



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                       W. Hardaker
Request for Comments: 9904                                       USC/ISI
Obsoletes: 8624                                                W. Kumari
Updates: 9157                                                     Google
Category: Standards Track                                  November 2025
ISSN: 2070-1721


      DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendation Update Process

Abstract

   The DNSSEC protocol makes use of various cryptographic algorithms to
   provide authentication of DNS data and proof of nonexistence.  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 replaces and obsoletes RFC 8624 and moves the canonical
   source of algorithm implementation requirements and usage guidance
   for DNSSEC from RFC 8624 to the IANA DNSSEC algorithm registries.
   This is done to allow the list of requirements to be more easily
   updated and referenced.  Extensions to these registries can be made
   in future RFCs.  This document also updates RFC 9157 and incorporates
   the revised IANA DNSSEC considerations from that RFC.

   This document does not change the recommendation status (MUST, MAY,
   RECOMMENDED, etc.) of the algorithms listed in RFC 8624; that is the
   work of future documents.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   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/rfc9904.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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
     1.1.  Document Audience
     1.2.  Updating Algorithm Requirement Levels
     1.3.  Requirements Notation
   2.  Adding Usage and Implementation Recommendations to the IANA
           DNSSEC Algorithm Registries
     2.1.  Column Descriptions
     2.2.  Adding and Changing Values
   3.  DNS Security Algorithm Numbers Registry Column Values
   4.  Digest Algorithms Registry Column Values
   5.  Security Considerations
   6.  Operational Considerations
   7.  IANA Considerations
     7.1.  Update to the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers Registry
     7.2.  Update to the Digest Algorithms Registry
   8.  References
     8.1.  Normative References
     8.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

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], and [RFC8080].

   To ensure interoperability, a set of "mandatory-to-implement" DNS
   Public Key (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.
   This document also incorporates the revised IANA DNSSEC
   considerations from [RFC9157].  Additionally, as advice to operators,
   it adds recommendations for deploying and using these algorithms.

   This is similar to the process used for the "TLS Cipher Suites"
   registry [TLS-ciphersuites], where the canonical list of cipher
   suites is in the IANA registry, and RFCs reference the IANA registry.

1.1.  Document Audience

   The columns added to the IANA "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
   [DNSKEY-IANA] and "Digest Algorithms" [DS-IANA] registries target
   DNSSEC operators and implementers.

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

   The field of cryptography evolves continuously.  New, stronger
   algorithms appear, and existing algorithms may be found to be less
   secure than 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 the deprecation of
   algorithms deemed to no longer be secure.

   Implementations need to be conservative in the selection of
   algorithms they implement in order to minimize both code complexity
   and the attack surface.

   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 deployed regardless of
   implementation status.  In general, it is expected that deployment of
   aging algorithms should generally be reduced before implementations
   stop supporting them.

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 that
   have been downgraded to NOT RECOMMENDED or lower not be used by
   authoritative nameservers and DNSSEC signers to create new DNSKEYs.
   This ensures that the use of deprecated algorithms decreases 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 to be equivalent to RECOMMENDED,
   and SHOULD NOT equivalent to NOT RECOMMENDED.  This document has
   chosen to use the terms RECOMMENDED and NOT RECOMMENDED, as this more
   clearly expresses the recommendations to implementers.

2.  Adding Usage and Implementation Recommendations to the IANA DNSSEC
    Algorithm Registries

   Per this document, the following columns have been added to the
   corresponding DNSSEC algorithm registries maintained by IANA:

   +================================+=================================+
   | Registry                       | Column Added                    |
   +================================+=================================+
   | DNS Security Algorithm Numbers | Use for DNSSEC Signing          |
   +--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | DNS Security Algorithm Numbers | Use for DNSSEC Validation       |
   +--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | DNS Security Algorithm Numbers | Implement for DNSSEC Signing    |
   +--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | DNS Security Algorithm Numbers | Implement for DNSSEC Validation |
   +--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | Digest Algorithms              | Use for DNSSEC Delegation       |
   +--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | Digest Algorithms              | Use for DNSSEC Validation       |
   +--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | Digest Algorithms              | Implement for DNSSEC Delegation |
   +--------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | Digest Algorithms              | Implement for DNSSEC Validation |
   +--------------------------------+---------------------------------+

      Table 1: Columns Added to Existing DNSSEC Algorithm Registries

2.1.  Column Descriptions

   The intended usage of the four columns in the "DNS Security Algorithm
   Numbers" registry is as follows:

   Use for DNSSEC Signing:  Indicates the recommendation for using the
      algorithm within authoritative servers.

   Use for DNSSEC Validation:  Indicates the recommendation for using
      the algorithm in DNSSEC validators.

   Implement for DNSSEC Signing:  Indicates the recommendation for
      implementing the algorithm within DNSSEC signing software.

   Implement for DNSSEC Validation:  Indicates the recommendation for
      implementing the algorithm within DNSSEC validators.

   The intended usage of the four columns in the "Digest Algorithms"
   registry is as follows:

   Use for DNSSEC Delegation:  Indicates the recommendation for using
      the algorithm within authoritative servers.

   Use for DNSSEC Validation:  Indicates the recommendation for using
      the algorithm in DNSSEC validators.

   Implement for DNSSEC Delegation:  Indicates the recommendation for
      implementing the algorithm within authoritative servers.

   Implement for DNSSEC Validation:  Indicates the recommendation for
      implementing the algorithm within validating resolvers.

2.2.  Adding and Changing Values

   The following note describing the procedures for adding and changing
   values has been added to the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
   registry:

   |  Adding a new entry to the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers"
   |  registry with a recommended value of "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC
   |  Signing", "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC
   |  Signing", or "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns will be
   |  subject to the Specification Required policy as defined in
   |  [RFC8126] in order to promote continued evolution of DNSSEC
   |  algorithms and DNSSEC agility.  New entries added through the
   |  Specification Required process will have the value of "MAY" for
   |  all columns.
   |  
   |  Adding a new entry to, or changing an existing value in, the "DNS
   |  Security Algorithm Numbers" registry that has any value other than
   |  "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Signing", "Use for DNSSEC
   |  Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Signing", or "Implement for
   |  DNSSEC Validation" columns requires 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 note has been added to the "Digest Algorithms"
   registry:

   |  Adding a new entry to the "Digest Algorithms" registry with a
   |  recommended value of "MAY" in the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation",
   |  "Use for DNSSEC Validation", "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", or
   |  "Implement for DNSSEC Validation" columns SHALL follow the
   |  Specification Required policy as defined in [RFC8126].
   |  
   |  Adding a new entry to, or changing an existing value in, the
   |  "Digest Algorithms" registry that has any value other than "MAY"
   |  in the "Use for DNSSEC Delegation", "Use for DNSSEC Validation",
   |  "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation", or "Implement for DNSSEC
   |  Validation" columns requires 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.

   Only values of "MAY", "RECOMMENDED", "MUST NOT", and "NOT
   RECOMMENDED" may be placed into the "Use for DNSSEC Signing" and "Use
   for DNSSEC Validation" columns.  Only values of "MAY", "RECOMMENDED",
   "MUST", "MUST NOT", and "NOT RECOMMENDED" may be placed into the
   "Implement for DNSSEC Signing" and "Implement for DNSSEC Validation"
   columns.  Note that a value of "MUST" is not an allowed value for the
   two "Use for" columns.

   The following sections state the initial values that have been
   populated into these columns.  The values in the "Implement for"
   columns are transcribed from [RFC8624].  The "Use for" columns are
   set to the same values as those in the "Implement for" columns since
   the general interpretation to date indicates they have been treated
   as values for both "use" and "implementation".  Note that the value
   in the "Use for" column is "RECOMMENDED" when the value in the
   corresponding "Implement for" column is "MUST".  We note that the
   values for "Implement for" and "Use for" may diverge in the future as
   implementations generally precede deployments.

3.  DNS Security Algorithm Numbers Registry Column Values

   Initial values for the use and implementation recommendation columns
   in the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry under the "Domain
   Name System Security (DNSSEC) Algorithm Numbers" registry group are
   shown in Table 2.

   When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "Use for"
   columns, operators should choose the best algorithm according to
   local policy.

   +===+===============+===========+===========+===========+===========+
   |No.|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|
   +---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |17 |SM2SM3         |MAY        |MAY        |MAY        |MAY        |
   +---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |23 |ECC-GOST12     |MAY        |MAY        |MAY        |MAY        |
   +---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |253|PRIVATEDNS     |MAY        |MAY        |MAY        |MAY        |
   +---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
   |254|PRIVATEOID     |MAY        |MAY        |MAY        |MAY        |
   +---+---------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

       Table 2: Initial Values for the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers
                              Registry Columns

4.  Digest Algorithms Registry Column Values

   Initial values for the use and implementation recommendation columns
   in the "Digest Algorithms" registry under the "DNSSEC Delegation
   Signer (DS) Resource Record (RR) Type Digest Algorithms" registry
   group are shown in Table 3.

   When there are multiple RECOMMENDED algorithms in the "Use for"
   columns, operators should choose the best algorithm according to
   local policy.

   +=====+===========+===========+===========+==========+=============+
   |Value|Description|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 |
   +-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
   |5    |GOST R     |MAY        |MAY        |MAY       | MAY         |
   |     |34.11-2012 |           |           |          |             |
   +-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+
   |6    |SM3        |MAY        |MAY        |MAY       | MAY         |
   +-----+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+-------------+

    Table 3: Initial Values for the Digest Algorithms Registry Columns

5.  Security Considerations

   The security of cryptographic systems depends on the strength of both
   the cryptographic algorithms chosen and 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.  In this document, the
   algorithms identified 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 adequately
   secure unless significant and unexpected discovery is made.  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 only after
   careful consideration and ideally slowly when possible.

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 an algorithm at the same time as rolling to the new Key
   Signing Key (KSK) key will lead to DNSSEC validation failures, and
   users MUST upgrade the DS algorithm first before rolling to a new
   KSK.

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has updated the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" [DNSKEY-IANA]
   and "Digest Algorithms" [DS-IANA] registries according to the
   sections that follow.

7.1.  Update to the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers Registry

   IANA has updated the "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers" registry
   [DNSKEY-IANA] with the following columns and has populated these
   columns with the values from Table 2 of this document:

   *  "Use for DNSSEC Signing"

   *  "Use for DNSSEC Validation"

   *  "Implement for DNSSEC Signing"

   *  "Implement for DNSSEC Validation"

   Additionally, IANA has completed the following actions for the "DNS
   Security Algorithm Numbers" registry [DNSKEY-IANA]:

   *  Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or
      Specification Required.

   *  Added a note to the registry that describes the values not marked
      as "RECOMMENDED" per Section 2.2.

   *  Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.

7.2.  Update to the Digest Algorithms Registry

   IANA has updated the "Digest Algorithms" registry [DS-IANA] with the
   following columns and has populated these columns with the values
   from Table 3 of this document:

   *  "Use for DNSSEC Delegation"

   *  "Use for DNSSEC Validation"

   *  "Implement for DNSSEC Delegation"

   *  "Implement for DNSSEC Validation"

   Additionally, IANA has completed the following actions for the
   "Digest Algorithms" registry [DS-IANA]:

   *  Changed the registration procedure to Standards Action or
      Specification Required.

   *  Added a note to the registry that describes the values not marked
      as "RECOMMENDED" per Section 2.2.

   *  Listed this document as an additional reference for the registry.

   *  Marked values 128-252 as "Reserved".

   *  Marked values 253 and 254 as "Reserved for Private Use".

   *  Deleted the (now superfluous) column "Status" from the registry.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [DNSKEY-IANA]
              IANA, "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers>.

   [DS-IANA]  IANA, "Digest Algorithms",
              <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/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [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>.

   [RFC9157]  Hoffman, P., "Revised IANA Considerations for DNSSEC",
              RFC 9157, DOI 10.17487/RFC9157, December 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9157>.

8.2.  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/info/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/info/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/info/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/info/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/info/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/info/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/info/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/info/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/info/rfc8080>.

   [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/info/rfc8624>.

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

   The content of this document was heavily discussed by participants of
   the DNSOP Working Group.  The authors 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 and also Nabeel Cocker, Shumon Huque,
   Nicolai Leymann, S.  Moonesamy, Magnus Nyström, Peter Thomassen,
   Stefan Ubbink, and Loganaden Velvindron for their reviews and
   comments.

Authors' Addresses

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


   Warren Kumari
   Google
   Email: warren@kumari.net
