1. Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-786-7554 Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
TSIG SHA etc.
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
March 2005
IETF DNSEXT

2. TSIG SHA Draft “HMAC SHA TSIG Algorithm Identifiers”
draft-ietf-dnsext-tsig-sha-01.txt
formerly: draft-eastlake-tsig-sha-*.txt
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
In Last Call
March 2005
IETF DNSEXT

3. TSIG Algorithms
Current TSIG Proposed Standard [RFC 2845] defines only “HMAC-MD5.SIG-ALG.REG.INT”.
Weaknesses in MD5/SHA-1 do not apply to HMAC so it may be OK but:
Some people want to use government approved algorithms, i.e., at least SHA-1.
Various SHA-224+ algorithms are believed to be stronger than MD5/SHA-1.
Some people want to truncate their MACs.
March 2005
IETF DNSEXT

4. Changes Specified by 00 Draft
Draft standardized added HMAC algorithm FQDN syntax “TLDs” for all SHAs as follows:
SHA1., SHA224., SHA256., SHA384., and SHA512.
Defined how to specify truncation with a short MAC size TSIG field.
Recommended implementation of SHA1 and 96 bit truncated SHA1, other new algorithms optional, HMAC-MD5 remained the only mandatory algorithm.
March 2005
IETF DNSEXT

5. Changes 00->01 Draft
Make implementation of HMAC-SHA-1 and HMAC-SHA-256 MANDATORY in addition to HMAC-MD5.
March 2005
IETF DNSEXT

6. Changes to be made 01->02 Draft
Based on comments on list and implementer feedback:
Specify error code for “signature too weak” to be the same as missing signature.
Specify that truncated signature value in request is used in calculating signature for reply.
State that policies SHOULD accept longer signatures than they require and SHOULD reply with a signature at least as long as that in the corresponding query.
Say a little more about recent hash function breaks.
March 2005
IETF DNSEXT

7. ECC Key Draft “Elliptic Curve KEYs in the DNS”
draft-ietf-dnsext-ecc-key-06.txt
formerly draft-schroeppel-dnsind-ecc-*.txt
Richard C. Schroeppel
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
March 2005
IETF DNSEXT

8. Elliptic Curve Crypto A Public Key system.
Keys, signatures, etc., much more compact than RSA. [RFC 3766]
A standard format is needed for interoperability.
There are numerous patents and claims related to implementations, etc.
This draft now defines both a key format and a signature format using Algorithm #4 previously reserved for this purpose.
March 2005
IETF DNSEXT

9. ECC Draft Problems/Questions
Need feedback on draft, ideally from implementers.
Is format too general?
March 2005
IETF DNSEXT

10. Other Signature Drafts
Being updated and expected to be Last Called:
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2536bis-dsa-04.txt
draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2539bis-dhk-04.txt
March 2005
IETF DNSEXT