DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendation Update Process
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-02

Network Working Group                                        W. Hardaker
Internet-Draft                                                   USC/ISI
Intended status: Informational                                 W. Kumari
Expires: 21 April 2025                                            Google
                                                         18 October 2024

      DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendation Update Process
                    draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-02

Abstract

   <EDITOR NOTE: This document does not change the status (MUST, MAY,
   RECOMMENDED, etc) of any of the algorithms listed in [RFC8624]; that
   is the work of future documents.  Instead, this document moves the
   canonical list of algorithms from [RFC8624] to an IANA registry.
   This is done for two reasons: 1) to allow the list to be updated more
   easily, and, much more importantly, 2) to allow the list to be more
   easily referenced.>

   The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms to
   provide authentication of DNS data and proof of non-existence.  To
   ensure interoperability between DNS resolvers and DNS authoritative
   servers, it is necessary to specify both a set of algorithm
   implementation requirements and usage guidelines to ensure that there
   is at least one algorithm that all implementations support.  This
   document updates [RFC8624] by moving the canonical source of
   algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance for DNSSEC
   from [RFC8624] to an IANA registry.  Future extensions to this
   registry can be made under new, incremental update RFCs.

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 21 April 2025.

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process        October 2024

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Document Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Updating Algorithm Requirement Levels . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Adding usage and implementation recommendations to the IANA
           DNSSEC tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  DNS System Algorithm Numbers Column Values  . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest
           Algorithms Column Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Update to the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" table  . .   9
     7.2.  Update to the "Digest Algorithms" table . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  ChangeLog  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.1.  Changes from ietf-01 to ietf-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.2.  Changes from ietf-00 to ietf-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.3.  Changes from hardaker-04 to ietf-00 . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.4.  Changes from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     A.5.  Changes since RFC8624 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC9364] is used to provide
   authentication of DNS data.  The DNSSEC signing algorithms are
   defined by various RFCs, including [RFC4034], [RFC4509], [RFC5155],
   [RFC5702], [RFC5933], [RFC6605], [RFC8080].

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft      DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process        October 2024

   To ensure interoperability, a set of "mandatory-to-implement" DNSKEY
   algorithms are defined in [RFC8624].  To make the current status of
   the algorithms more easily accessible and understandable, and to make
   future changes to these recommendations easier to publish, this
   document moves the canonical status of the algorithms from [RFC8624]
   to the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries.  Additionally, as advice to
   operators, it adds recommendations for deploying and the usage of
   these algorithms.

   <Editor: This is similar to the process used for the
   [TLS-ciphersuites] registry, where the canonical list of ciphersuites
   is in the IANA registry, and the RFCs reference the IANA registry.>

1.1.  Document Audience

   The recommendations columns added to the "DNS Security Algorithm
   Numbers" and "Digest Algorithms" IANA tables target DNSSEC operators
   and implementers.

   Implementations need to meet both high security expectations as well
   as provide interoperability between various vendors and with
   different versions.

   The field of cryptography evolves continuously.  New, stronger
   algorithms appear, and existing algorithms may be found to be less
   secure then originally thought.  Therefore, algorithm implementation
   requirements and usage guidance need to be updated from time to time
   in order to reflect the new reality, and to allow for a smooth
   transition to more secure algorithms, as well as deprecation of
   algorithms deemed to no longer be secure.

   Cryptographic algorithm choices implemented in and required by
   software must be conservative to minimize the risk of algorithm
   compromise.

   The perspective of implementers may differ from that of an operator
   who wishes to deploy and configure DNSSEC with only the safest
   algorithm.  As such this document also adds new recommendations about
   which algorithms should be deploy regardless of implementation
   status.  In general it is expected that deployment of aging
   algorithms should generally be reduced before implementations stop
   supporting them.

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft      DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process        October 2024

1.2.  Updating Algorithm Requirement Levels

   By the time a DNSSEC cryptographic algorithm is made mandatory-to-
   implement, it should already be available in most implementations.
   This document defines an IANA registration modification to allow
   future documents to specify the implementation recommendations for
   each algorithm, as the recommendation status of each DNSSEC
   cryptographic algorithm is expected to change over time.  For
   example, there is no guarantee that newly introduced algorithms will
   become mandatory-to-implement in the future.  Likewise, published
   algorithms are continuously subjected to cryptographic attack and may
   become too weak, or even be completely broken, and will require
   deprecation in the future.

   It is expected that the deprecation of an algorithm will be performed
   gradually.  This provides time for implementations to update their
   implemented algorithms while remaining interoperable.  Unless there
   are strong security reasons, an algorithm is expected to be
   downgraded from MUST to NOT RECOMMENDED or MAY, instead of directly
   from MUST to MUST NOT.  Similarly, an algorithm that has not been
   mentioned as mandatory-to-implement is expected to be first
   introduced as RECOMMENDED instead of a MUST.

   Since the effect of using an unknown DNSKEY algorithm is that the
   zone is treated as insecure, it is recommended that algorithms which
   have been downgraded to NOT RECOMMENDED or lower not be used by
   authoritative nameservers and DNSSEC signers to create new DNSKEY's.
   This will allow for deprecated algorithms to become used less and
   less over time.  Once an algorithm has reached a sufficiently low
   level of deployment, it can be marked as MUST NOT, so that recursive
   resolvers can remove support for validating it.

   Validating recursive resolvers are encouraged to retain support for
   all algorithms not marked as MUST NOT.

1.3.  Requirements notation

   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.

   [RFC2119] considers the term SHOULD equivalent to RECOMMENDED, and
   SHOULD NOT equivalent to NOT RECOMMENDED.  The authors of this
   document have chosen to use the terms RECOMMENDED and NOT
   RECOMMENDED, as this more clearly expresses the recommendations to
   implementers.

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft      DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process        October 2024

2.  Adding usage and implementation recommendations to the IANA DNSSEC
    tables

   Per this document, the following columns are being added to the
   following DNSSEC algorithm tables registered with IANA:

   +===================================+===============================+
   | Table                             | Column added                  |
   +===================================+===============================+
   | Domain Security Algorithm Numbers | Use for DNSSSEC Signing       |
   +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   | Domain Security Algorithm Numbers | Use for DNSSSEC Validation    |
   +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   | Domain Security Algorithm Numbers | Implement for DNSSSEC         |
   |                                   | Signing                       |
   +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   | Domain Security Algorithm Numbers | Implement for DNSSSEC         |
   |                                   | Validation                    |
   +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   | Digest Algorithm                  | Use for DNSSSEC Delegation    |
   +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   | Digest Algorithm                  | Use for DNSSSEC Validation    |
   +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   | Digest Algorithm                  | Implement for DNSSSEC         |
   |                                   | Delegation                    |
   +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+
   | Digest Algorithm                  | Implement for DNSSSEC         |
   |                                   | Validation                    |
   +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------+

                                  Table 1

   Adding a new entry to the "DNS System Algorithm Numbers" registry
   with a recommended value of MAY in the "Use for DNSSSEC Signing",
   "Use for DNSSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSSEC Signing", or
   "Implement for DNSSSEC Validation" columns requires RFC publication.
   Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in, the "DNS
   System Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for DNSSSEC Signing",
   "Use for DNSSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSSEC Signing", or
   "Implement for DNSSSEC Validation" columns to any other value than
   MAY requires a Standards Action.

   Adding a new entry to the "Digest Algorithms" registry with a
   recommended value of MAY in the "Use for DNSSSEC Delegation", "Use
   for DNSSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSSEC Delegation", or
   "Implement for DNSSSEC Validation" columns requires RFC publication.
   Adding a new entry to, or changing existing values in, the "DNS
   System Algorithm Numbers" registry for the "Use for DNSSSEC

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft      DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process        October 2024

   Delegation", "Use for DNSSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSSEC
   Delegation", or "Implement for DNSSSEC Validation" columns to any
   other value than MAY requires a Standards Action.

   If an item is not marked as "RECOMMENDED", it does not necessarily
   mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either has
   not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited
   applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases.

   The following sections state the initial values to be populated into
   these rows, with Implementation values transcribed from [RFC8624].
   Use for columns was also set to the same values from [RFC8624], as
   there is no existing documented values and general interpretation of
   the tables to date indicate they should be the same, although may
   differ in the future.

3.  DNS System Algorithm Numbers Column Values

   Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation
   recommendations for the "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC)
   Algorithm Numbers" are shown in Table 2.  When there are multiple
   RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "use" column, operators should choose
   the best algorithm according to local policy.

   <Editor's note: A space was deliberately added to "RSASHA1-NSEC3-
   SHA1" to make the table fit within the standard internet draft text
   width.  Additionally the algorithm number column was abbreviated to
   'N'.>

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft      DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process        October 2024

   +==+===============+===========+===========+===========+===========+
   |N |Mnemonics      |Use for    |Use for    |Implement  |Implement  |
   |  |               |DNSSEC     |DNSSEC     |for DNSSEC |for DNSSEC |
   |  |               |Signing    |Validation |Signing    |Validation |
   +==+===============+===========+===========+===========+===========+
   |1 |RSAMD5         |MUST NOT   |MUST NOT   |MUST NOT   |MUST NOT   |
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |3 |DSA            |MUST NOT   |MUST NOT   |MUST NOT   |MUST NOT   |
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |5 |RSASHA1        |NOT        |RECOMMENDED|NOT        |MUST       |
   |  |               |RECOMMENDED|           |RECOMMENDED|           |
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |6 |DSA-NSEC3-SHA1 |MUST NOT   |MUST NOT   |MUST NOT   |MUST NOT   |
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |7 |RSASHA1-NSEC3- |NOT        |RECOMMENDED|NOT        |MUST       |
   |  |SHA1           |RECOMMENDED|           |RECOMMENDED|           |
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |8 |RSASHA256      |RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|MUST       |MUST       |
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |10|RSASHA512      |NOT        |RECOMMENDED|NOT        |MUST       |
   |  |               |RECOMMENDED|           |RECOMMENDED|           |
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |12|ECC-GOST       |MUST NOT   |MAY        |MUST NOT   |MAY        |
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |13|ECDSAP256SHA256|RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|MUST       |MUST       |
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |14|ECDSAP384SHA384|MAY        |RECOMMENDED|MAY        |RECOMMENDED|
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |15|ED25519        |RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |16|ED448          |MAY        |RECOMMENDED|MAY        |RECOMMENDED|
   +--+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

                                 Table 2

4.  DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest
    Algorithms Column Values

   Initial recommendation columns of use and implementation
   recommendations for the "DNSSEC Delegation Signer (DS) Resource
   Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" registry are shown in Table 3.
   When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "use" column,
   operators should choose the best algorithm according to local policy.

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft      DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process        October 2024

    +======+=========+===========+===========+==========+=============+
    |Number|Mnemonics|Use for    |Use for    |Implement | Implement   |
    |      |         |DNSSEC     |DNSSEC     |for DNSSEC| for DNSSEC  |
    |      |         |Delegation |Validation |Delegation| Validation  |
    +======+=========+===========+===========+==========+=============+
    |0     |NULL (CDS|MUST NOT   |MUST NOT   |MUST NOT  | MUST NOT    |
    |      |only)    |[*]        |[*]        |[*]       | [*]         |
    +------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
    |1     |SHA-1    |MUST NOT   |RECOMMENDED|MUST NOT  | MUST        |
    +------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
    |2     |SHA-256  |RECOMMENDED|RECOMMENDED|MUST      | MUST        |
    +------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
    |3     |GOST R   |MUST NOT   |MAY        |MUST NOT  | MAY         |
    |      |34.11-94 |           |           |          |             |
    +------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
    |4     |SHA-384  |MAY        |RECOMMENDED|MAY       | RECOMMENDED |
    +------+---------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+

                                  Table 3

5.  Security Considerations

   This document makes no modifications to the security of the existing
   protocol or recommendations described in [RFC8624].  Thus the
   security considerations remain the same, which we quote below.

   The security of cryptographic systems depends on both the strength of
   the cryptographic algorithms chosen and the strength of the keys used
   with those algorithms.  The security also depends on the engineering
   of the protocol used by the system to ensure that there are no non-
   cryptographic ways to bypass the security of the overall system.

   This document concerns itself with the selection of cryptographic
   algorithms for the use of DNSSEC, specifically with the selection of
   "mandatory-to-implement" algorithms.  The algorithms identified in
   this document as MUST or RECOMMENDED to implement are not known to be
   broken at the current time, and cryptographic research so far leads
   us to believe that they are likely to remain secure into the
   foreseeable future.  However, this isn't necessarily forever, and it
   is expected that future documents will be issued from time to time to
   reflect the current best practices in this area.

   Retiring an algorithm too soon would result in a zone signed with the
   retired algorithm being downgraded to the equivalent of an unsigned
   zone.  Therefore, algorithm deprecation must be done very slowly and
   only after careful consideration and measurement of its use.

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft      DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process        October 2024

6.  Operational Considerations

   DNSKEY algorithm rollover in a live zone is a complex process.  See
   [RFC6781] and [RFC7583] for guidelines on how to perform algorithm
   rollovers.

   DS algorithm rollover in a live zone is also a complex process.
   Upgrading algorithm at the same time as rolling the new KSK key will
   lead to DNSSEC validation failures, and users MUST upgrade the DS
   algorithm first before rolling the Key Signing Key.

7.  IANA Considerations

   The IANA is requested to update the [DNSKEY-IANA] and [DS-IANA]
   registries according to the following sections.

7.1.  Update to the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" table

   This document requests IANA update the "DNS Security Algorithm
   Numbers" registry ([DNSKEY-IANA]) table with the following additional
   columns:

   *  "Use for DNSSEC Signing"

   *  "Use for DNSSEC Validation"

   *  "Implement for DNSSEC Signing"

   *  "Implement for DNSSEC Validation"

   These values should be populated using values from Table 2 of this
   document.

   Additional, the registration policy for the [DNSKEY-IANA] registry
   should match the text describing the requirements in this document.

7.2.  Update to the "Digest Algorithms" table

   This document requests IANA update the "Digest Algorithms" registry
   ([DS-IANA]) table with the following additional columns:

   *  "Use for DNSSEC Delegation"

   *  "Use for DNSSEC Validation"

   *  "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation"

   *  "Implement for DNSSEC Validation"

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft      DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process        October 2024

   These values should be populated using values from Table 3 of this
   document.

   *  Update the registration policy for the [DNSKEY-IANA] registry to
      match the text describing update requirements above.

8.  Acknowledgments

   This document is based on, and extends, RFC 8624, which was authored
   by Paul Wouters, and Ondrej Sury.

   The contents of this document was heavily discussed by participants
   of the DNSOP working group.  We appreciate the thoughtfulness of the
   many opinions expressed by working group participants that all helped
   shaped this document.  We thank Paul Hoffman and Paul Wouters for
   their contributed text.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [DNSKEY-IANA]
              IANA, "Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm
              Numbers", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-
              alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml>.

   [DS-IANA]  IANA, "Delegation Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type
              Digest Algorithms", n.d.,
              <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types>.

   [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/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [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/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8624]  Wouters, P. and O. Sury, "Algorithm Implementation
              Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC", RFC 8624,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8624, June 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8624>.

   [RFC9364]  Hoffman, P., "DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", BCP 237,
              RFC 9364, DOI 10.17487/RFC9364, February 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9364>.

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft      DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process        October 2024

9.2.  Informative References

   [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/rfc/rfc4034>.

   [RFC4509]  Hardaker, W., "Use of SHA-256 in DNSSEC Delegation Signer
              (DS) Resource Records (RRs)", RFC 4509,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4509, May 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4509>.

   [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/rfc/rfc5155>.

   [RFC5702]  Jansen, J., "Use of SHA-2 Algorithms with RSA in DNSKEY
              and RRSIG Resource Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5702,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5702, October 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5702>.

   [RFC5933]  Dolmatov, V., Ed., Chuprina, A., and I. Ustinov, "Use of
              GOST Signature Algorithms in DNSKEY and RRSIG Resource
              Records for DNSSEC", RFC 5933, DOI 10.17487/RFC5933, July
              2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5933>.

   [RFC6605]  Hoffman, P. and W.C.A. Wijngaards, "Elliptic Curve Digital
              Signature Algorithm (DSA) for DNSSEC", RFC 6605,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6605, April 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6605>.

   [RFC6781]  Kolkman, O., Mekking, W., and R. Gieben, "DNSSEC
              Operational Practices, Version 2", RFC 6781,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6781, December 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6781>.

   [RFC7583]  Morris, S., Ihren, J., Dickinson, J., and W. Mekking,
              "DNSSEC Key Rollover Timing Considerations", RFC 7583,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7583, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7583>.

   [RFC8080]  Sury, O. and R. Edmonds, "Edwards-Curve Digital Security
              Algorithm (EdDSA) for DNSSEC", RFC 8080,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8080, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8080>.

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft      DNSSEC Algorithms Update Process        October 2024

   [TLS-ciphersuites]
              IANA, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters", n.d.,
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-
              parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-4>.

Appendix A.  ChangeLog

A.1.  Changes from ietf-01 to ietf-02

   *  Changed the MUST values in the tables for the Use columns to
      RECOMMENDED based on discussions no the dnsop mailing list.

   *  Other minor wording and formatting changes

A.2.  Changes from ietf-00 to ietf-01

   *  Only NIT fixing

A.3.  Changes from hardaker-04 to ietf-00

   *  Just a draft name and number change.

A.4.  Changes from -03 to -04

   *  Changed the columns being added from 2 per table to 4, based on
      discussion within the dnsop working group mailing list.  This was
      a fairly major set of changes.

A.5.  Changes since RFC8624

   *  The primary purpose of this revision is to introduce the new
      columns to existing registries.  It makes no changes to the
      previously defined values.

   *  Merged in RFC9157 updates.

   *  Set authors as Wes Hardaker, Warren Kumari.

Authors' Addresses

   Wes Hardaker
   USC/ISI
   Email: ietf@hardakers.net

   Warren Kumari
   Google
   Email: warren@kumari.net

Hardaker & Kumari         Expires 21 April 2025                [Page 12]