Internet DRAFT - draft-dcrocker-dns-perimeter
draft-dcrocker-dns-perimeter
Network Working Group D. Crocker
Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking
Intended status: Informational T. Adams
Expires: December 13, 2019 Proofpoint
June 11, 2019
DNS Perimeter Overlay
draft-dcrocker-dns-perimeter-01
Abstract
The Domain Name System (DNS) naming syntax provides no meta-data for
indicating administrative transitions through the hierarchy. For
example, it does not distinguish the higher-level portions that
operate as public registries, versus those that operate as private
organizations. This specification creates a basic overlay mechanism
for defining a logical Perimeter between administrative entities
through the naming hierarchy. The mechanism can then be applied for
a variety of independent administrative indications.
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 December 13, 2019.
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
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Perimeter Overlay Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. DNS Perimeter Overlay Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Perimeter Branch Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Perimeter TXT RR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Syntax ExampleS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. End/Begin Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Schema/Schema Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Sample Overlay Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Default/Override 'Convenience' Overlay . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Master/Addition 'Control' Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. Vendor/Customer Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. Organizational Alias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Propogating 'Begin' Location for Search Efficiency . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. _perim Registration in DNS Underscore Global Scoped
Entry Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. DNS Perimeter Overlay Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3. Suffix Entry in DNS Perimeter Overlay Registry . . . . . 14
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1. References - Normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.2. References - Informative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix B. DNS Suffix Perimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.1. IANA DNS Suffix Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B.2. Suffix Perimeter TXT Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
Although some administrative structure can be inferred for the Domain
Name System (DNS), there is no formalized syntax that distinguishes
between the sequence of names in its referenced hierarchy. It does
not mark any differentiating characteristics, such as transitions
across administrative perimeters, as the sequence is followed. For
example, it does not mark a change in administrative authority for
subordinate names. A common example of needing such differentiation
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
is to indicate what part of a name belongs to a 'public' registry and
what part belongs to a private registrant within that registry.
This specification defines a mechanism for marking perimeters in
domain names, thereby permitting creation of logical overlays to the
DNS. Various types of administrative distinctions could be useful.
To facilitate creation of multiple, logical overlays, this
specification only defines a basic, extensible mechanism for marking
the presence of a Perimeter between administrations, and indicating
where the semantics of the Perimeter are defined.
As a detailed example and to satisfy a real-world need, an overlay
that emulates the established Public Suffix List ([PubSuff],
[PubSuff-SSAC]) is provided in Appendix B.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. History
A number of Internet functions seek to discern a 'base' portion in a
domain name, such as the basic organizational name like example.com,
from a longer name, like marketing.west.example.com. An approach to
accomplishing this is to distinguish the part that belongs to
"public" registries, and consider the next node name below that as
the base name.
The Public Suffix List has been used to satisfy this requirement. It
has two kinds of domain names. One is for these 'public' names that
operate through ICANN coordination. The other is 'private' which
serves as a naming base in some cases [PubSuff], [PubSuff-SSAC]. The
list is maintained as an independent effort producing a standalone
document, with all of the challenges involved in such an operation.
Entries are manually registered, which requires vetting of the source
and on-going validation. Entries can be for a single name or can use
a wildcard notation, to cover all names below the one that is
registered. It is also possible to enter a name declared to be an
exception to the wildcard cover. In keeping with the move towards
support of non-ASCII names, entries are in UTF-8.
For 2015-2016, IETF's DBOUND working group explored possible DNS
enhancements that would permit embedded information to support uses
such as the Public Suffix List. The effort ultimately was
unsuccessful. Several drafts were used as input to the working group
discussions [DBOUNDwg].
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
NOTE: _The following summaries are intentionally terse and
simplified. Suggestions for superior language that
remains terse are eagerly sought. /dcrocker_
Two were considerations of underlying issues:
DABprob: _"DBOUND: DNS Administrative Boundaries Problem Statement"_
offers a "Problem Statement" and offered an extensive list of
possible uses [DABprob].
DNRcon: _"Concepts for Domain Name Relationships"_ explores the
general topic of "relationships" between different domain
names. It considers structural choices, such as within the
same naming hierarchy, versus across separate branches. It
also considers types of relationships, such as public vs.
private. Some use cases are considered, as are some solution
considerations [DNRcon].
The proffered specifications were:
ODuse: _"Organizational Domains and Use Policies for Domain Names"_
proposes "an extensible system in which domain name policies
can be discovered at various levels in the DNS tree." A
policy record is stored under an underscored node name in a
TXT record. The record can indicate that the current node is
an organization name or that the name one level down is.
Wildcards are permitted, to cover sub-domains, indicating a
limit to the number of levels down. Usage policies are
marked as allowed or not allowed. Initial types of policies
were httpcookie and all (to indicate a default.) There is a
mechanism for using URIs to retrieve parameters.[ODuse]
OBD: _"Publishing Organization Boundaries in the DNS"_ offers a
specification "to publish in the DNS the boundaries between
organizations that can be adapted to various policy models".
Policies are expressed within a 16-bit bit-masked field. A
demarcation point is indicated by a published record above
the point, using a new DBOUND RR. The record can indicate
that there are no boundaries lower than this name. The
search algorithm is fully specified for all uses. It also
indicates that "[d]ifferent sets of boundary rules can be
published for different applications." The applicable
application of a boundary is indicated by a numeric value in
the record [OBD].
ODUP: _"Resource Record for DNS Administrative Boundaries"_
specifies a method for "judging domain name administrative
boundaries" and considers the records within a boundary to be
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
related and those across a boundary to be unrelated. The
specification defines a different DBOUND RR, from that of
[OBD]. If supports assorted flags plus an "Anchor Name/Name
Collection" field. The Anchor Name usage "build a connection
between the owner name and the anchor name which is a FQDN",
where"owner name" is defined as "some names' anchor name" in
a different DBOUND RR. The Name Collection usage lists
"names which are supposed to share the same DNS boundaries
under the same anchor name" [ODUP].
SOPA: _"Asserting DNS Administrative Boundaries Within DNS Zones"_
defines "...a way to assert that two domains lie in the same
policy realm..." or that they do not [SOPA].
In general terms, it's important for any effort in this space to
carefully consider the guidance in both [RFC5507] and [RFC6950]. Of
particular concern to the current draft are the caveats highlighted
in Section 3.3.1 of [RFC6950], about synchronization, authorization
and delegation.
3. Perimeter Overlay Overview
A Domain Name Perimeter (DNS Perimeter) distinguishes a logical
separation, occurring between two adjacent nodes in the DNS
hierarchy. The name that is lower in the hierarchy marks the
beginning of its portion (identified by "BEGIN"), and the name higher
marks the end of its portion (identified by the term "END"). As
such, a Perimeter is the interface between segments along a domain
name branch, for which there can be different administrative
authorities and to which different policies can be applied.
Because the DNS does not permit associating information with the
graph connector 'between' names, information about a Perimeter needs
to be associated with one or both of the nodes adjacent to the
Perimeter. One possible advantage of this requirement is permitting
flexibility in the operational management of marking a Perimeter.
The organization 'above' the Perimeter might have more or less
incentive to mark the Perimeter than the organization 'below' it. In
this way, the Perimeter can be marked by the organization with the
greater incentive (or by both organizations, depending on the use
case.)
Definition of a DNS Perimeter:
A logical demarcation between two, adjacent DNS nodes, where one
node is the parent of the other, and the child is part of a branch
spanning one or more subdomains.
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
The metadata that is associated with such a node name needs to
indicate:
Position: Whether this node name is at the 'end' of am administrative
sub-hierarchy, before a Perimeter transition -- and
therefore the final node name 'above' the Perimeter;
whether it 'begin's a portion of administrative sub-
hierarchy, immediately after a Perimeter transition; or
whether it is a node name that is an internal 'part' of a
sub-hierarchy.
The 'part' construct might be useful for defining a place
to hold parametric detail specific to that node within the
hierarchy. It might also be useful to hold a pointer to
the 'begin' node name.
Schema: The registered name of the perimeter definition. The
Schema name identifies the semantic discipline for the
record containing the reference. This permits multiple
Schemas to share the same perimeter.
Parameters: Any schema-specific information required by the schema
definition.
Note: DNS Perimeter Overlay uses a TXT RRset to an _underscored node
name (_perim). This constrains queries for TXT records to only
Perimeter records. Still, a query to a Perimeter Overlay node
will return all of the TXT records stored there, and there might
be multiple 'users' (schemas) using the same DNS node name. So,
the client will need to do a simple search of the returned TXT
RRs, for the one that is desired. It is expected that there
will never be a large number of such records; so the burden of
distinguishing among multiple records is expected to be small.
4. DNS Perimeter Overlay Syntax
A node that is immediately above or below a DNS Perimeter indicates
itself with TXT DNS RR, in an _underscore-labeled sub-branch under
that node [RFC8552].
4.1. Perimeter Branch Indication
The scoped use of the Perimeter TXT RR is indicated with a
subordinate, leaf node name of:
"_perim."
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
The IANA registration information for the _perim DNS scoped attribute
name is in Section 8.1.
4.2. Perimeter TXT RR
A TXT RR that is used to indicate a Perimeter is composed of an
initial identifier, followed by three fields, as described in
Section 3.
The ABNF [RFC5234] for the Perimeter TXT RR is:
Perim TXT: "perim" sp Pos sp Schema [sp Params]
; ISSUE: the 'perim' string is arguably redundant, given that the
; _underscored node naming approach already defines this as a
; perimeter record.
; I encourage keeping it, so interpretation of the record can stand
; on its own. /dcrocker
Pos: "begin" / "end" / "part"
; begin = first in the perimeter hierarchy sub-sequence
; part = within the hierarchy sub-sequence
; end = last in the hierarchy sub-sequence
Schema: { Entry from DNS Perimeter Registry }
Params: Param *("," Param)
Param: attr [eq val]
attr: 1*alpha
; what is a better choice than <alpha>? /dcrocker
eq: "="
val: 1*alpha
; what is a better choice than <alpha>? /dcrocker
Perimeter TXT RR ABNF
Schema is the registered name for a specific use of the DNS Perimeter
Overlay mechanism. The IANA registration information for the _perim
DNS scoped attribute name is in Section 8.2.
That is, a TXT record under _perim has a series of space-separated
fields:
1. Identifies this as a _perim TXT record.
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
2. Indicates whether the record 'begins' an administrative area, by
appearing as the first node after a Perimeter, or whether it
'ends' an administrative area, by appearing as the last node
before a Perimeter.
3. Indicates the controlling Schema.
4. Optional to the syntactic mechanism, this is a series of one or
more comma-separated (with no white space) parameters, as defined
by the particular Schema specification, where a parameter can be
a simple string or an attribute/value pair.
4.3. Syntax ExampleS
Therefore, an organization might indicate the top of its naming
hierarchy with:
_perim.company.pubregistry.example
/
TXT "perim begin suffix private"
Suffix BEGIN Example
while the parent registry for this organization's name might also
indicate the name above it is the bottom of the delegating
organization's naming branch:
_perim.pubregistry.example
/
TXT "perim end suffix public"
Public Suffix END Example
and a node within a private organization's branch might point to its
'organizational domain' that begins this private suffix:
_perim.dept.company.pubregistry.example
/
TXT "perim part suffix private od=company.pubregistry.example"
Suffix PART Example
5. Discussion
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
5.1. End/Begin Interaction
The occurrence of either a 'begin' or an 'end' _perim TXT resource
record defines the Perimeter, in terms of basic Perimeter existence.
The presence of both _perim TXT records both above and below the
Perimeter is redundant.
For this core mechanism, a 'begin' _perim TXT record MAY occur in a
top-level domain, immediately under the DNS root. It would, of
course, have no corresponding 'end' parameter "above" the Perimeter.
Beyond specification of the technical details, actual usage of a
Perimeter record for a name administered through a "public" registry
is a matter of registry policy and is, therefore, outside the scope
of this specification.
A particular Schema might define specific requirements or constraints
on the occurrence of its Perimeter records. The Schema might mandate
only one type of record. Or it might permit policy parameters that
could conflict. Such issues are entirely within the purview of the
Schema specification and are invisible to this core DNS Perimeters
Overlay mechanism.
5.2. Schema/Schema Interaction
For simplicity and commonality, the core DNS Perimeter Overlay
mechanism defers policy and usage detail up to the Schema
specifications that rely on that detail.
The semantics and extended syntax of a Perimeter are defined by a
specific, registered Schema that is referenced in a _perim TXT RR.
In terms of the core Perimeter Overlay mechanism, a Perimeter that
is defined by one Schema is invisible to other Schemas by default,
even if they share the same node.
However a Schema specification MAY define its own rules regarding
the occurrence of different Perimeter Schemas and/or the
relationship of this Schema to another. For example, one Schema's
Perimeter Overlay might create dependencies and interactions with
another Schema Perimeter Overlay.
6. Sample Overlay Templates
Here are some notional use cases, for abstract usage models using DNS
Perimeter Overlays. They are provided as basic discussions, rather
than detailed specifications, to serve both as simple examples and as
guidance for possible adaption to specific needs. Other models are
certainly plausible.
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
NOTE: This section might be appropriate to move into an independent
document, as a larger repertoire of examples is developed and
specified. As this document develops, suggestions for additional
samples is encouraged. /dcrocker
A Schema specification needs to make clear what operational and
policy models it is using, to distinguish it from other Schemas that
might seem similar.
CAVEAT: There is a basic (but easily-forgotten) reality that the
registry for a parent domain has ultimate control over the
descendant domains. All sorts of anomalies are possible (and
likely) when a descendant is a different organization, but
ultimately, that's the type of issue that isn't directly
discernible via DNS. Concern for such issues is internal to the
administration of that DNS node hierarchy. responsible
6.1. Default/Override 'Convenience' Overlay
An organization might want to have a Perimeter early in the DNS
hierarchy that defines a basic set of parameters and policies, as
defaults for names within the Perimeter. It might then permit nodes
under this to override any of these defaults. The default record,
therefore, serves as a convenience, to reduce the amount of detail
that needs to be provided at lower levels in the DNS hierarchy.
Specifying the details that can be provided as defaults is
straightforward.
The basic operational model is for the client to start with the full
DNS name, down to the lower level and then look up to the higher-
level 'base' name. There needs to be a simple, efficient means for
the client to determine what that 'base' name is, so that it can
deterministically query it for the default information.
6.2. Master/Addition 'Control' Overlay
An organization might want to have a Perimeter early in the DNS
hierarchy that defines a rigorous set of mandatory parameters and
policies. Within its administrative purview, these would be global
details, enforced for all subordinate names.
As for the Convenience model, the overlay specification here needs to
make clear what operational model applies. The remaining technical
details are the same as for the Convenience model. What differs is
the semantics of using the superior/subordinate overlay records.
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
Note that most of the operational details of the 'Control" model are
the same as the 'Convenience' model, although their semantics have a
basic difference.
6.3. Vendor/Customer Overlay
A vendor that services customers via subdomains under their corporate
domain might opt to publish DNS Perimeter declarations as clear
demarcations between their "enterprise" and "customer" nodes. The
Schema might define semantics that enable third parties to support
the customers, potentially applying different rules per customer
node. In this case, each "begin" _perim TXT RR associated with a
node will define the policies that apply to that customer, while the
"end" _perim DNS TXT will act as the demarcation line between the
customer(s) and the vendor.
6.4. Organizational Alias
There are various relationships that might exist between two domain
names in different DNS branches. One example is complete
equivalence. That is, the two names are aliases for the same
organizational unit. A DNS Perimeter Overlay Schema could support
this construct by having a Schema parameter that specifies a the
domain name of organizational alias. Each name could point to the
other. (The 'part' example in Section 4.3 demonstrates the simpler
case of merely pointing to a name earlier in the branch, but a Scheme
could define a similar construct that instead points to names in
other branches.) Concerns for authorization and accuracy would be
internal to the Schema.
7. Propogating 'Begin' Location for Search Efficiency
NOTE: This section is currently offered as a discussion, to consider
the plausibility of an approach at efficiently finding a 'begin'
record, given a name farther down its branch. /dcrocker
One concern for the pragmatics of DNS operation is being able to
easily populate records into a large number of sub-domains. Another
is producing a useful response for names that are not registered,
such as for communicating policies related to an organization's sub-
domains. In both cases, the information can be stored in a higher-
level name.
However it is one thing to list data in the DNS -- somewhere up the
branch of the hierarchy -- and quite another to find it, when its
location is not already known.
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
_Given a longer domain name, what is the process of finding the
shorter portion containing a _perim TXT 'begin' declaration?_
In the worst case, a tree-walk is required, querying each, next-
higher portion of the DNS, or starting at the root and querying each
node down. For a name with many components, this can be expensive
and slow, while essentially creating a vector for a denial of service
attack.
A feature embedded in the basic DNS specification is the wildcard, as
defined in Section 4.3.3 of [RFC1034]. This permits server-side
configuration into a higher-level domain name and delivers the
information for queries to subordinate names. Unfortunately, this
feature cannot be used for records that are stored under a
specialized naming branch such as those using underscored scoping,
since they are in an adjacent branch under the name and cannot
propagate.
_So how can a user process that has a fully qualified domain name,
find Perimeter information from some upper level in the hierarchy,
such as the base "organizational domain", when the classic DNS
wildcard feature cannot be used?_
In some cases, the queried name will exist and might have a 'part'
record to provide the information, or it might exist and not have the
information, or it might not exist. The latter two cases requires
some additional means for obtaining information about the containing
Perimeter.
Absent additional mechanism, finding a DNS Perimeter requires some
sort of tree walk, which has the problems cited above. Use of a
purpose-built RR -- rather than underscore-scoped naming -- would
permit employing wildcards, but new RRs continue to suffer deployment
and use barriers.
Having a tree-walk done offline and publishing a list is a
possibility. That is, publish a table that shows the entries which
were found by a background searching process. When there are
relatively few entries and the search space is relatively small and
the rate of change is relatively slow, this approach can be useful.
However it requires consulting an external table and requires an
effort to maintain it.
Another approach is use of the DNS Additional section in the server
response:
Query for a Perimeter node; the server will return would include
the associated Perimeter BEGIN record from earlier in the
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
hierarchy, if the queried node is within that hierarchy -- that
is, is above the actual or virtual END record. (As for any
information supplied through the Additional section, the
responding server will need to be modified to provide this
enhanced information for specific kinds of queries.)
It might be reasonable to constrain this behavior only to a Perimeter
record that requests it, by adding a wildcard construct to the basic
Perimeter BEGIN syntax.
A Perimeter-aware client -- or recursive server -- could cache these
results, building an incremental portion of the overall table for
this type of Perimeter.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. _perim Registration in DNS Underscore Global Scoped Entry Registry
The following entry is to be added to the DNS Underscore Global
Scoped Entry Registry:
+---------+-------------+----------------------------+
| RR Type | _NODE NAME | REFERENCE |
+---------+-------------+----------------------------+
| TXT | _perim | {this document}, Section 4 |
+---------+-------------+----------------------------+
Table 1: _perim Registration in Global Scoped Entry Registry
8.2. DNS Perimeter Overlay Registry
The DNS Perimeter Overlay Registry lists specific uses of the DNS
Perimeter Overlay mechanism.
The registration table for the DNS Perimeter Overlay Registry will
contain two columns:
+--------+-----------+
| SCHEMA | REFERENCE |
+--------+-----------+
+--------+-----------+
Table 2: DNS Perimeter Overlay Registry Table
o This registry is to operate under the IANA rules for "Expert
Review" registration; see Section 8.2.1.
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
o The detail to be provided by a DNS Perimeter Overlay entry's
referenced Schema specification is defined in Section 4.2.
o The specification referenced in a DNS Perimeter Overlay
registration MUST contain values for all of the fields specified
in Section 4.2.
o Within the registry, each Schema name must be unique.
o The table is to be maintained with entries sorted by the Schema
name.
o The required Reference for an entry MUST have a stable resolution
to the organization controlling that registry entry.
8.2.1. Guidance for Expert Review
This section provides guidance for expert review of registration
requests in the DNS Perimeter Overlay Registry.
This review is solely to determine adequacy of a requested entry
in this Registry, and does not include review of other aspects of
the document specifying that entry. For example such a document
might also contain a definition of the resource record type that
is referenced by the requested entry. Any required review of that
definition is separate from the expert review required here.
The review is for the purposes of ensuring that:
o The details for creating the registry entry are sufficiently
clear, precise and complete
o The Schema name is unique in the table
For the purposes of this Expert Review, other matters of the
specification's technical quality, adequacy or the like are outside
of scope.
8.3. Suffix Entry in DNS Perimeter Overlay Registry
NOTE: As a formality, this section is in the IANA section for this
document. However it is expected that the Public Suffix use of
DNS Perimeter Overlay will be moved to a separate specification
document, before this document is published. /dcrocker
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
+--------+-----------------------------+
| SCHEMA | REFERENCE |
+--------+-----------------------------+
| suffix | {this document}, Appendix B |
+--------+-----------------------------+
Table 3: DNS Perimeter Overlay Registry Table
9. Security Considerations
This memo defines a mechanism for signaling information about
administrative perimeters. The mechanism itself introduces no
security issues. However specific uses of the mechanism might define
transitions in authority that offer new attack surfaces.
o A basic opportunity for concern is authorization to make a
particular assertion, using a DNS Perimeter Overlay. The basic
mechanism defined here offers no means for validating an
assertion. So any detailed specification for a particular use
needs to consider the potential of unauthorized assertions.
o Conflicting Perimeter entries for adjacent 'begin' and 'end'
assertions could be problematic. That is, information in the
_perim TXT RR for the parent name might conflict with information
in the _perim TXT RR for the child. Consideration of such a
conflict is left to the individual Schema specifications that use
the DNS Perimeter Overlay mechanism.
10. References
10.1. References - Normative
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", RFC 8162, May 2017.
[RFC8552] Crocker, D., "Scoped Interpretation of DNS Resource
Records through "Underscored" Naming of Attribute Leaves",
RFC 8552, ISSN 2070-1721, March 2019.
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
10.2. References - Informative
[DABprob] Sullivan, A., Hodges, J., and J. Levine, "DBOUND: DNS
Administrative Boundaries Problem Statement", I-D draft-
sullivan-dbound-problem-statement-02, August 2016.
[DBOUNDwg]
IETF, "Domain Boundaries (dbound)", 2016.
[DNRcon] Deccio, C. and J. Levine, "Concepts for Domain Name
Relationships", I-D draft-deccio-dbound-name-
relationships-00, July 2015.
[OBD] Levine, J., "Publishing Organization Boundaries in the
DNS", I-D draft-levine-dbound-dns-01, September 2016.
[ODUP] Yao, J., Kong, N., and X. Li, "Resource Record for DNS
Administrative Boundaries", I-D C. Deccio, January 2016.
[ODuse] Deccio, C., "Organizational Domains and Use Policies for
Domain Names", I-D draft-deccio-dbound-organizational-
domain-policy-03, July 2016.
[PubSuff] Foundation, M., "Public Suffix List",
URL https://publicsuffix.org.
[PubSuff-SSAC]
Committee, I. S. A. S. A., "SAC070: SSAC Advisory on the
Use of Static TLD / Suffix Lists", URL
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-
070-en.pdf, May 2015.
[PubSuffSyn]
Foundation, M., "Public Suffix List Format",
URL https://publicsuffix.org/list/.
[RFC5507] IAB, Faltstrom, P., Austein, R., and P. Koch, "Design
Choices When Expanding the DNS", RFC 5507, April 2009.
[RFC6950] Peterson, J., Kolkman, O., Tschofenig, H., and B. Aboba,
"Architectural Considerations on Application Features in
the DNS", RFC 6950, October 2013.
[SOPA] Sullivan, A. and J. Hodges, "Asserting DNS Administrative
Boundaries Within DNS Zones", I-D draft-sullivan-domain-
policy-authority-02, February 2016.
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
[SubTLD] Pettersen, Y., "The Public Suffix Structure file format
and its use for Cookie domain validation", I-D draft-
pettersen-subtld-structure-10, February 2014.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Appendix B. DNS Suffix Perimeter
ISSUE: _Specification of Perimeter use to replicate Public Suffix
List functionality. This section needs careful review and
revision by the PSL community. _ /dcrocker
_It appears that there are a number of adjunct uses of Domain
Names that get merged with the PSL. These probably are
candidates for other Perimeter Overlay encodings. /d_
ISSUE: _The basic usage mode for PSL information is for an
application that has a fully qualified domain name to 'find'
the portion that is public, as distinct from the remaining
portion that is assigned by a private registry. The
'finding' process is not facilitated by the DNS, which only
queries for an exact name, rather than doing "searching".
Worse, this impedes building a table by brute-force testing
of the tree._
_So an open issue is the method for either real-time or
background use of PSL information through DNS Perimeter
Overlay. /dcrocker_
The Public Suffix List describes itself as [PubSuff]:
"A "public suffix" is one under which Internet users can (or
historically could) directly register names."
An advisory report by the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory
Committee uses a definition of PSL from [SubTLD]:
"A domain under which multiple parties that are unaffiliated with
the owner of the Public Suffix domain may register subdomains."
The basic semantics of the list are quite simple, only marking the
Perimeter between the portion of a domain name -- it's suffix --
administered by a public registry and the remaining portion of the
name administered by a registrant. Some uses of the list have more
elaborate semantics, but these really are value-added features beyond
the basic mechanism -- even though some are encoded in the published
list. The details of the Public Suffix list are not amenable to
algorithmic derivation, because the criteria for determining whether
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
a suffix is 'public' varies significantly from one DNS naming branch
to another.
The goal in defining a Public Suffix Perimeter within the DNS itself
is to permit the owner of a name at a Public Suffix Perimeter to mark
its presence directly, rather than having to go through an
independent registration service. Anyone can then discern the
Perimeter directly, without needing access to a separate list.
Further much, or all of, the compiled list can be developed by a
rigorous DNS tree walk, rather than by relying on additions and
deletions each being submitted to the Public Suffix registration
service.
A particular efficiency and convenience in this direct publication
method is that the public registry can have a single entry for the
'end' name in the public suffix and implicitly thereby mark all of
the children names as the 'begin' of the private part of the name.
NOTE: The details provided here are a bare minimum to define
Public Suffix Perimeters. As this specification is
reviewed by subject matter experts, it is expected that
the details will be enhanced. /dcrocker
B.1. IANA DNS Suffix Registration
The IANA registration information for the Suffix Perimeter entry is
at Section 8.3.
B.2. Suffix Perimeter TXT Syntax
This specification for DNS Suffix information, stored in a _perim TXT
record, is meant to approximate what is specified in [PubSuffSyn].
Each DNS Perimeter Overlay Suffix Schema TXT RR serves as a 'rule' in
the Public Suffix table. Some accommodations have been made, to the
constraints of fitting this within a TXT value segment.
Given the variety of uses of information called "Public Suffix List",
there could reasonably be different specifications offered. Two
possibilities are listed here:
B.2.1. Core PSL
This provides a simple capability for marking a Perimeter, without
labeling their 'type'.
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
Perim Params: extra SP comment
extra: ["!"] *("*.")
; ! = exception
; * = wildcard for node name field(s),
; creating prefix to current name.
comment: "//" *CHAR
'Core' DNS Suffix Params ABNF
A simple entry will have no parameters; the existence of the TXT
record defines the DNS node containing it as an entry in the Public
Suffix List. If wildcard fields are specified, they are added as a
prefix to the current node's name. An 'exception' indicator marks
this name as overriding a higher-level rule.
B.2.2. PubPrivPSL
This permits distinguishing between portions of the namespace that
are public and those, below this, that are private. In order to
prevent a private entry from claiming that it is public, a private
registry can declare that it is the lowest-level (final) public
registry
Perim Params: pubpriv extra SP comment
pubpriv: "pub" [", fin"] / "priv"
; distinguish between public vs. private registry
; public registry can indicate it is the final (lowest) one
extra: ["!"] *("*.")
; ! = exception
; * = wildcard for node name field(s),
; creating prefix to current name.
comment: "//" *CHAR
'Public/Private' DNS Suffix Params ABNF
There can be layers of public registries and layers of private
registries, for a single, fully qualified domain name. This version
of the specification permits multiple boundaries; an explicit
indication of the type of registry is required. A simple entry will
have no <extra> parameters; the existence of the TXT record defines
the DNS node containing it as an entry in the Public Suffix List. If
wildcard fields are specified, they are added as a prefix to the
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Perimeter June 2019
current node's name. An 'exception' indicator marks this name as
overriding a higher-level rule.
Authors' Addresses
D. Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
675 Spruce Dr.
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
USA
Phone: +1.408.246.8253
Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net
URI: http://bbiw.net/
T. Adams
Proofpoint
Email: tadams@proofpoint.com
Crocker & Adams Expires December 13, 2019 [Page 20]
