SVCB and HTTPS Resource Records): This document specifies the "SVCB" ("Service Binding") and "HTTPS" DNS resource record (RR) types to facilitate the lookup of information needed to make connections to network services, such as for HTTP origins. SVCB records allow a service to be provided from multiple alternative endpoints, each with associated parameters (such as transport protocol configuration), and are extensible to support future uses (such as keys for encrypting the TLS ClientHello). They also enable aliasing of apex domains, which is not possible with CNAME. The HTTPS RR is a variation of SVCB for use with HTTP (see RFC 9110, "HTTP Semantics"). By providing more information to the client before it attempts to establish a connection, these records offer potential benefits to both performance and privacy.
RFC9471 - DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Responses: The DNS uses glue records to allow iterative clients to find the addresses of name servers that are contained within a delegated zone. Authoritative servers are expected to return all available glue records for in-domain name servers in a referral response. If message size constraints prevent the inclusion of all glue records for in-domain name servers, the server must set the TC (Truncated) flag to inform the client that the response is incomplete and that the client should use another transport to retrieve the full response. This document updates RFC 1034 to clarify correct server behavior.
RFC9476 - The .alt Special-Use Top-Level Domain: This document reserves a Top-Level Domain (TLD) label "alt" to be used in non-DNS contexts. It also provides advice and guidance to developers creating alternative namespaces.
RFC9499 - DNS Terminology: The Domain Name System (DNS) is defined in literally dozens of different RFCs. The terminology used by implementers and developers of DNS protocols, and by operators of DNS systems, has changed in the decades since the DNS was first defined. This document gives current definitions for many of the terms used in the DNS in a single document.; This document updates RFC 2308 by clarifying the definitions of "forwarder" and "QNAME". It obsoletes RFC 8499 by adding multiple terms and clarifications. Comprehensive lists of changed and new definitions can be found in Appendices A and B.
RFC9520 - Negative Caching of DNS Resolution Failures: In the DNS, resolvers employ caching to reduce both latency for end users and load on authoritative name servers. The process of resolution may result in one of three types of responses: (1) a response containing the requested data, (2) a response indicating the requested data does not exist, or (3) a non-response due to a resolution failure in which the resolver does not receive any useful information regarding the data's existence. This document concerns itself only with the third type.; RFC 2308 specifies requirements for DNS negative caching. There, caching of TYPE 2 responses is mandatory and caching of TYPE 3 responses is optional. This document updates RFC 2308 to require negative caching for DNS resolution failures.; RFC 4035 allows DNSSEC validation failure caching. This document updates RFC 4035 to require caching for DNSSEC validation failures.; RFC 4697 prohibits aggressive requerying for NS records at a failed zone's parent zone. This document updates RFC 4697 to expand this requirement to all query types and to all ancestor zones.