Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2
draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8598.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tommy Pauly , Paul Wouters | ||
| Last updated | 2018-01-22 | ||
| Replaces | draft-pauly-ipsecme-split-dns | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | In WG Last Call | |
| Document shepherd | David Waltermire | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8598 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | David Waltermire <david.waltermire@nist.gov> |
draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-04
Network T. Pauly
Internet-Draft Apple Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track P. Wouters
Expires: July 26, 2018 Red Hat
January 22, 2018
Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2
draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns-04
Abstract
This document defines two Configuration Payload Attribute Types for
the IKEv2 protocol that add support for private DNS domains. These
domains should be resolved using DNS servers reachable through an
IPsec connection, while leaving all other DNS resolution unchanged.
This approach of resolving a subset of domains using non-public DNS
servers is referred to as "Split DNS".
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 26, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Pauly & Wouters Expires July 26, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2 January 2018
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protocol Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Configuration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Configuration Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Mapping DNS Servers to Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Example Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.1. Simple Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.2. Requesting Domains and DNSSEC trust anchors . . . . . 6
4. Payload Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN Configuration Attribute Type . . . . 6
4.2. INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA Configuration Attribute . . . . . . . 7
5. Split DNS Usage Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
Split DNS is a common configuration for secure tunnels, such as
Virtual Private Networks in which host machines private to an
organization can only be resolved using internal DNS resolvers
[RFC2775]. In such configurations, it is often desirable to only
resolve hosts within a set of private domains using the tunnel, while
letting resolutions for public hosts be handled by a device's default
DNS configuration.
The Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 [RFC7296] negotiates
configuration parameters using Configuration Payload Attribute Types.
This document defines two Configuration Payload Attribute Types that
add support for trusted Split DNS domains.
The INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attribute type is used to convey one or more
DNS domains that should be resolved only using the provided DNS
nameserver IP addresses, causing these requests to use the IPsec
connection.
The INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA attribute type is used to convey DNSSEC trust
anchors for those domains.
Pauly & Wouters Expires July 26, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2 January 2018
When only a subset of traffic is routed into a private network using
an IPsec SA, these Configuration Payload options can be used to
define which private domains should be resolved through the IPsec
connection without affecting the client's global DNS resolution.
For the purposes of this document, DNS resolution servers accessible
through an IPsec connection will be referred to as "internal DNS
servers", and other DNS servers will be referred to as "external DNS
servers".
A client using these configuration payloads will be able to request
and receive Split DNS configurations using the INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN
and INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA configuration attributes. The client device
can use the internal DNS server(s) for any DNS queries within the
assigned domains. DNS queries for other domains should be send to
regular external DNS server.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
2. Background
Split DNS is a common configuration for enterprise VPN deployments,
in which only one or a few private DNS domains are accessible and
resolvable via an IPsec based VPN connection.
Other tunnel-establishment protocols already support the assignment
of Split DNS domains. For example, there are proprietary extensions
to IKEv1 that allow a server to assign Split DNS domains to a client.
However, the IKEv2 standard does not include a method to configure
this option. This document defines a standard way to negotiate this
option for IKEv2.
3. Protocol Exchange
In order to negotiate which domains are considered internal to an
IKEv2 tunnel, initiators indicate support for Split DNS in their
CFG_REQUEST payloads, and responders assign internal domains (and
DNSSEC trust anchors) in their CFG_REPLY payloads. When Split DNS
has been negotiated, the existing DNS server configuration attributes
will be interpreted as internal DNS servers that can resolve
hostnames within the internal domains.
Pauly & Wouters Expires July 26, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2 January 2018
3.1. Configuration Request
To indicate support for Split DNS, an initiator includes one more
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes as defined in Section 4 as part of the
CFG_REQUEST payload. If an INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attribute is included
in the CFG_REQUEST, the initiator SHOULD also include one or more
INTERNAL_IP4_DNS and INTERNAL_IP6_DNS attributes in the CFG_REQUEST.
The INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attribute sent by the initiator is usually
empty but MAY contain a suggested domain name.
The absence of INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes in the CFG_REQUEST
payload indicates that the initiator does not support or is unwilling
to accept Split DNS configuration.
To indicate support for DNSSEC, an initiator includes one or more
INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA attributes as defined in Section 4 as part of the
CFG_REQUEST payload. If an INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA attriute is included
in the CFG_REQUEST, the initiator SHOULD also include one or more
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes in the CFG_REQUEST.
An initiator MAY convey its current DNSSEC trust anchors for the
domain specified in the INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attribute. If it does
not wish to convey this information, it MUST use a length of 0.
The absence of INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA attributes in the CFG_REQUEST
payload indicates that the initiator does not support or is unwilling
to accept DNSSEC trust anchor configuration.
3.2. Configuration Reply
Responders MAY send one or more INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes in
their CFG_REPLY payload. If an INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attribute is
included in the CFG_REPLY, the responder MUST also include one or
both of the INTERNAL_IP4_DNS and INTERNAL_IP6_DNS attributes in the
CFG_REPLY. These DNS server configurations are necessary to define
which servers should receive queries for hostnames in internal
domains. If the CFG_REQUEST included an INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN
attribute, but the CFG_REPLY does not include an INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN
attribute, the initiator should behave as if Split DNS configurations
are not supported by the server.
Each INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN represents a domain that the DNS servers
address listed in INTERNAL_IP4_DNS and INTERNAL_IP6_DNS can resolve.
If the CFG_REQUEST included INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes with non-
zero lengths, the content MAY be ignored or be interpreted as a
suggestion by the responder.
Pauly & Wouters Expires July 26, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2 January 2018
For each DNS domain specified in an INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attribute,
one or more INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA attributes MAY be included by the
responder. This attribute lists the corresponding internal DNSSEC
trust anchor in the DNS presentation format of a DS record as
specified in [RFC4034]. The INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA attribute MUST
immediately follow the INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attribute that it applies
to.
3.3. Mapping DNS Servers to Domains
All DNS servers provided in the CFG_REPLY MUST support resolving
hostnames within all INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN domains. In other words,
the INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes in a CFG_REPLY payload form a
single list of Split DNS domains that applies to the entire list of
INTERNAL_IP4_DNS and INTERNAL_IP6_DNS attributes.
3.4. Example Exchanges
3.4.1. Simple Case
In this example exchange, the initiator requests INTERNAL_IP4_DNS and
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes in the CFG_REQUEST, but does not
specify any value for either. This indicates that it supports Split
DNS, but has no preference for which DNS requests should be routed
through the tunnel.
The responder replies with two DNS server addresses, and two internal
domains, "example.com" and "city.other.com".
Any subsequent DNS queries from the initiator for domains such as
"www.example.com" should use 198.51.100.2 or 198.51.100.4 to resolve.
CP(CFG_REQUEST) =
INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS()
INTERNAL_IP4_DNS()
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN()
CP(CFG_REPLY) =
INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS(198.51.100.234)
INTERNAL_IP4_DNS(198.51.100.2)
INTERNAL_IP4_DNS(198.51.100.4)
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN(example.com)
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN(city.other.com)
Pauly & Wouters Expires July 26, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2 January 2018
3.4.2. Requesting Domains and DNSSEC trust anchors
In this example exchange, the initiator requests INTERNAL_IP4_DNS,
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN and INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA attributess in the
CFG_REQUEST
Any subsequent DNS queries from the initiator for domains such as
"www.example.com" or "city.other.com" would be DNSSEC validated using
the DNSSEC trust anchor received in the CFG_REPLY
In this example, the initiator has no existing DNSSEC trust anchors
would the requested domain. the "example.com" dommain has DNSSEC
trust anchors that are returned, while the "other.com" domain has no
DNSSEC trust anchors
CP(CFG_REQUEST) =
INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS()
INTERNAL_IP4_DNS()
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN()
INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA()
CP(CFG_REPLY) =
INTERNAL_IP4_ADDRESS(198.51.100.234)
INTERNAL_IP4_DNS(198.51.100.2)
INTERNAL_IP4_DNS(198.51.100.4)
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN(example.com)
INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA(43547,8,1,B6225AB2CC613E0DCA7962BDC2342EA4F1B56083)
INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA(31406,8,2,F78CF3344F72137235098ECBBD08947C2C90....)
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN(city.other.com)
4. Payload Formats
4.1. INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN Configuration Attribute Type
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-----------------------------+-------------------------------+
|R| Attribute Type | Length |
+-+-----------------------------+-------------------------------+
| |
~ Domain Name in DNS presentation format ~
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
o Reserved (1 bit) - Defined in IKEv2 RFC [RFC7296].
o Attribute Type (15 bits) 25 - INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN.
Pauly & Wouters Expires July 26, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2 January 2018
o Length (2 octets, unsigned integer) - Length of domain name.
o Domain Name (0 or more octets) - A Fully Qualified Domain Name
used for Split DNS rules, such as example.com, in DNS presentation
format and optionally using IDNA [RFC5890] for Internationalized
Domain Names. Implementors need to be careful that this value is
not null-terminated.
4.2. INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA Configuration Attribute
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-----------------------------+-------------------------------+
|R| Attribute Type | Length |
+-+-----------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| Key Tag | Algorithm | Digest Type |
+-------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| |
~ Digest ~
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
o Reserved (1 bit) - Defined in IKEv2 RFC [RFC7296].
o Attribute Type (15 bits) [TBD IANA] - INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA.
o Length (2 octets, unsigned integer) - Length of DNSSEC Trust
Anchor data.
o Key Tag value (0 or 2 octets, unsigned integer) - Key Tag as
specified in [RFC4034] Section 5.1
o Algorithm (0 or 1 octet) - DNSKEY algorithm value from the IANA
DNS Security Algorithm Numbers Registry
o DS algorithm (0 or 1 octet) - DS algorithm value from the IANA
Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms
Registry
o Digest (0 or more octets) - The DNSKEY digest as specified in
[RFC4034] Section 5.1 in presentation format.
5. Split DNS Usage Guidelines
If a CFG_REPLY payload contains no INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes,
the client MAY use the provided INTERNAL_IP4_DNS or INTERNAL_IP6_DNS
servers as the default DNS server(s) for all queries.
Pauly & Wouters Expires July 26, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2 January 2018
If a client is configured by local policy to only accept a limited
number of INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN values, the client MUST ignore any
other INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN values.
For each INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN entry in a CFG_REPLY payload that is not
prohibited by local policy, the client MUST use the provided
INTERNAL_IP4_DNS or INTERNAL_IP6_DNS DNS servers as the only
resolvers for the listed domains and its sub-domains and it MUST NOT
attempt to resolve the provided DNS domains using its external DNS
servers.
If the initiator host is configured to block DNS answers containing
IP addresses from special IP address ranges such as those of
[RFC1918], the initiator SHOULD allow the DNS domains listed in the
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes to contain those Special IP addresses.
If a CFG_REPLY contains one or more INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attributes
and its local policy does not forbid these values, the client MUST
configure its DNS resolver to resolve those domains and all their
subdomains using only the DNS resolver(s) listed in that CFG_REPLY
message. If those resolvers fail, those names MUST NOT be resolved
using any other DNS resolvers. Other domain names SHOULD be resolved
using some other external DNS resolver(s), configured independently
from IKE. Queries for these other domains MAY be sent to the
internal DNS resolver(s) listed in that CFG_REPLY message, but have
no guarantee of being answered. For example, if the
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attribute specifies "example.com", then
"example.com", "www.example.com" and "mail.eng.example.com" MUST be
resolved using the internal DNS resolver(s), but "anotherexample.com"
and "ample.com" SHOULD NOT be resolved using the internal resolver
and SHOULD use the system's external DNS resolver(s).
When an IKE SA is terminated, the DNS forwarding must be
unconfigured. The DNS forwarding itself MUST be be deleted. All
cached data of the INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN provided DNS domainis MUST be
flushed. This includes negative cache entries. Obtained DNSSEC
trust anchors MUST be removed from the list of trust anchors. The
outstanding DNS request queue MUST be cleared.
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN and INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA attributes SHOULD only be
used on split tunnel configurations where only a subset of traffic is
routed into a private remote network using the IPsec connection. If
all traffic is routed over the IPsec connection, the existing global
INTERNAL_IP4_DNS and INTERNAL_IP6_DNS can be used without creating
specific DNS exemptions.
Pauly & Wouters Expires July 26, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2 January 2018
6. Security Considerations
The use of Split DNS configurations assigned by an IKEv2 responder is
predicated on the trust established during IKE SA authentication.
However, if IKEv2 is being negotiated with an anonymous or unknown
endpoint (such as for Opportunistic Security [RFC7435]), the
initiator MUST ignore Split DNS configurations assigned by the
responder.
If a host connected to an authenticated IKE peer is connecting to
another IKE peer that attempts to claim the same domain via the
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN attribute, the IKE connection should only process
the DNS information if the two connections are part of the same
logical entity. Otherwise, the client should refuse the DNS
information and potentially warn the enduser.
INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA payloads MUST immediately follow an
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN payload. As the INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA format itself
does not contain the domain name, it relies on the preceding
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN to provide the domain for which it specifies the
trust anchor.
If the initiator is using DNSSEC validation for a domain in its
public DNS view, and it requests and receives an INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN
attribute without an INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA, it will need to reconfigure
its DNS resolver to allow for an insecure delegation. It SHOULD NOT
accept insecure delegations for domains that are DNSSEC signed in the
public DNS view, for which it has not explicitely requested such
deletation by specifying the domain specifically using a
INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN(domain) request.
A domain that is served via INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN should pay close
attention to their use of indirect reference RRtypes such as CNAME,
DNAME, MX or SRV records so that resolving works as intended when
all, some or none of the IPsec connections are established.
The content of INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN and INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA may be
passed to another (DNS) program for processing. As with any network
input, the content should be considered untrusted and handled
accordingly.
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines two new IKEv2 Configuration Payload Attribute
Types, which are allocated from the "IKEv2 Configuration Payload
Attribute Types" namespace.
Pauly & Wouters Expires July 26, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2 January 2018
Multi-
Value Attribute Type Valued Length Reference
------ ------------------- ------ ---------- ---------------
25 INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN YES 0 or more [this document]
[TBD] INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA YES 0 or more [this document]
Figure 1
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, DOI 10.17487/RFC4034, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4034>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2775] Carpenter, B., "Internet Transparency", RFC 2775,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2775, February 2000, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2775>.
[RFC7435] Dukhovni, V., "Opportunistic Security: Some Protection
Most of the Time", RFC 7435, DOI 10.17487/RFC7435,
December 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7435>.
quot;).
o RFC Production Center.
o RFC Publisher.
The RFC Series production and process under this structure is
schematically represented by the figure below. (The figure does not
depict oversight and escalation relations.)
------ ----- ------ ---------
Stream | | | | | | |Community|
Pro- | IETF | | IAB | | IRTF | | at |
ducers | | | | | | | Large |
--^--- --^-- ---^-- ----^----
| | | |
| | | | -------
| | | | | Indep.|
--v--- ---v--- ---v-- ----v------ | Stream|
Stream | | | | | | |Independent| | Edi- |
Appro- | IESG | | IAB | | IRSG | |Submission |.....| torial|
vers | | | | | | | Editor | | Board |
----^- ---^--- ----^--- ----^------ -------
| | | |
| | | | -------
| | | | | RFC |
------ --v--------v----------v-----------v----- | Series|
| | | | | Adv. |
| IANA | <->| RFC Production Center <---. | Group |
| | | | | -------
------ -----------------^---------------------- | |
| | |
| ------v-------
------v--------- | |
| | | RFC Series |
| RFC Publisher |<------->| Editor |
| | | |
---------------- --------------
Figure 1: Ordinary RFC Series production and process
Kolkman & IAB Informational [Page 5]
RFC 5620 RFC Editor Model (Version 1) August 2009
In this model, documents are produced and approved through multiple
document streams. The four that now exist are described in [1].
Documents from these streams are edited and processed by the
Production Center and published by the Publisher. The RFC Series
Editor will exercise executive-level management over many of the
activities of the RFC Publisher and the RFC Production Center (which
can be seen as back-office functions) and will be the entity that:
o Faces the community.
o Works with the IAOC for contractual responsibilities.
o In collaboration with the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG),
identifies and leads community discussion of important issues and
opportunities facing the RFC Series.
while the IAB and IAOC maintain their chartered responsibility. More
details about the collaboration with the RSAG and the IAB
responsibilities can be found in Section 4.1.
The RSE does not have the authority to hire or fire RFC Editor
contractors or personnel (see Section 4.1.3).
3.1. RFC Series Editor
The RFC Series Editor is an individual who may have assistants and
who will regularly be provided support from an advisory group (see
Section 4.1). The RSE is responsible for:
1. Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series continuity;
2. Exercising executive-level management over the implementation of
policies, processes, and procedures established to ensure the
quality and consistency for the RFC Series. The RFC Series
Editor will work with the RSAG, and, where appropriate, the IAB
and IAOC to develop new policy and see that contractual
agreements are met;
3. Taking proposed changes to the community, and working with the
IAB so that the IAB can ensure that there is sufficient community
review before significant policies or policy changes are adopted;
4. Coordinating with the IAB and/or IAOC and, together with the IAB
and/or IAOC, participating in reviews of the RFC Publisher, RFC
Production Center, and Independent Submission Editor functions to
ensure the above-mentioned continuity;
Kolkman & IAB Informational [Page 6]
RFC 5620 RFC Editor Model (Version 1) August 2009
5. Developing, maintaining, and publishing the RFC Style Manual for
use by authors, editors, the stream managers, the RFC Production
Center, and the RFC Publisher;
6. Managing the RFC errata process;
7. Liaising with the IAB;
8. Overseeing consistency of RFCs with the RFC Series and RFC Style
Manual.
There are many potential issues with respect to RFC Series
continuity. To name a few: look and feel of the series, indexing
methodologies, accessibility of the publications, IPR and copyright
issues, and formatting issues. After identifying the appropriate
steps to address such issues, the implementation of those steps
resides mostly with the RFC production and publishing functions.
Since the IAOC maintains oversight of the implementation, the RFC
Series Editor is expected to be invited and to participate in reviews
of that implementation.
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional with the
following qualifications:
1. Strong understanding of the IETF and RFC process.
2. Executive management experience suitable to managing the
requirements outlined elsewhere in this document and the many
aspects of this role, and to coordinating the overall RFC Editor
process.
3. Good understanding of the English language and technical
terminology related to the Internet.
4. Good communication skills.
5. Experience with editorial processes.
6. Independent worker.
7. Experience as an RFC author desired.
There are alternative selection methods for selecting the individual
to serve as the RFC Series Editor:
The first alternative involves a Request for Proposal (RFP) process
run by the IAOC. The IAOC would seek a person with the listed
qualifications in a broadly distributed RFP. The winner would be
Kolkman & IAB Informational [Page 7]
RFC 5620 RFC Editor Model (Version 1) August 2009
selected by the IAOC in consultation with the IAB, and then, the IAOC
would contract for the services. Contract terms, including length of
contract, extensions, and renewals, shall be as provided in the RFP.
The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available. Fees and expenses
to support the administrative operation of the RFC Series Editor
would be part of the awarded contract and be part of the IASA budget.
The second alternative involves a nomination and confirmation
process. Candidates are nominated, and then an individual with the
listed qualifications is selected by the Internet community and
confirmed by the IAB. An approach similar to the one used by the IAB
to select an IAOC member every other year (as described in
Appendix A) will be used. Once the selection is made, a contract
will be negotiated between the person selected and the IAOC,
following the general model above. Financial compensation and
expenses to support the administrative operation of the RFC Series
Editor selected in this manner would be part of the IASA budget.
Based on an Request for Information (RFI) issued by the IAOC in
December 2008, the IAOC recommended that the second alternative is
chosen for the selection cycle to be completed in 2009.
3.2. Independent Submission Editor
The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have
assistants and who is responsible for:
1. Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission
stream.
2. Reviewing, approving, and processing Independent Submissions.
3. Forwarding to the Production Center the Internet-Drafts that have
been accepted for publication as RFCs in the Independent
Submission Stream.
4. Reviewing and approving RFC errata in Independent Submissions.
5. Coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies
as specified by the IAB and RSE.
6. Providing statistics and documentation as requested by the RSE
and/or IAOC.
The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the
following qualifications are desired:
Kolkman & IAB Informational [Page 8]
RFC 5620 RFC Editor Model (Version 1) August 2009
1. Technical competence, i.e., broad technical experience and
perspective across the whole range of Internet technologies and
applications, and specifically, the ability to work effectively
with portions of that spectrum in which no personal expertise
exists.
2. Thorough familiarity with the RFC series.
3. An ability to define and constitute advisory and document review
arrangements. If those arrangements include an Editorial Board
similar to the current one or some equivalent arrangement, assess
the technical competence of potential Editorial Board members.
4. Good standing in the technical community, in and beyond the IETF.
5. Demonstrated editorial skills, good command of the English
language, and demonstrated history of being able to work
effectively with technical documents and materials created by
others.
6. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment with
divided authority and responsibility similar to that described in
this document.
The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an advisory
board (see Section 4.2) and may form a team to perform the activities
needed to fulfill their responsibilities.
The individual with the listed qualifications will be selected by the
IAB after input is collected from the community. An approach similar
to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year
(as described in Appendix A) should be used. While the ISE itself is
considered a volunteer function, the IAB considers maintaining the
Independent Submission stream within the RFC Series part of the IAB's
supported activities, and will include the expenses made for the
support of the ISE in its IASA-supported budget.
3.3. RFC Production Center
RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor
responsibilities include:
1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style
Manual;
2. Creating records of edits performed on documents;
Kolkman & IAB Informational [Page 9]
RFC 5620 RFC Editor Model (Version 1) August 2009
3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact
and seeking necessary clarification;
4. Engaging in dialogue with authors, document shepherds, IANA,
and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed;
5. Creating records of dialogue with document authors;
6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;
7. Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed;
8. Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry
actions;
9. Assigning RFC numbers;
10. Establishing publication readiness of each document through
communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA and/or
stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series
Editor;
11. Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher;
12. Forwarding records of edits and author dialogue to the RFC
Publisher so these can be preserved;
13. Liaising with IESG and IAB.
The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected by the IAOC
through an RFP process. The IAOC will seek a bidder who, among other
things, is able to provide a professional, quality, timely, and cost-
effective service against the established style and production
guidelines. Contract terms, including length of contract, extensions
and renewals, shall be as defined in an RFP. The opportunity to bid
shall be broadly available.
As described in Section 3.1, this model allows the IAOC to recommend
the RSE position to be selected through an RFP process. In that
case, the model also allows combining the RFC Production Center bid
with the RSE bid. For 2009, the recommendation was made that the RSE
is selected through an IAB-led selection process.
Kolkman & IAB Informational [Page 10]
RFC 5620 RFC Editor Model (Version 1) August 2009Pauly & Wouters Expires July 26, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Split DNS Configuration for IKEv2 January 2018
Authors' Addresses
Tommy Pauly
Apple Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, California 95014
US
Email: tpauly@apple.com
Paul Wouters
Red Hat
Email: pwouters@redhat.com
Pauly & Wouters Expires July 26, 2018 [Page 11]