Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes
draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes
DNSSD Working Group R. Bellis
Internet-Draft ISC
Intended status: Standards Track 4 December 2023
Expires: 6 June 2024
DNS Multiple QTYPEs
draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes-00
Abstract
This document specifies a method for a DNS client to request
additional DNS record types to be delivered alongside the primary
record type specified in the question section of a DNS query.
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 6 June 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Bellis Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNS Multiple QTYPEs December 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Multiple QTYPE EDNS Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Response Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1. Server Side Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.2. Client Side Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. DNSSEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH BEFORE PUBLISHING:
The source for this draft is maintained in GitHub at:
https://github.com/raybellis/draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes Please
submit suggested changes as issues or pull requests there.
A commonly requested DNS [RFC1035] feature is the ability to receive
multiple related resource records (RRs) in a single DNS response.
For example, it may be desirable to receive both the A and AAAA
records for a domain name together, rather than having to issue
multiple queries.
The DNS wire protocol in theory supports having multiple questions in
a single packet, but in practise this does not work:
* Each question consists of the tuple (QNAME, QTYPE, QCLASS). Since
each question has its own QNAME field it would be possible for one
name to exist and another to not exist, resulting in an
inconsistent response code.
* [RFC1035] says that QDCOUNT is "usually 1" but the only documented
exceptions relate to the IQuery OpCode which was obsoleted in
[RFC3425]. Other text in [RFC1035] strongly implies a singular
question.
Bellis Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNS Multiple QTYPEs December 2023
* The idea that only a single question is allowed is sufficiently
entrenched that many DNS servers will simply return an error (or
fail to response at all) if they receive a query with a question
count (QDCOUNT) of more than one.
To mitigate these issues, this document constrains the problem to
those cases where only the QTYPE varies by specifying a new option
for the Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS [RFC6891]) that contains
an additional list of QTYPE values that the client wishes to receive
in addition to the single QTYPE appearing in the question section.
TODO: why not "ANY" ?
2. Terminology used in this document
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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Description
3.1. Multiple QTYPE EDNS Option Format
The overall format of an EDNS option is shown for reference below,
per [RFC6891], followed by the option specific data:
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | OPTION-CODE |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | OPTION-LENGTH |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4: | |
/ OPTION-DATA /
/ /
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
OPTION-CODE: TBD by IANA
OPTION-LENGTH: Size (in octets) of OPTION-DATA.
OPTION-DATA: Option specific, as below:
Bellis Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS Multiple QTYPEs December 2023
+0 (MSB) +1 (LSB)
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: |QTD| reserved | QTCOUNT | QT1 (MSB) |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | QT1 (LSB) | ... |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| ... /// QTn (MSB) |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| QTn (LSB) |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
QTD: this bit indicates the direction of the packet. It MUST be
clear (0) in a request and set (1) in a response.
QTCOUNT: a 3 bit field with range 0 .. 7 specifying the number of QT
fields to follow. NB: Whilst the QTCOUNT could in theory be
calculated based on the OPTION-LENGTH field, having it explicitly
specified ensures a sensible constraint on its range of values.
QTn: a 2 byte field (MSB first) specifying a DNS RR type. The RR
type MUST be for a real resource record, and MUST NOT refer to a
pseudo RR type such as "OPT", "IXFR", "TSIG", "*", etc.
3.2. Response Generation
3.2.1. Server Side Processing
A conforming server that receives a Multiple QTYPE Option in a query
MUST return a Multiple QTYPE Option in its response.
The QTD bit in that response MUST be set (1) as protection against
servers which simply echo unknown EDNS options verbatim. If the QTD
bit in a response is zero the client MUST treat the response as if
this option is unsupported.
The server SHOULD attempt to return any resource records known to it
that match the additional (QNAME, QTn, QCLASS) tuples. These records
MUST be returned in the Answer Section of the response, but the
answer for the primary QTYPE from the Question Section MUST be
included first.
For any particular QTn in the query, if the server provides
additional answers, or has knowledge that the RR type type does not
exist for that QNAME (a "negative answer"), it must include that QTn
value in the Multiple QTYPE Option of its response.
Bellis Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS Multiple QTYPEs December 2023
A negative answer is therefore indicated by the combination of the
presence of a QTn value in the Multiple QTYPE Option and the absence
of a matching record in the Answer Section. This is necessary (in
the absence of DNSSEC) to differentiate between absence of the record
from the zone and absence of the record from the response.
A server that is authoritative for the specified QNAME on receipt of
a Multiple QTYPE Option MUST attempt to return all specified RR types
except where that would result in truncation in which case it may
omit some (or all) of the records for the additional RR types. Those
RR types MUST then also be omitted from the Multiple QTYPE Option in
the response.
A caching recursive server receiving a Multiple QTYPE Option SHOULD
attempt to fill its positive and negative caches with all of the
specified RR types before returning its response to the client.
TODO: is there a case for mandatory answers, i.e. the client saying I
_really_ want all these?
3.2.2. Client Side Processing
Recursive resolvers MAY use this method to obtain multiple records
from an authoritative server. For the purposes of Section 5.4.1 of
[RFC2181] any authoritative answers received MUST be ranked the same
as the answer for the primary question.
3.2.3. DNSSEC
If the DNS client sets the "DNSSEC OK" (DO) bit in the query then the
server MUST also return the related DNSSEC records that would have
been returned in a standalone query for the same QTYPE.
A negative answer from a signed zone MUST contain the appropriate
authenticated denial of existence records, per [RFC4034] and
[RFC5155].
In a signed zone there is a theoretical risk of valid signatures for
one RR type and invalid signatures for another. This is the only
case known to the author where the response code for any particular
QNAME may be inconsistent across different RR types.
Should a validating resolver produce NOERROR for some RR types and
SERVFAIL for others it MUST omit the RR types that failed to validate
from its response and from the QTn fields on the Multiple QTYPE
option. The client MAY then initiate standalone queries for those RR
types.
Bellis Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNS Multiple QTYPEs December 2023
4. Security Considerations
The method documented here does not change any of the security
properties of the DNS protocol itself.
It should however be noted that this method does increase the
potential amplification factor when the DNS protocol is used as a
vector for a denial of service attack.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a new value in the DNS EDNS0 Option Codes
registry.
6. Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the following for their feedback and
reviews during the initial development of this document: Michael
Graff, Olafur Gudmundsson, Matthijs Mekking, Paul Vixie.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[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>.
[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, DOI 10.17487/RFC2181, July 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2181>.
[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>.
[RFC5155] Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
Existence", RFC 5155, DOI 10.17487/RFC5155, March 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5155>.
Bellis Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNS Multiple QTYPEs December 2023
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC3425] Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3425, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3425>.
Author's Address
Ray Bellis
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
PO Box 360
Newmarket, NH 03857
United States of America
Phone: +1 650 423 1300
Email: ray@isc.org
Bellis Expires 6 June 2024 [Page 7]
