Related Domains By DNS
draft-brotman-rdbd-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-07-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
On Agenda dnsop at IETF-105
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         A. Brotman
Internet-Draft                                              Comcast, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track                              S. Farrell
Expires: January 9, 2020                          Trinity College Dublin
                                                            July 8, 2019

                         Related Domains By DNS
                         draft-brotman-rdbd-02

Abstract

   This document outlines a mechanism by which a DNS domain can publicly
   document the existence or absence of a relationship with a different
   domain, called "Related Domains By DNS", or "RDBD".

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 https://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 January 9, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://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.

Brotman & Farrell        Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    RDBD                         July 2019

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  New Resource Record Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  RDBDKEY Resource Record Definition  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  RDBD Resource Record Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Directionality and Cardinality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Required Signature Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Efficiacy of signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  DNSSEC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.3.  Lookup Loops  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix A.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     A.1.  Unsigned Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     A.2.  RSA-signed Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     A.3.  Ed25519-signed Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix B.  Ed25519 Signing Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix C.  Changes and Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     C.1.  Changes from -01 to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     C.2.  Changes from -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     C.3.  Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   [[Discussion of this draft is taking place on the dbound@ietf.org
   mailing list.  There's a github repo for this draft at
   <https://github.com/abrotman/related-domains-by-dns> - issues and PRs
   are welcome there.]]

   Determining relationships between registered domains can be one of
   the more difficult investigations on the Internet.  It is typical to
   see something such as "example.com" and "dept-example.com" and be
   unsure if there is an actual relationship between those two domains,
   or if one might be an attacker attempting to impersonate the other.
   In some cases, anecdotal evidence from the DNS or WHOIS/RDAP may be
   sufficient.  However, service providers of various kinds may err on
   the side of caution and treat one of the domains as untrustworthy or
   abusive because it is not clear that the two domains are in fact
   related.  This specification provides a way for one domain to
Show full document text