Extended DNS Errors
A way for DNS servers to say why a query failed, not just that it failed.
Kumari, W., Hunt, E., Arends, R., Hardaker, W., and D. Lawrence, "Extended DNS Errors", RFC 8914, DOI 10.17487/RFC8914, October 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8914>.
@misc{rfc8914,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 8914,
howpublished = {RFC 8914},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC8914},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8914},
author = {W. Kumari and E. Hunt and R. Arends and W. Hardaker and D. Lawrence},
title = {{Extended DNS Errors}},
pagetotal = 13,
year = 2020,
month = oct,
} RFC text
Contents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) W. Kumari
Request for Comments: 8914 Google
Category: Standards Track E. Hunt
ISSN: 2070-1721 ISC
R. Arends
ICANN
W. Hardaker
USC/ISI
D. Lawrence
Salesforce
October 2020
Extended DNS Errors
Abstract
This document defines an extensible method to return additional
information about the cause of DNS errors. Though created primarily
to extend SERVFAIL to provide additional information about the cause
of DNS and DNSSEC failures, the Extended DNS Errors option defined in
this document allows all response types to contain extended error
information. Extended DNS Error information does not change the
processing of RCODEs.
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/rfc8914.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Background
1.1. Requirements Notation
2. Extended DNS Error EDNS0 Option Format
3. Extended DNS Error Processing
4. Defined Extended DNS Errors
4.1. Extended DNS Error Code 0 - Other
4.2. Extended DNS Error Code 1 - Unsupported DNSKEY Algorithm
4.3. Extended DNS Error Code 2 - Unsupported DS Digest Type
4.4. Extended DNS Error Code 3 - Stale Answer
4.5. Extended DNS Error Code 4 - Forged Answer
4.6. Extended DNS Error Code 5 - DNSSEC Indeterminate
4.7. Extended DNS Error Code 6 - DNSSEC Bogus
4.8. Extended DNS Error Code 7 - Signature Expired
4.9. Extended DNS Error Code 8 - Signature Not Yet Valid
4.10. Extended DNS Error Code 9 - DNSKEY Missing
4.11. Extended DNS Error Code 10 - RRSIGs Missing
4.12. Extended DNS Error Code 11 - No Zone Key Bit Set
4.13. Extended DNS Error Code 12 - NSEC Missing
4.14. Extended DNS Error Code 13 - Cached Error
4.15. Extended DNS Error Code 14 - Not Ready
4.16. Extended DNS Error Code 15 - Blocked
4.17. Extended DNS Error Code 16 - Censored
4.18. Extended DNS Error Code 17 - Filtered
4.19. Extended DNS Error Code 18 - Prohibited
4.20. Extended DNS Error Code 19 - Stale NXDOMAIN Answer
4.21. Extended DNS Error Code 20 - Not Authoritative
4.22. Extended DNS Error Code 21 - Not Supported
4.23. Extended DNS Error Code 22 - No Reachable Authority
4.24. Extended DNS Error Code 23 - Network Error
4.25. Extended DNS Error Code 24 - Invalid Data
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. A New Extended DNS Error Code EDNS Option
5.2. New Registry for Extended DNS Error Codes
6. Security Considerations
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction and Background
There are many reasons that a DNS query may fail -- some of them
transient, some permanent; some can be resolved by querying another
server, some are likely best handled by stopping resolution.
Unfortunately, the error signals that a DNS server can return are
very limited and are not very expressive. This means that
applications and resolvers often have to "guess" at what the issue
is, e.g., was the answer marked REFUSED because of a lame delegation
or because the nameserver is still starting up and loading zones? Is
a SERVFAIL a DNSSEC validation issue, or is the nameserver
experiencing some other failure? What error messages should be
presented to the user or logged under these conditions?
A good example of issues that would benefit from additional error
information are errors caused by DNSSEC validation issues. When a
stub resolver queries a name that is DNSSEC bogus [RFC8499] (using a
validating resolver), the stub resolver receives only a SERVFAIL in
response. Unfortunately, the SERVFAIL Response Code (RCODE) is used
to signal many sorts of DNS errors, and so the stub resolver's only
option is to ask the next configured DNS resolver. The result of
trying the next resolver is one of two outcomes: either the next
resolver also validates and a SERVFAIL is returned again or the next
resolver is not a validating resolver and the user is returned a
potentially harmful result. With an Extended DNS Error (EDE) option
enclosed in the response message, the resolver is able to return a
more descriptive reason as to why any failures happened or add
additional context to a message containing a NOERROR RCODE.
This document specifies a mechanism to extend DNS errors to provide
additional information about the cause of an error. The Extended DNS
Error codes described in this document can be used by any system that
sends DNS queries and receives a response containing an EDE option.
Different codes are useful in different circumstances, and thus
different systems (stub resolvers, recursive resolvers, and
authoritative resolvers) might receive and use them.
1.1. 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.
2. Extended DNS Error EDNS0 Option Format
This document uses an Extended Mechanism for DNS (EDNS0) [RFC6891]
option to include Extended DNS Error (EDE) information in DNS
messages. The option is structured as follows:
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
0: | OPTION-CODE |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2: | OPTION-LENGTH |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4: | INFO-CODE |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
6: / EXTRA-TEXT ... /
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Field definition details:
OPTION-CODE:
2 octets / 16 bits (defined in [RFC6891]) contains the value 15
for EDE.
OPTION-LENGTH:
2 octets / 16 bits (defined in [RFC6891]) contains the length of
the payload (everything after OPTION-LENGTH) in octets and should
be 2 plus the length of the EXTRA-TEXT field (which may be a zero-
length string).
INFO-CODE:
16 bits, which is the principal contribution of this document.
This 16-bit value, encoded in network most significant bit (MSB)
byte order, provides the additional context for the RESPONSE-CODE
of the DNS message. The INFO-CODE serves as an index into the
"Extended DNS Errors" registry, defined and created in
Section 5.2.
EXTRA-TEXT:
a variable-length, UTF-8-encoded [RFC5198] text field that may
hold additional textual information. This information is intended
for human consumption (not automated parsing). EDE text may be
null terminated but MUST NOT be assumed to be; the length MUST be
derived from the OPTION-LENGTH field. The EXTRA-TEXT field may be
zero octets in length, indicating that there is no EXTRA-TEXT
included. Care should be taken not to include private information
in the EXTRA-TEXT field that an observer would not otherwise have
access to, such as account numbers.
The Extended DNS Error (EDE) option can be included in any response
(SERVFAIL, NXDOMAIN, REFUSED, even NOERROR, etc.) to a query that
includes an OPT pseudo-RR [RFC6891]. This document includes a set of
initial codepoints but is extensible via the IANA registry defined
and created in Section 5.2.
3. Extended DNS Error Processing
When the response grows beyond the requestor's UDP payload size
[RFC6891], servers SHOULD truncate messages by dropping EDE options
before dropping other data from packets. Implementations SHOULD set
the truncation bit when dropping EDE options. Because long EXTRA-
TEXT fields may trigger truncation (which is undesirable given the
supplemental nature of EDE), implementers and operators creating EDE
options SHOULD avoid lengthy EXTRA-TEXT contents.
When a resolver or forwarder receives an EDE option, whether or not
(and how) to pass along EDE information on to their original client
is implementation dependent. Implementations MAY choose to not
forward information, or they MAY choose to create a new EDE option(s)
that conveys the information encoded in the received EDE. When doing
so, the source of the error SHOULD be attributed in the EXTRA-TEXT
field, since an EDNS0 option received by the original client will
appear to have come from the resolver or forwarder sending it.
This document does not allow or prohibit any particular extended
error codes and information to be matched with any particular RCODEs.
Some combinations of extended error codes and RCODEs may seem
nonsensical (such as resolver-specific extended error codes received
in responses from authoritative servers), so systems interpreting the
extended error codes MUST NOT assume that a combination will make
sense. Receivers MUST be able to accept EDE codes and EXTRA-TEXT in
all messages, including those with a NOERROR RCODE but need not act
on them. Applications MUST continue to follow requirements from
applicable specifications on how to process RCODEs no matter what EDE
values are also received. Senders MAY include more than one EDE
option and receivers MUST be able to accept (but not necessarily
process or act on) multiple EDE options in a DNS message.
4. Defined Extended DNS Errors
This document defines some initial EDE codes. The mechanism is
intended to be extensible, and additional codepoints can be
registered in the "Extended DNS Errors" registry (Section 5.2). The
INFO-CODE from the EDE EDNS option is used to serve as an index into
the "Extended DNS Error" IANA registry, the initial values for which
are defined in the following subsections.
4.1. Extended DNS Error Code 0 - Other
The error in question falls into a category that does not match known
extended error codes. Implementations SHOULD include an EXTRA-TEXT
value to augment this error code with additional information.
4.2. Extended DNS Error Code 1 - Unsupported DNSKEY Algorithm
The resolver attempted to perform DNSSEC validation, but a DNSKEY
RRset contained only unsupported DNSSEC algorithms.
4.3. Extended DNS Error Code 2 - Unsupported DS Digest Type
The resolver attempted to perform DNSSEC validation, but a DS RRset
contained only unsupported Digest Types.
4.4. Extended DNS Error Code 3 - Stale Answer
The resolver was unable to resolve the answer within its time limits
and decided to answer with previously cached data instead of
answering with an error. This is typically caused by problems
communicating with an authoritative server, possibly as result of a
denial of service (DoS) attack against another network. (See also
Code 19.)
4.5. Extended DNS Error Code 4 - Forged Answer
For policy reasons (legal obligation or malware filtering, for
instance), an answer was forged. Note that this should be used when
an answer is still provided, not when failure codes are returned
instead. See Blocked (15), Censored (16), and Filtered (17) for use
when returning other response codes.
4.6. Extended DNS Error Code 5 - DNSSEC Indeterminate
The resolver attempted to perform DNSSEC validation, but validation
ended in the Indeterminate state [RFC4035].
4.7. Extended DNS Error Code 6 - DNSSEC Bogus
The resolver attempted to perform DNSSEC validation, but validation
ended in the Bogus state.
4.8. Extended DNS Error Code 7 - Signature Expired
The resolver attempted to perform DNSSEC validation, but no
signatures are presently valid and some (often all) are expired.
4.9. Extended DNS Error Code 8 - Signature Not Yet Valid
The resolver attempted to perform DNSSEC validation, but no
signatures are presently valid and at least some are not yet valid.
4.10. Extended DNS Error Code 9 - DNSKEY Missing
A DS record existed at a parent, but no supported matching DNSKEY
record could be found for the child.
4.11. Extended DNS Error Code 10 - RRSIGs Missing
The resolver attempted to perform DNSSEC validation, but no RRSIGs
could be found for at least one RRset where RRSIGs were expected.
4.12. Extended DNS Error Code 11 - No Zone Key Bit Set
The resolver attempted to perform DNSSEC validation, but no Zone Key
Bit was set in a DNSKEY.
4.13. Extended DNS Error Code 12 - NSEC Missing
The resolver attempted to perform DNSSEC validation, but the
requested data was missing and a covering NSEC or NSEC3 was not
provided.
4.14. Extended DNS Error Code 13 - Cached Error
The resolver is returning the SERVFAIL RCODE from its cache.
4.15. Extended DNS Error Code 14 - Not Ready
The server is unable to answer the query, as it was not fully
functional when the query was received.
4.16. Extended DNS Error Code 15 - Blocked
The server is unable to respond to the request because the domain is
on a blocklist due to an internal security policy imposed by the
operator of the server resolving or forwarding the query.
4.17. Extended DNS Error Code 16 - Censored
The server is unable to respond to the request because the domain is
on a blocklist due to an external requirement imposed by an entity
other than the operator of the server resolving or forwarding the
query. Note that how the imposed policy is applied is irrelevant
(in-band DNS filtering, court order, etc.).
4.18. Extended DNS Error Code 17 - Filtered
The server is unable to respond to the request because the domain is
on a blocklist as requested by the client. Functionally, this
amounts to "you requested that we filter domains like this one."
4.19. Extended DNS Error Code 18 - Prohibited
An authoritative server or recursive resolver that receives a query
from an "unauthorized" client can annotate its REFUSED message with
this code. Examples of "unauthorized" clients are recursive queries
from IP addresses outside the network, blocklisted IP addresses,
local policy, etc.
4.20. Extended DNS Error Code 19 - Stale NXDOMAIN Answer
The resolver was unable to resolve an answer within its configured
time limits and decided to answer with a previously cached NXDOMAIN
answer instead of answering with an error. This may be caused, for
example, by problems communicating with an authoritative server,
possibly as result of a denial of service (DoS) attack against
another network. (See also Code 3.)
4.21. Extended DNS Error Code 20 - Not Authoritative
An authoritative server that receives a query with the Recursion
Desired (RD) bit clear, or when it is not configured for recursion
for a domain for which it is not authoritative, SHOULD include this
EDE code in the REFUSED response. A resolver that receives a query
with the RD bit clear SHOULD include this EDE code in the REFUSED
response.
4.22. Extended DNS Error Code 21 - Not Supported
The requested operation or query is not supported.
4.23. Extended DNS Error Code 22 - No Reachable Authority
The resolver could not reach any of the authoritative name servers
(or they potentially refused to reply).
4.24. Extended DNS Error Code 23 - Network Error
An unrecoverable error occurred while communicating with another
server.
4.25. Extended DNS Error Code 24 - Invalid Data
The authoritative server cannot answer with data for a zone it is
otherwise configured to support. Examples of this include its most
recent zone being too old or having expired.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. A New Extended DNS Error Code EDNS Option
This document defines a new EDNS(0) option, entitled "Extended DNS
Error", with the assigned value of 15 from the "DNS EDNS0 Option
Codes (OPT)" registry:
+=======+====================+==========+===========+
| Value | Name | Status | Reference |
+=======+====================+==========+===========+
| 15 | Extended DNS Error | Standard | RFC 8914 |
+-------+--------------------+----------+-----------+
Table 1
5.2. New Registry for Extended DNS Error Codes
IANA has created and will maintain a new registry called "Extended
DNS Error Codes" on the "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters" web
page as follows:
+===============+=========================+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+===============+=========================+
| 0 - 49151 | First Come First Served |
+---------------+-------------------------+
| 49152 - 65535 | Private Use |
+---------------+-------------------------+
Table 2
The "Extended DNS Error Codes" registry is a table with three
columns: INFO-CODE, Purpose, and Reference. The initial content is
as below.
+=============+==============================+===============+
| INFO-CODE | Purpose | Reference |
+=============+==============================+===============+
| 0 | Other Error | Section 4.1 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | Unsupported DNSKEY Algorithm | Section 4.2 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | Unsupported DS Digest Type | Section 4.3 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 3 | Stale Answer | Section 4.4 |
| | | and [RFC8767] |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 4 | Forged Answer | Section 4.5 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 5 | DNSSEC Indeterminate | Section 4.6 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 6 | DNSSEC Bogus | Section 4.7 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 7 | Signature Expired | Section 4.8 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 8 | Signature Not Yet Valid | Section 4.9 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 9 | DNSKEY Missing | Section 4.10 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 10 | RRSIGs Missing | Section 4.11 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 11 | No Zone Key Bit Set | Section 4.12 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 12 | NSEC Missing | Section 4.13 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 13 | Cached Error | Section 4.14 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 14 | Not Ready | Section 4.15 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 15 | Blocked | Section 4.16 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 16 | Censored | Section 4.17 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 17 | Filtered | Section 4.18 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 18 | Prohibited | Section 4.19 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 19 | Stale NXDomain Answer | Section 4.20 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 20 | Not Authoritative | Section 4.21 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 21 | Not Supported | Section 4.22 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 22 | No Reachable Authority | Section 4.23 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 23 | Network Error | Section 4.24 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 24 | Invalid Data | Section 4.25 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 25-49151 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
| 49152-65535 | Reserved for Private Use | Section 5.2 |
+-------------+------------------------------+---------------+
Table 3
6. Security Considerations
Though DNSSEC continues to be deployed, unfortunately a significant
number of clients (~11% according to [GeoffValidation]) that receive
a SERVFAIL from a validating resolver because of a DNSSEC validation
issue will simply ask the next (potentially non-validating) resolver
in their list and thus don't get the protections that DNSSEC should
provide.
EDE information is unauthenticated information, unless secured by a
form of secured DNS transaction, such as [RFC2845], [RFC2931],
[RFC8094], or [RFC8484]. An attacker (e.g., a man in the middle
(MITM) or malicious recursive server) could insert an extended error
response into untrusted data -- although, ideally, clients and
resolvers would not trust any unauthenticated information. As such,
EDE content should be treated only as diagnostic information and MUST
NOT alter DNS protocol processing. Until all DNS answers are
authenticated via DNSSEC or the other mechanisms mentioned above,
there are some trade-offs. As an example, an attacker who is able to
insert the DNSSEC Bogus Extended Error into a DNS message could
instead simply reply with a fictitious address (A or AAAA) record.
Note that DNS RCODEs also contain no authentication and can be just
as easily manipulated.
By design, EDE potentially exposes additional information via DNS
resolution processes that may leak information. An example of this
is the Prohibited EDE code (18), which may leak the fact that the
name is on a blocklist.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.
[RFC5198] Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
Interchange", RFC 5198, DOI 10.17487/RFC5198, March 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5198>.
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
[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>.
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
[RFC8767] Lawrence, D., Kumari, W., and P. Sood, "Serving Stale Data
to Improve DNS Resiliency", RFC 8767,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8767, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8767>.
7.2. Informative References
[GeoffValidation]
Huston, G., "A quick review of DNSSEC Validation in
today's Internet", June 2016, <http://www.potaroo.net/
presentations/2016-06-27-dnssec.pdf>.
[RFC2845] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B.
Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS
(TSIG)", RFC 2845, DOI 10.17487/RFC2845, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2845>.
[RFC2931] Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, DOI 10.17487/RFC2931, September
2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2931>.
[RFC8094] Reddy, T., Wing, D., and P. Patil, "DNS over Datagram
Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 8094,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8094, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8094>.
[RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
(DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Joe Abley, Mark Andrews, Tim April,
Vittorio Bertola, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Vladimir Cunat, Ralph Dolmans,
Peter DeVries, Peter van Dijk, Mats Dufberg, Donald Eastlake, Bob
Harold, Paul Hoffman, Geoff Huston, Shane Kerr, Edward Lewis, Carlos
M. Martinez, George Michelson, Eric Orth, Michael Sheldon, Puneet
Sood, Petr Spacek, Ondrej Sury, John Todd, Loganaden Velvindron, and
Paul Vixie. They also vaguely remember discussing this with a number
of people over the years but have forgotten who all of them were.
Apologies if we forgot to acknowledge your contributions.
One author also wants to thank the band Infected Mushroom for
providing a good background soundtrack. Another author would like to
thank the band Mushroom Infectors. This was funny at the time we
wrote it, but we cannot remember why...
Authors' Addresses
Warren Kumari
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America
Email: warren@kumari.net
Evan Hunt
ISC
950 Charter St
Redwood City, CA 94063
United States of America
Email: each@isc.org
Roy Arends
ICANN
Email: roy.arends@icann.org
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
P.O. Box 382
Davis, CA 95617
United States of America
Email: ietf@hardakers.net
David C Lawrence
Salesforce
415 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94105
United States of America
Email: tale@dd.org
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Introduction and Background
There are many reasons a DNS query may fail: some are transient and some permanent; some can be resolved by querying another server, and some are best handled by stopping resolution. Unfortunately, the error signals a DNS server can return are very limited and not very expressive. Applications and resolvers often have to guess at the issue. Was the answer marked REFUSED because of a lame delegation, or because the nameserver is still starting up and loading zones? Is a SERVFAIL a DNSSEC validation issue, or is the nameserver experiencing some other failure? What error message should be presented to the user or logged in these conditions?
Errors caused by DNSSEC validation issues are a good example of what would benefit from more information. When a stub resolver queries a name that is DNSSEC bogus, using a validating resolver, the stub resolver receives only a SERVFAIL. The SERVFAIL Response Code is used to signal many sorts of DNS errors, so the stub resolver's only option is to ask the next configured DNS resolver. The result is one of two outcomes: either the next resolver also validates and a SERVFAIL is returned again, or the next resolver is not a validating resolver and the user is returned a potentially harmful result.
With an Extended DNS Error option enclosed in the response message, the resolver is able to return a more descriptive reason for why a failure happened, or to add additional context to a message containing a NOERROR RCODE. The Extended DNS Error codes described here can be used by any system that sends DNS queries and receives a response containing an EDE option. Different codes are useful in different circumstances, so different systems, such as stub resolvers, recursive resolvers and authoritative resolvers, might receive and use them.
DNS has one blunt failure code, and it means many different things. That is not just inconvenient for people reading logs. It makes a client behave badly: a stub resolver that gets SERVFAIL cannot tell whether the answer was rejected on security grounds, so it tries the next server, which may not validate at all.
§2The Extended DNS Error Option
The document uses an Extended Mechanism for DNS option to include Extended DNS Error information in DNS messages. The option is structured as a 16-bit OPTION-CODE, a 16-bit OPTION-LENGTH, a 16-bit INFO-CODE, and a variable-length EXTRA-TEXT field.
OPTION-CODE is two octets, or 16 bits, as defined in RFC 6891, and contains the value 15 for EDE. OPTION-LENGTH is two octets and contains the length of the payload, everything after the length field itself, in octets; it should be 2 plus the length of the EXTRA-TEXT field, which may be a zero-length string. INFO-CODE is 16 bits and is the principal contribution of the document. This 16-bit value, encoded in network most significant bit byte order, provides the additional context for the RESPONSE-CODE of the DNS message, and serves as an index into the Extended DNS Errors registry.
EXTRA-TEXT is a variable-length, UTF-8-encoded text field that may hold additional textual information. The information is intended for human consumption, not automated parsing. EDE text may be null terminated but must not be assumed to be, and the length must be derived from the OPTION-LENGTH field. The field may be zero octets long, indicating that there is no EXTRA-TEXT included. Care should be taken not to include private information in the EXTRA-TEXT field that an observer would not otherwise have access to, such as account numbers.
The EDE option can be included in any response, whether SERVFAIL, NXDOMAIN, REFUSED or even NOERROR, to a query that includes an OPT pseudo-record. The document includes a set of initial codepoints but is extensible through the IANA registry.
The option rides in the extra section of a DNS message, next to the other extension fields. It holds a two-octet number that says which kind of failure it is, and optionally a line of text for a human to read. The text may be empty, and it must not be assumed to end with a null character, because its length comes from the option length field.
| Field | Name | Size | Value | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
OPTION-CODE | OPTION-CODE | 2 bytes | 15 | The EDNS0 option code, 15 for Extended DNS Error. |
OPTION-LENGTH | OPTION-LENGTH | 2 bytes | Length of the payload after this field, that is 2 plus the length of EXTRA-TEXT. | |
INFO-CODE | INFO-CODE | 2 bytes | The error code, an index into the Extended DNS Errors registry. |
§3Extended DNS Error Processing
When a response grows beyond the requestor's UDP payload size, servers should truncate messages by dropping EDE options before dropping other data from packets, and should set the truncation bit when dropping EDE options. Because long EXTRA-TEXT fields may trigger truncation, which is undesirable given the supplemental nature of EDE, implementers and operators creating EDE options should avoid lengthy EXTRA-TEXT contents.
When a resolver or forwarder receives an EDE option, whether and how to pass the information along to its original client is implementation dependent. Implementations may choose not to forward it, or may choose to create new EDE options that convey the information encoded in the received one. When doing so, the source of the error should be attributed in the EXTRA-TEXT field, since an EDNS0 option received by the original client will appear to have come from the resolver or forwarder that sent it.
The document does not allow or prohibit any particular extended error codes and information being matched with any particular RCODEs. Some combinations may seem nonsensical, such as resolver-specific extended error codes received in responses from authoritative servers, so systems interpreting the codes must not assume that a combination will make sense. Receivers must be able to accept EDE codes and EXTRA-TEXT in all messages, including those with a NOERROR RCODE, but need not act on them. Applications must continue to follow the requirements of applicable specifications on how to process RCODEs no matter what EDE values are also received. Senders may include more than one EDE option, and receivers must be able to accept, though not necessarily process or act on, multiple EDE options in a DNS message.
Two rules matter for anyone building on this. The option must never change how a response is treated: the ordinary response code still decides what happens. And a middle server that rewrites the option should say where the error really came from, because the client will otherwise think the error came from it.
§4Defined Extended DNS Errors
The document defines the initial set of EDE codes, from 0 to 24. The mechanism is intended to be extensible, and additional codepoints can be registered in the Extended DNS Errors registry.
Code 0, Other, covers an error that falls into no known category; implementations should include an EXTRA-TEXT value to augment it. Code 1, Unsupported DNSKEY Algorithm, means the resolver tried to validate but a DNSKEY RRset contained only unsupported DNSSEC algorithms. Code 2, Unsupported DS Digest Type, means the same for a DS RRset with only unsupported digest types.
Code 3, Stale Answer, means the resolver could not resolve within its time limits and answered with previously cached data instead of an error, typically because of problems communicating with an authoritative server, possibly as a result of a denial of service attack against another network. Code 4, Forged Answer, means an answer was forged for policy reasons, such as a legal obligation or malware filtering; it should be used when an answer is still provided, not when a failure code is returned instead.
Codes 5 to 12 cover DNSSEC validation. Code 5, DNSSEC Indeterminate, means validation ended in the Indeterminate state. Code 6, DNSSEC Bogus, means it ended in the Bogus state. Code 7, Signature Expired, means no signatures are presently valid and some, often all, are expired. Code 8, Signature Not Yet Valid, means no signatures are presently valid and at least some are not yet valid. Code 9, DNSKEY Missing, means a DS record existed at a parent but no supported matching DNSKEY record could be found for the child. Code 10, RRSIGs Missing, means no RRSIGs could be found for at least one RRset where they were expected. Code 11, No Zone Key Bit Set, means no Zone Key Bit was set in a DNSKEY. Code 12, NSEC Missing, means the requested data was missing and a covering NSEC or NSEC3 was not provided.
Code 13, Cached Error, means the resolver is returning the SERVFAIL RCODE from its cache. Code 14, Not Ready, means the server could not answer because it was not fully functional when the query was received.
Codes 15 to 18 cover policy decisions. Code 15, Blocked, means the server cannot respond because the domain is on a blocklist due to an internal security policy imposed by the operator of the server. Code 16, Censored, means the same but because of an external requirement imposed by an entity other than the operator; how the policy is applied, whether in-band filtering or a court order, is irrelevant. Code 17, Filtered, means the server cannot respond because the domain is on a blocklist as requested by the client. Code 18, Prohibited, is for an authoritative server or recursive resolver that receives a query from an unauthorized client, such as a recursive query from an IP address outside the network, a blocklisted address, or one that local policy forbids, and annotates its REFUSED message with the code.
Code 19, Stale NXDOMAIN Answer, means the resolver could not resolve an answer within its configured time limits and answered with a previously cached NXDOMAIN answer instead of an error. Code 20, Not Authoritative, is for an authoritative server that receives a query with the Recursion Desired bit clear, or that is not configured for recursion for a domain for which it is not authoritative, and for a resolver that receives a query with the RD bit clear.
Code 21, Not Supported, means the requested operation or query is not supported. Code 22, No Reachable Authority, means the resolver could not reach any of the authoritative name servers, or they potentially refused to reply. Code 23, Network Error, means an unrecoverable error occurred while communicating with another server. Code 24, Invalid Data, means the authoritative server cannot answer with data for a zone it is otherwise configured to support, for example because its most recent zone is too old or has expired.
The 25 codes fall into a few families. A validation failure has its own set of codes, one for each way DNSSEC can fail, so an operator can tell a missing DNSKEY from an expired signature. A block gets three codes depending on who imposed it: the operator, an outside authority, or the client. And there are operational codes for a server that was not ready, could not reach the authority, or holds data that is too old.
- 1Unsupported DNSKEY Algorithm — Validation was attempted but the DNSKEY RRset held only unsupported algorithms.
- 2Unsupported DS Digest Type — Validation was attempted but the DS RRset held only unsupported digest types.
- 5DNSSEC Indeterminate — Validation ended in the Indeterminate state.
- 6DNSSEC Bogus — Validation ended in the Bogus state.
- 7Signature Expired — No signatures are presently valid and some, often all, are expired.
- 8Signature Not Yet Valid — No signatures are presently valid and at least some are not yet valid.
- 9DNSKEY Missing — A DS record existed at a parent but no supported matching DNSKEY was found for the child.
- 10RRSIGs Missing — No RRSIGs could be found for at least one RRset where they were expected.
- 11No Zone Key Bit Set — No Zone Key Bit was set in a DNSKEY.
- 12NSEC Missing — The requested data was missing and a covering NSEC or NSEC3 was not provided.
- DNSSEC validationCodes 1, 2 and 5 to 12: the resolver tried to validate the answer and could not.
- Policy and blockingCodes 15, 16, 17 and 18: the name is on a blocklist imposed by the operator, by an outside authority, or by the client.
- Operational problemsCodes 14, 21, 22, 23 and 24: the server was not ready, the operation is not supported, no authority could be reached, a network error occurred, or the data is too old.
- Cache and stale answersCodes 3, 13 and 19: the resolver answered from its cache because it could not get a fresh answer.
§5IANA Considerations
A new EDNS0 option is defined, entitled Extended DNS Error, with the assigned value 15 from the DNS EDNS0 Option Codes registry, with status Standard.
A new registry is created and maintained, called Extended DNS Error Codes, on the Domain Name System Parameters page. The range 0 to 49151 is First Come First Served, and the range 49152 to 65535 is Private Use. The registry is a table with three columns, INFO-CODE, Purpose and Reference, and its initial content is the 25 codes defined in the document, with the range 25 to 49151 unassigned.
One new option number is reserved for the mechanism, and a new registry is created for the error codes, with the upper half left for private use so that an organisation can use its own codes without touching the shared list.
§6Security Considerations
Although DNSSEC continues to be deployed, a significant number of clients, around 11% according to the cited survey, that receive a SERVFAIL from a validating resolver because of a DNSSEC validation issue will simply ask the next, potentially non-validating, resolver in their list, and thus do not get the protections DNSSEC should provide.
EDE information is unauthenticated unless secured by a form of secured DNS transaction, such as TSIG, SIG(0), DNS over DTLS or DNS over HTTPS. An attacker, for example a man in the middle or a malicious recursive server, could insert an extended error response into untrusted data, although ideally clients and resolvers would not trust any unauthenticated information. EDE content should be treated only as diagnostic information and must not alter DNS protocol processing. Until all DNS answers are authenticated, there are trade-offs: an attacker able to insert the DNSSEC Bogus error into a DNS message could instead simply reply with a fictitious address record. Note that DNS RCODEs also contain no authentication and can be just as easily manipulated.
By design, EDE potentially exposes additional information through the DNS resolution process that may leak information. An example is the Prohibited code, which may leak the fact that a name is on a blocklist.
The extra information is not authenticated, so anyone who can tamper with DNS traffic could put a false reason in it. That is why it must never change how a query is answered: a liar gains nothing by adding a note to a response, because the real response code still says what happened. A second point is that a blocklist reason can itself be a leak, since it tells an observer that a name was listed.