Internet-Draft edns-presentation-and-json-format April 2024
Peltan & Carpay Expires 21 October 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format-03
Updates:
8427 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
L. Peltan
CZ.NIC
T. Carpay
NLnet Labs

EDNS Presentation and JSON Format

Abstract

This document describes the textual and JSON representation formats of EDNS options. It also modifies the escaping rules of the JSON representation of DNS messages, previously defined in RFC8427.

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 October 2024.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

A DNS record[RFC1035] of any type can be converted between its binary Wire format and textual Presentation format. The Wire format is used in DNS messages transferred over the Internet, while the Presentation format is used not only in Zone Files (called "master files" in the referenced document), but also to display the contents of DNS messages to humans by debugging utilities and possible other use-cases.

The Presentation format can, however, be processed programatically and also converted back to Wire Format unambiguously.

The EDNS[RFC6891] option pseudo-record does not appear in Zone Files, but it sometimes needs to be converted to human-readable or even machine-readable textual representation. This document describes such a Presentation Format of the OPT pseudo-record. It is advised to use this when displaying an OPT pseudo-record to humans. It is recommended to use this when the textual format is expected to be machine-processed further.

The JSON[RFC8259] representation[RFC8427] of DNS messages is also helpful as both human-readable and machine-readable format (despite the limitation in non-preservation of the order of options and possible issues with repeated options, which prevents reversing the conversion unambiguously), but it did not define a JSON representation of EDNS option pseudo-record. This document defines it.

The aforementioned document[RFC8427] also defined ambiguous and possibly conflicting rules for escaping special characters when representing DNS names in JSON. This document modifies and clarifies those rules.

2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document is to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. Generic EDNS Presentation Format

A malformed EDNS record or a record of an unsupported EDNS version can be converted to Presentation format using this generic method. OPT pseudo-record is, in this case, represented the same way as a RR of unknown type according to [RFC3597], Section 5. In specific:

Example:

. 16859136 CLASS1232 TYPE41 \# 6 000F00020015

4. Generic EDNS JSON representation

A malformed EDNS record or a record of an unsupported EDNS version can be converted to JSON using this generic method. The OPT pseudo-record is, in this case, represented in JSON as an object with following members:

Example:

{
    "NAME": ".",
    "TTL": 16859136,
    "CLASS": 1232,
    "TYPE": 41,
    "RDATAHEX": "000f00020015"
}

5. Common Concept

In order to represent the binary data from EDNS option textually, we first define the abstract concept of FIELDs. First four FIELDs represent the OPT record header, one more FIELD represents every EDNS option that appears in the OPT record RDATA. Each FIELD has a defined FIELD-NAME, which is an ID-string; a specific FIELD-TYPE from the list below; and prescribed way how to construct the FIELD-VALUE from given binary data. Based on those, the Presentaion and JSON formats are defined in Section 6 and Section 7, respectively.

The FIELD-NAMEs of FIELDs representing the OPT record header are version, flags, rcode and udpsize. The FIELD-NAMEs of FIELDs representing EDNS options are defined as their Mnemonics according to [IANA.EDNS.Options] (see also Section 14).

A FIELD-TYPE can be one of following:

The FIELD-TYPE and the construction of FIELD-VALUE of each FIELD is defined in Section 8.

6. EDNS Presentation Format

The EDNS Presentation Format follows the RR format of the master file ([RFC1035], Section 5.1), including quotation of non-printable characters, multi-line format using round brackets, and semicolons denoting comments. However, one difference is that <character-string>s are not limited in size (to 255 represented octets).

Depending on the use-case, implementations MAY choose to display only RDATA. In the event that the resource-record-like Presentation format is desired, the following applies:

RDATA consists of <character-string>s, each FIELD is represented by at least two of them. First represented FIELDs are version, flags, rcode, and udpsize in this order; however, version MAY be omitted if the EDNS Version is zero. The rest of FIELDs respect the EDNS options in the same order as they appear in the OPT record, including possibly repeated options. The following paragraph defines how a single FIELD is represented with <character-string>s.

The first <character-string> is the FIELD-NAME concatenated (no spaces in between) with a colon (:) and SHOULD NOT be enclosed in quotes. The rest depends on the FIELD-TYPE:

Note that each object has fixed number of <character-string>s, other types have one. This is cruical for parsing, the colon plays only decorative role, strings might also end with a colon.

7. EDNS Representation in JSON

The EDNS OPT record can be represented in JSON as an object called EDNS. Each FIELD is represented as one object member (name-value pair) ,where the name is FIELD-NAME and the value depends on FIELD-TYPE:

Note that the order of members is not preserved in JSON and that repeated options might cause issues in JSON. The FIELDs flags, rcode, and udpsize MUST be represented, version MAY be omitted if the EDNS Version is zero.

8. Field Definitions

8.1. Version

EDNS Version is represented by FIELD-NAME version, its FIELD-TYPE is int and FIELD-VALUE is the EDNS Version.

8.2. Flags

EDNS FLAGS is represented by FIELD-NAME flags and its FIELD-TYPE is a list of mixed:

  • ID-NAME DO if the DO bit is set

  • ID-CODE BITn for each n-th bit (other than DO) set

Examples of Presentation format:

flags: ""
flags: DO,BIT1
flags: BIT3,BIT7,BIT14

8.3. Extended RCODE

Extended RCODE is represented by FIELD-NAME rcode and its FIELD-TYPE is a mixed.

For the sake of readability, it is RECOMMENDED to compute the whole DNS Message Extended RCODE from both the OPT record and the DNS Message Header. If the whole DNS Message Extended RCODE is computed and has a mnemonic in [IANA.RCODEs], the FIELD-VALUE MAY be this mnemonic as ID-NAME. If the whole DNS Message Extended RCODE is computed and no mnemonic is available (or used), the FIELD-VALUE is an int with the computed Extended RCODE. If the whole DNS Message Extended RCODE cannot be computed, the FIELD-VALUE is an ID-CODE EXT##, where ## stands for DNS Message Extended RCODE with the lower four bits set to zero (i.e. the four-bit left shift still applies).

Examples of Presentation format:

rcode: NXDOMAIN
rcode: 3841
rcode: EXT3840

8.4. UDP Payload Size

UDP Payload Size is represented by FIELD-NAME udpsize, its FIELD-TYPE is int and FIELD-VALUE is the UDP Payload Size.

8.5. Unrecognized Option

EDNS options that are not part of this specification, and their own specifications do not specify their FIELD-NAME and FIELD-VALUE MUST be displayed according to this subsection. Other options (specified below or otherwise) MAY be displayed so as well.

Unrecognized EDNS option is represented by FIELD-NAME OPT##, where ## stands for its OPTION-CODE, its FIELD-TYPE is base16 and FIELD-VALUE is its OPTION-VALUE encoded as Base16.

8.6. LLQ Option

The LLQ (OPTION-CODE 1 [RFC8764]) option is represented as unrecognized (Section 8.5), since this option has been deprecated since year 2020.

8.7. NSID Option

The NSID (OPTION-CODE 3 [RFC5001]) option is represented by FIELD-NAME NSID and its FIELD-VALUE is an object with two SUBFIELDs in the following order:

  • first FIELD-NAME is HEX and FIELD-VALUE is a base16 representation of the OPTION-VALUE

  • second FIELD-NAME is TEXT and FIELD-VALUE is a string representation of the OPTION-VALUE

The TEXT value MAY be substituted with an empty string (for example, if the OPTION-VALUE contains non-printable characters). Within JSON, the TEXT SUBFIELD MAY be omitted if it is an empty string.

8.8. DAU, DHU and N3U Options

The DAU, DHU, and N3U (OPTION-CODES 5, 6, 7, respectively [RFC6975]) options are represented by FIELD-NAMEs DAU, DHU, and N3U, respectively, and their FIELD-VALUES are lists of ints with their ALG-CODEs.

Within Presentation format, their FIELD-VALUEs MAY be substituted with lists of ID-NAMEs with the textual mnemonics of the ALG-CODEs found in their respective IANA registries [IANA.EDNS.DAU][IANA.EDNS.DHU][IANA.EDNS.N3U].

Examples of Presentation format:

DAU: 8,10,13,14,15
DHU: 1,2,4
N3U: 1
DAU: RSASHA256,RSASHA512,ECDSAP256SHA256,ECDSAP384SHA384,ED25519
DHU: SHA-1,SHA-256,SHA-384
N3U: SHA-1

8.9. Edns-Client-Subnet Option

The EDNS Client Subnet (OPTION-CODE 8 [RFC7871]) option is represented by FIELD-NAME ECS and its FIELD-TYPE is a string. If FAMILY is either IPv4 (1) or IPv6 (2) and the OPTION-LENGTH matches the expected length, the FIELD-VALUE is a slash-separated (no spaces) tuple of:

  • the textual IPv4 or IPv6 address ([RFC1035], Section 3.4.1 or [RFC5952], Section 4, respectively)

  • SOURCE PREFIX-LENGTH as a decadic number

  • SCOPE PREFIX-LENGTH as a decadic number, SHOULD be omitted (including the separating slash) if zero

Otherwise, the FIELD-VALUE is a string with base16-representation of the OPTION-VALUE.

Examples of Presentation format:

ECS: "1.2.3.4/24"
ECS: "1234::2/56/48"
ECS: "000520000102030405060708"

8.10. EDNS EXPIRE Option

The EDNS EXPIRE (OPTION-CODE 9 [RFC7314]) option is represented by FIELD-NAME EXPIRE and its FIELD-VALUE is a mixed:

  • ID-NAME NONE if OPTION-LENGTH is zero

  • int with EXPIRE value otherwise

8.12. Edns-Tcp-Keepalive Option

The edns-tcp-keepalive (OPTION-CODE 11 [RFC7828]) option is represented by FIELD-NAME KEEPALIVE and its FIELD-VALUE is an int with the TIMEOUT in tenths of seconds.

8.13. Padding Option

The Padding (OPTION-CODE 12 [RFC7830]) option is represented by FIELD-NAME PADDING and its FIELD-VALUE is an object with two SUBFIELDs:

  • first FIELD-NAME is LENGTH and its FIELD-VALUE is the OPTION-LENGTH as int

  • second FIELD-NAME is HEX and its FIELD-VALUE is a string with base16-representation of OPTION-DATA

If the OPTION-DATA consists only of zeroes (0x00 octets), the HEX SUBFIELD SHOULD be an empty string. Within JSON, the HEX SUBFIELD MAY be omitted if it is an empty string.

8.14. CHAIN Option

The CHAIN (OPTION-CODE 13 [RFC7901]) option is represented by FIELD-NAME CHAIN and its FIELD-VALUE is the Closest trust point as dname.

8.15. Edns-Key-Tag Option

The edns-key-tag (OPTION-CODE 14 [RFC8145], Section 4) option is represented by FIELD-NAME KEYTAG and its FIELD-VALUE is the list of Key Tag values as list of ints.

8.16. Extended DNS Error Option

The Extended DNS Error (OPTION-CODE 15 [RFC8914]) option is represented by FIELD-NAME EDE and its FIELD-VALUE is an object with three SUBFIELDs:

  • first FIELD-NAME is CODE and its FIELD-VALUE is the INFO-CODE as int

  • second FIELD-NAME is Purpose and its FIELD-VALUE is the Purpose (first presented in [RFC8914], Section 5.2 and then governed by [IANA.EDNS.EDE]) as string, or an empty string

  • third FIELD-NAME is TEXT and its FIELD-VALUE is the EXTRA-TEXT as string (possibly of zero length)

Within JSON, the Purpose SUBFIELD MAY be omitted if it is an empty string. The same applies for TEXT SUBFIELD.

Examples of Presentation format:

EDE: 18 "Prohibited" ""
EDE: 6 "DNSSEC Bogus" "signature too short"

8.17. Report-Channel Option

The Report-Channel (OPTION-CODE 18) option is represented by FIELD-NAME REPORT and its FIELD-VALUE is the AGENT DOMAIN as dname.

Example of JSON format:

"REPORT": "back\\\\slash.example.com."

9. Examples of EDNS Presentation Format

The following examples shall illustrate the features of EDNS Presentation format described above. They may not make much sense and should not appear in normal DNS operation.

. 0 ANY EDNS (
    version: 0
    flags: DO
    rcode: BADCOOKIE
    udpsize: 1232
    EXPIRE: 86400
    COOKIE: 36714f2e8805a93d,4654b4ed3279001b
    EDE: 18 "Prohibited" "bad cookie\000"
    OPT1234: 000004d2
    PADDING: 113 ""
    )
. 0 ANY EDNS ( flags: 0 rcode: BADSIG udpsize: 4096 EXPIRE: NONE
               NSID: 6578616d706c652e636f6d2e "example.com."
               DAU: 8,10 KEEPALIVE: 600 CHAIN: zerobyte\000.com.
               KEYTAG: 36651,6113 PADDING: 8 "df24d08b0258c7de" )

10. Examples of EDNS Representation in JSON

The following examples are the JSON equivalents of the examples in Section 9. They may not make much sense and should not appear in normal DNS operation.

"EDNS": {
    "version": 0,
    "flags": [ "DO" ],
    "rcode": "BADCOOKIE",
    "udpsize": 1232,
    "EXPIRE": 86400,
    "COOKIE": [ "36714f2e8805a93d", "4654b4ed3279001b" ],
    "EDE": {
        "CODE": 18,
        "Purpose": "Prohibited",
        "TEXT": "bad cookie\u0000"
    },
    "OPT1234": "000004d2",
    "PADDING": {
        "LENGTH": 113
    }
}
"EDNS": { "flags": [ ], "rcode": "BADSIG", "udpsize": 4096,
          "EXPIRE": "NONE", "NSID": { "HEX": "6578616d706c652e636f6d2e",
          "TXT": "example.com." }, "DAU": [ 8, 10 ], "KEEPALIVE": 600,
          "CHAIN": "zerobyte\\000.com.", "KEYTAG": [ 36651, 6113 ],
          "PADDING": { "LENGTH": 8, "HEX": "df24d08b0258c7de" } }

11. Guidelines for Future EDNS Options

This draft describes the presentation and JSON format of those ENDS options that are known at the time of writing. Other EDNS options fall in the category of Unrecognized Options (Section 8.5), unless specified otherwise. The following guidelines shall help define them.

When defining new EDNS options, it is recommended to specify their FIELD-NAMEs, FIELD-TYPEs and the construction of FIELD-VALUEs so that the EDNS Presentation and JSON format comprehensibly handles them. Those formats should follow the semantics of the options' values rather than the syntax in order to make them more human-readable. If it is necessary to define a new FIELD-TYPE, care must be taken to define its representation in Presentation and JSON format in a similar fashion like in this document.

The FIELD-NAME MUST always be an ID-string and MUST be added as new option's Mnemonic when requesting IANA to add respective entry to the table [IANA.EDNS.Options].

12. Forward-Compatibility Considerations

This specification of ENDS Presentation and JSON format prefers displaying textual mnemonics over potentially cryptic numeric values wherever possible, which is desirable for human readers. It refers to several IANA tables collecting the definitions of those mnemonics. Those tables may be getting updated throughout time, and for human readers, it is still beneficial that the EDNS formats reflect those updates. However, this may cause difficulties for algorithms implementing the reverse process of converting EDNS Presentation and/or JSON format back to wire format, because they might not understand some new mnemonics. This limitation has to be taken into consideration.

Similarly, new documents may define Presentation and JSON format of newly defined EDNS options according to (or not according to) the guidelines above (Section 11). This is, again, beneficial for human readers, as otherwise all new EDNS options would have to be represented as Unrecognized Options (Section 8.5). However, this may also cause difficulties for algorithms implementing the reverse process of converting EDNS Presentation and/or JSON format back to wire format, because they might not understand some new options.

13. Update Representing DNS Messages in JSON

This section is not related to EDNS. This section updates [RFC8427], Section 2.6, including erratum 5439, which introduced contradicting MUSTs for escaping backslashes.

In order to solve this contradiction and correctly represent a DNS name in JSON, it MUST be first converted to textual Presentation format according to [RFC1035], Section 5.1 (called master file format in the referenced document), and the resulting <character-string> subsequently is inserted into JSON as String ([RFC8259], Section 7).

Note that the previous paragraph prescribes the following escaping strategy: In the first step, every problematic character (non-printable, backslash, dot within Label, or any octet) is either substituted with the sequence \DDD, where DDD is the three-digit decimal ASCII code, or in some cases (backslash, dot, any printable character) just prepended with a backslash. In the second step, every quote (") and backslash (\) in the resulting <character-string> is prepended with another backslash. Note that the JSON escaping sequence \uXXXX (where XXXX is a hexadecimal Unicode code) is thus never needed.

Moreover, the following requirements from [RFC8427] still hold: The name MUST be represented as an absolute Fully-Qualified Domain Name. Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) labels MUST be expressed in their A-label form, as described in [RFC5890].

Example: the name with the Wire format 04005C2E2203636F6D00 can be represented in JSON as:

"NAME": "\\000\\\\\\046\".com."

but also as (among other ways):

"NAME": "\\000\\092\\.\\\".c\\om."

14. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to augment the table [IANA.EDNS.Options] with a new column titled "Mnemonic", possibly as third column between "Name" and "Status". The initial values for existing entries are according to the table below:

Table 1
Value Name Mnemonic
1 LLQ LLQ
2 UL UL
3 NSID NSID
5 DAU DAU
6 DHU DHU
7 N3U N3U
8 edns-client-subnet ECS
9 EDNS EXPIRE EXPIRE
10 COOKIE COOKIE
11 edns-tcp-keepalive KEEPALIVE
12 Padding PADDING
13 CHAIN CHAIN
14 edns-key-tag KEYTAG
15 Extended DNS Error EDE
18 Report-Channel REPORT

The values for entries and rows that are unassigned, reserved or on-hold are to be left blank with no Mnemonic defined.

15. Security Considerations

This document only describes the textual representation of binary data and therefore has no security impact on related protocols.

When implementing software, care must be taken to handle possibly inconsistent or broken input data.

16. Acknowledgements

TODO

17. Implementation Status

Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove this entire appendix before publication.

This version of this specification draft-peltan-edns-presentation-format-02 has been implemented in Knot DNS 3.3.2.

18. Change History

Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove this entire appendix before publication.

19. References

19.1. Normative References

[RFC1035]
Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC6891]
Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891, DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
[RFC8259]
Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC8427]
Hoffman, P., "Representing DNS Messages in JSON", RFC 8427, DOI 10.17487/RFC8427, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8427>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC4648]
Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC3597]
Gustafsson, A., "Handling of Unknown DNS Resource Record (RR) Types", RFC 3597, DOI 10.17487/RFC3597, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3597>.
[RFC5890]
Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC6975]
Crocker, S. and S. Rose, "Signaling Cryptographic Algorithm Understanding in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", RFC 6975, DOI 10.17487/RFC6975, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6975>.
[RFC5952]
Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5952>.

19.2. Informative References

[IANA.RCODEs]
"DNS RCODEs", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-parameters-6>.
[IANA.EDNS.Options]
"DNS EDNS0 Option Codes", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-parameters-11>.
[IANA.EDNS.EDE]
"EDNS Extended Error Codes", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#extended-dns-error-codes>.
[IANA.EDNS.DAU]
"DNS Security Algorithm Numbers", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml>.
[IANA.EDNS.DHU]
"DNSSEC DS RR Type Digest Algorithms", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ds-rr-types/ds-rr-types.xhtml#ds-rr-types-1>.
[IANA.EDNS.N3U]
"DNSSEC NSEC3 Hash Algorithms", n.d., <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dnssec-nsec3-parameters/dnssec-nsec3-parameters.xhtml#dnssec-nsec3-parameters-3>.
[RFC8764]
Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Apple's DNS Long-Lived Queries Protocol", RFC 8764, DOI 10.17487/RFC8764, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8764>.
[RFC5001]
Austein, R., "DNS Name Server Identifier (NSID) Option", RFC 5001, DOI 10.17487/RFC5001, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5001>.
[RFC7871]
Contavalli, C., van der Gaast, W., Lawrence, D., and W. Kumari, "Client Subnet in DNS Queries", RFC 7871, DOI 10.17487/RFC7871, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7871>.
[RFC7314]
Andrews, M., "Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS) EXPIRE Option", RFC 7314, DOI 10.17487/RFC7314, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7314>.
[RFC7873]
Eastlake 3rd, D. and M. Andrews, "Domain Name System (DNS) Cookies", RFC 7873, DOI 10.17487/RFC7873, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7873>.
[RFC7828]
Wouters, P., Abley, J., Dickinson, S., and R. Bellis, "The edns-tcp-keepalive EDNS0 Option", RFC 7828, DOI 10.17487/RFC7828, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7828>.
[RFC7830]
Mayrhofer, A., "The EDNS(0) Padding Option", RFC 7830, DOI 10.17487/RFC7830, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7830>.
[RFC7901]
Wouters, P., "CHAIN Query Requests in DNS", RFC 7901, DOI 10.17487/RFC7901, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7901>.
[RFC8145]
Wessels, D., Kumari, W., and P. Hoffman, "Signaling Trust Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", RFC 8145, DOI 10.17487/RFC8145, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8145>.
[RFC8914]
Kumari, W., Hunt, E., Arends, R., Hardaker, W., and D. Lawrence, "Extended DNS Errors", RFC 8914, DOI 10.17487/RFC8914, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8914>.

Authors' Addresses

Libor Peltan
CZ.NIC
Tom Carpay
NLnet Labs