rfc9906.original   rfc9906.txt 
Network Working Group W. Hardaker Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) W. Hardaker
Internet-Draft USC/ISI Request for Comments: 9906 USC/ISI
Intended status: Standards Track W. Kumari Category: Standards Track W. Kumari
Expires: 5 December 2025 Google ISSN: 2070-1721 Google
3 June 2025 November 2025
Deprecate usage of ECC-GOST within DNSSEC Deprecate Usage of ECC-GOST within DNSSEC
draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost-07
Abstract Abstract
This document retires the use of GOST R 34.10-2001 (mnemonic "ECC- This document retires the use of GOST R 34.10-2001 (mnemonic "ECC-
GOST") within DNSSEC. GOST") within DNSSEC.
RFC5933 (now historic) defined the use of GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST RFC 5933 (now historic) defined the use of GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST
R 34.11-94 algorithms with DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). This R 34.11-94 algorithms with DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). This
document updates RFC5933 by deprecating the use of ECC-GOST. document updates RFC 5933 by deprecating the use of ECC-GOST.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 December 2025. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9906.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirements Notation
2. Deprecating ECC-GOST algorithms in DNSSEC . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Deprecating ECC-GOST Algorithms in DNSSEC
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Security Considerations
4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Operational Considerations
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. IANA Considerations
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. References
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.1. Normative References
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Acknowledgments
Appendix B. Current algorithm usage levels . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses
Appendix C. Github Version of this document . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The use of the GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.11-94 algorithms with The use of the GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.11-94 algorithms with
the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC9364] was documented in the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC9364] was documented in
[RFC5933]. These two algorithms were deprecated by the Orders of the [RFC5933]. These two algorithms were deprecated by the Orders of the
Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology of Russia Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology of Russia
(Rosstandart) in August 2012, and were superseded by GOST 34.10-2012 (Rosstandart) in August 2012 and were superseded by GOST 34.10-2012
and GOST 34.11-2012 respectively. The use of these newer two and GOST 34.11-2012, respectively. The use of these two newer
algorithms in DNSSEC is documented in [RFC9558] and their associated algorithms in DNSSEC is documented in [RFC9558], and their associated
requirement levels are not changed by this document. requirement levels are not changed by this document.
Thus, the use of GOST R 34.10-2001 (mnemonic GOST-ECC) and GOST R Thus, the use of GOST R 34.10-2001 (mnemonic "ECC-GOST") and GOST R
34.11-94 is no longer recommended for use in DNSSEC [RFC9364]. 34.11-94 is no longer recommended for use in DNSSEC [RFC9364].
1.1. Requirements notation 1.1. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Deprecating ECC-GOST algorithms in DNSSEC 2. Deprecating ECC-GOST Algorithms in DNSSEC
The GOST R 34.11-94 [RFC5933] algorithm MUST NOT be used when The GOST R 34.11-94 algorithm [RFC5933] MUST NOT be used when
creating DS records. Validating resolvers MUST treat GOST R 34.11-94 creating Delegation Signer (DS) records. Validating resolvers MUST
DS records as insecure. If no other DS records of accepted treat GOST R 34.11-94 DS records as insecure. If no other DS records
cryptographic algorithms are available, the DNS records below the of accepted cryptographic algorithms are available, the DNS records
delegation point MUST be treated as insecure. below the delegation point MUST be treated as insecure.
The ECC-GOST [RFC5933] algorithm MUST NOT be used when creating The ECC-GOST algorithm [RFC5933] MUST NOT be used when creating DNS
DNSKEY and RRSIG records. Validating resolvers MUST treat RRSIG Public Key (DNSKEY) and Resource Record Signature (RRSIG) records.
records created from DNSKEY records using these algorithms as an Validating resolvers MUST treat RRSIG records created from DNSKEY
unsupported algorithm. If no other RRSIG records of accepted records using these algorithms as unsupported algorithms. If no
cryptographic algorithms are available, the validating resolver MUST other RRSIG records of accepted cryptographic algorithms are
consider the associated resource records as insecure. available, the validating resolver MUST consider the associated
resource records as insecure.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This document potentially increases the security of the DNSSEC This document potentially increases the security of the DNSSEC
ecosystem by deprecating algorithms that are no longer recommended ecosystem by deprecating algorithms that are no longer recommended
for use. for use.
4. Operational Considerations 4. Operational Considerations
This document removes support for ECC-GOST. Zone operators currently This document removes support for ECC-GOST. Zone operators currently
making use of ECC-GOST based algorithms should switch to algorithms making use of ECC-GOST-based algorithms should switch to algorithms
that remain supported. DNS registries should prohibit their clients that remain supported. DNS registries should prohibit their clients
from uploading and publishing ECC-GOST based DS records to ensure from uploading and publishing ECC-GOST-based DS records to ensure
that they are using algorithms which are supported by DNSSEC that they are using algorithms that are supported by DNSSEC
validators, and so can be DNSSEC validated. validators and thus can be DNSSEC validated.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
[Note to IANA, to be removed by the RFC Editor: the registry fields IANA has set the "Use for DNSSEC Signing", "Use for DNSSEC
listed above will be created by draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis.] Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", and "Implement for
DNSSEC Validation" columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
IANA is requested to set the "Use for DNSSEC Signing", "Use for registry [DNSKEY-IANA] [RFC9904] to MUST NOT for ECC-GOST (12). Note
DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", and "Implement that the "Use for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for DNSSEC
for DNSSEC Validation" columns of the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers Delegation" columns were already set to MUST NOT.
registry [DNSKEY-IANA] [draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis] for ECC-GOST
(12) to MUST NOT. Note that previously the "Use for DNSSEC Signing"
and "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation" columns were already MUST NOT.
IANA is requested to set the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for IANA has set the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC
DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", and "Implement Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", and "Implement for
for DNSSEC Validation" columns of the "Digest Algorithms" registry DNSSEC Validation" columns in the "Digest Algorithms" registry
[DS-IANA] for GOST R 34.11-94 (3) to MUST NOT. Note that previously [DS-IANA] to MUST NOT for GOST R 34.11-94 (3). Note that the "Use
the "Use for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation" for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation" columns
columns were already MUST NOT. were already set to MUST NOT.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[DNSKEY-IANA] [DNSKEY-IANA]
IANA, "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm IANA, "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers",
Numbers", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers>.
alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml>.
[draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis]
W., K., "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers", n.d.,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-
rfc8624-bis>.
[DS-IANA] IANA, "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type [DS-IANA] IANA, "Digest Algorithms",
Digest Algorithms", n.d.,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5933] Dolmatov, V., Ed., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of [RFC5933] Dolmatov, V., Ed., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of
GOST Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource GOST Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource
Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, DOI 10.17487/RFC5933, July Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, DOI 10.17487/RFC5933, July
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5933>. 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5933>.
[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>.
[RFC9364] Hoffman, P., "DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", BCP 237, [RFC9364] Hoffman, P., "DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", BCP 237,
RFC 9364, DOI 10.17487/RFC9364, February 2023, RFC 9364, DOI 10.17487/RFC9364, February 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9364>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9364>.
6.2. Informative References [RFC9904] Hardaker, W. and W. Kumari, "DNSSEC Cryptographic
Algorithm Recommendation Update Process", RFC 9904,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9904, November 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9904>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 6.2. Informative References
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC9558] Makarenko, B. and V. Dolmatov, Ed., "Use of GOST 2012 [RFC9558] Makarenko, B. and V. Dolmatov, Ed., "Use of GOST 2012
Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource Records
for DNSSEC", RFC 9558, DOI 10.17487/RFC9558, April 2024, for DNSSEC", RFC 9558, DOI 10.17487/RFC9558, April 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9558>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9558>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the comments and suggestions from the The authors appreciate the comments and suggestions from the
following IETF participants in helping produce this document: Mark following IETF participants in helping produce this document: Mark
Andrews, Steve Crocker, Brian Dickson, Thomas Graf, Russ Housely, Andrews, Steve Crocker, Brian Dickson, Peter Dickson, Thomas Graf,
Shumon Huque, Paul Hoffman, S Moonesamy, Peter Dickson, Peter Paul Hoffman, Russ Housely, Shumon Huque, S. Moonesamy, Peter
Thomassen, Stefan Ubbink, Paul Wouters, Tim Wicinski, and the many Thomassen, Stefan Ubbink, Tim Wicinski, Paul Wouters, and the many
members of the DNSOP working group that discussed this draft. members of the DNSOP Working Group that discussed this specification.
Appendix B. Current algorithm usage levels
The DNSSEC scanning project by Viktor Dukhovni and Wes Hardaker
highlights the current deployment of various algorithms on the
https://stats.dnssec-tools.org/ website.
<RFC Editor: please delete this section upon publication>
Appendix C. Github Version of this document
While this document is under development, it can be viewed, tracked,
fill here:
https://github.com/hardaker/draft-hardaker-dnsop-must-not-gost
<RFC Editor: please delete this section upon publication>
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Wes Hardaker Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI USC/ISI
Email: ietf@hardakers.net Email: ietf@hardakers.net
Warren Kumari Warren Kumari
Google Google
Email: warren@kumari.net Email: warren@kumari.net
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
117 lines changed or deleted 91 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.