wdiff rfc9619.original rfc9619.txt



DNSOP Working Group

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         R. Bellis
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9619                                           ISC
Updates: 1035 (if approved)                                                   J. Abley
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track                                     Cloudflare
Expires: 30 November 2024                                    29 May
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                July 2024

                  In the DNS, QDCOUNT is (usually) Is (Usually) One
                   draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-04

Abstract

   This document updates RFC 1035 by constraining the allowed value of
   the QDCOUNT parameter in DNS messages with OPCODE = 0 (QUERY) to a
   maximum of one, and it specifies the required behaviour behavior when values
   that are not allowed are encountered.

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 an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list  It represents the consensus of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 30 November 2024.
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9619.

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)
   (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
   2.  Terminology used Used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3 This Document
   3.  QDCOUNT is (usually) Is (Usually) One  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Updates to RFC 1035 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     8.1.
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     8.2.
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Appendix A.  Guidance for the use Use of QDCOUNT in the DNS
           Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     A.1.  OPCODE = 0 (QUERY) and 1 (IQUERY) . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     A.2.  OPCODE = 4 (NOTIFY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     A.3.  OPCODE = 5 (UPDATE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     A.4.  OPCODE = 6 (DNS Stateful Operations, DSO) . . . . . . . .   6
     A.5.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   The DNS protocol [RFC1034][RFC1035] [RFC1034] [RFC1035] includes a parameter QDCOUNT in
   the DNS message header, header whose value is specified to mean the number of
   questions in the Question Section of a DNS message.

   In a general sense sense, it seems perfectly plausible for the QDCOUNT
   parameter, an unsigned 16-bit value, to take a considerable range of
   values.  However, in the specific case of messages that encode DNS
   queries and responses (messages with OPCODE = 0) 0), there are other
   limitations inherent in the protocol that constrain values of QDCOUNT
   to be either 0 or 1.  In particular, several parameters specified for
   DNS response messages such as AA and RCODE have no defined meaning
   when the message contains multiple queries, since queries as there is no way to
   signal which question those parameters relate to.

   In this document document, we briefly survey the existing written DNS
   specification; we provide a description of the semantic and practical
   requirements for DNS queries that naturally constrain the allowable
   values of QDCOUNT; and we update the DNS base specification to clarify
   the allowable values of the QDCODE parameter in the specific case of
   DNS messages with OPCODE = 0.

2.  Terminology used Used in this document 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.  QDCOUNT is (usually) Is (Usually) One

   A brief summary of the guidance provided in the existing DNS
   specification ([RFC1035] and [RFC1035] (and in many other documents) for the use of
   QDCOUNT can be found in Appendix A.  While the specification is clear
   in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the specific case of OPCODE
   = 0 there is some
   ambiguity 0, which this document aims to eliminate.

4.  Updates to RFC 1035

   A DNS message with OPCODE = 0 MUST NOT include a QDCOUNT parameter
   whose value is greater than 1.  It follows that the Question
   Section of a DNS message with OPCODE = 0 MUST NOT contain more than
   one question.

   A DNS message with OPCODE = 0 and QDCOUNT > 1 MUST be treated as an
   incorrectly-formatted
   incorrectly formatted message.  The value of the RCODE parameter in
   the response message MUST be set to 1 (FORMERR).

   Middleboxes (e.g. (e.g., firewalls) that process DNS messages in order to
   eliminate unwanted traffic SHOULD treat messages with OPCODE = 0 and
   QDCOUNT > 1 as malformed traffic and return a FORMERR response as
   described above.  Such firewalls MUST NOT treat messages with OPCODE
   = 0 and QDCOUNT = 0 as malformed.  See Section 4 of [RFC8906] for
   further guidance.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document clarifies the DNS specification [RFC1035] and aims to
   improve interoperability between different DNS implementations.  In
   general, the elimination of ambiguity seems well-aligned with
   security hygiene.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The clarifications in this document were prompted by questions posed
   by Ted Lemon, which reminded the authors of earlier, similar
   questions and motivated them to pick up their pens.  Ondrej Sury,
   Warren Kumari, Peter Thomassen, Mark Andrews, Lars-Johan Liman, Jim
   Reid and Niall O'Reilly provided useful feedback.

8.  References

8.1.

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

   [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>.

   [RFC3425]  Lawrence, D., "Obsoleting IQUERY", RFC 3425,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3425, November 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3425>.

   [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>.

8.2.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1996]  Vixie, P., "A Mechanism for Prompt Notification of Zone
              Changes (DNS NOTIFY)", RFC 1996, DOI 10.17487/RFC1996,
              August 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1996>.

   [RFC2136]  Vixie, P., Ed., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound,
              "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)",
              RFC 2136, DOI 10.17487/RFC2136, April 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2136>.

   [RFC5936]  Lewis, E. and A. Hoenes, Ed., "DNS Zone Transfer Protocol
              (AXFR)", RFC 5936, DOI 10.17487/RFC5936, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5936>.

   [RFC7873]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and M. Andrews, "Domain Name System (DNS)
              Cookies", RFC 7873, DOI 10.17487/RFC7873, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7873>.

   [RFC8490]  Bellis, R., Cheshire, S., Dickinson, J., Dickinson, S.,
              Lemon, T., and T. Pusateri, "DNS Stateful Operations",
              RFC 8490, DOI 10.17487/RFC8490, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8490>.

   [RFC8906]  Andrews, M. and R. Bellis, "A Common Operational Problem
              in DNS Servers: Failure to Communicate", BCP 231,
              RFC 8906, DOI 10.17487/RFC8906, September 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8906>.

Appendix A.  Guidance for the use Use of QDCOUNT in the DNS Specification

   The DNS Specification specification [RFC1035] provides some guidance about the
   values of QDCOUNT that are appropriate in various situations.  A
   brief summary of this guidance is collated below.

A.1.  OPCODE = 0 (QUERY) and 1 (IQUERY)

   [RFC1035] significantly predates the use of the normative
   requirements keywords requirement
   key words specified in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174], and parts of it
   are consequently somewhat open to interpretation.

   Section 4.1.2 ("Question section format") has this to say of [RFC1035] states the
   following about QDCOUNT:

      The

      "The section contains QDCOUNT (usually 1) entries entries"

   The only documented exceptions within [RFC1035] relate to the IQuery
   Opcode,
   OpCode, where the request has "an empty question section" (QDCOUNT =
   0), and the response has "zero, one, or multiple domain names for the
   specified resource as QNAMEs in the question section".  The IQuery
   OpCode was made obsolete in obsoleted by [RFC3425].

   In the absence of clearly expressed normative requirements, we rely
   on other text in [RFC1035] that makes use of the definite article or
   other text
   that implies a singular question and, by implication, QDCOUNT = 1.

   For example, Section 4.1: 4.1 of [RFC1035] states the following:

      "the question for the name server

   and:

      The server"

   and

      "The question section contains fields that describe a question to
      a name server

   and in server."

   And per Section 4.1.1. 4.1.1 ("Header section format"):

      AA format") of [RFC1035]:

      "AA: Authoritative Answer - this bit is valid in responses, and
      specifies that the responding name server is an authority for the
      domain name in question section. section."

   DNS Cookies [RFC7873] in Section (Section 5.4 of [RFC7873]) allow a client to receive a
   valid Server Cookie without sending a specific question by sending a
   request (QR = 0) with OPCODE = 0 and QDCOUNT = 0, with the resulting
   response also containing no question.

   DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR) [RFC5936] in Section 2.2 of [RFC5936]) allows
   an authoritative server optionally to optionally send a response message (QR =
   1) to a standard AXFR Authoritative Transfer (AXFR) query (OPCODE = 0,
   QTYPE=252) with QDCOUNT = 0 in the second or subsequent message of a
   multi-message response.

A.2.  OPCODE = 4 (NOTIFY)

   DNS Notify [RFC1996] also lacks a clearly defined range of values for
   QDCOUNT.  Section 3.7 says:

      A states that:

      "A NOTIFY request has QDCOUNT > 0

   but QDCOUNT>0"

   However, all other text in the RFC talks about discusses the <QNAME, QCLASS,
   QTYPE> tuple in the singular. singular form.

A.3.  OPCODE = 5 (UPDATE)

   DNS Update [RFC2136] renames the QDCOUNT field to ZOCOUNT, but the
   value is constrained to be one by Section 2.3 ("Zone Section"):

      All

      "All records to be updated must be in the same zone, and therefore
      the Zone Section is allowed to contain exactly one record. record."

A.4.  OPCODE = 6 (DNS Stateful Operations, DSO)

   DNS Stateful Operations [RFC8490] (DSO - OpCode 6) attempts to
   preserve compatibility with the standard DNS 12 octet 12-octet header, and it
   does so by requiring that all four of the section count values be set
   to zero.

A.5.  Conclusion

   There is no text in [RFC1035] that describes how other parameters in
   the DNS message such as AA, RCODE should be interpreted in the case
   where a message includes more than one question.  An originator of a
   query with QDCOUNT > 1 can have no expectations of how it will be
   processed, and the receiver of a response with QDCOUNT > 1 has no
   guidance for how it should be interpreted.

   The allowable values of QDCOUNT seem to be clearly specified for
   OPCODE = 4 (NOTIFY), OPCODE = 5 (UPDATE) (UPDATE), and OPCODE = 6 (DNS
   Stateful Operations, DSO).  OPCODE = 1 (IQUERY) is obsolete and
   OPCODE = 2 (STATUS) is not specified.  OPCODE = 3 is reserved.

   However, the allowable values of QDCOUNT for OPCODE = 0 (QUERY) are
   specified in [RFC1035] without the clarity of normative language, and
   this looseness of language results in some ambiguity.

Acknowledgements

   The clarifications in this document were prompted by questions posed
   by Ted Lemon, which reminded the authors of earlier, similar
   questions and motivated them to pick up their pens.  Ondrej Sury,
   Warren Kumari, Peter Thomassen, Mark Andrews, Lars-Johan Liman, Jim
   Reid, and Niall O'Reilly provided useful feedback.

Authors' Addresses

   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

   Joe Abley
   Cloudflare
   Amsterdam
   Netherlands
   Phone: +31 6 45 56 36 34
   Email: jabley@cloudflare.com