adulau/pdns-qof
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/adulau/pdns-qof.git synced 2024-10-06 06:21:41 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

re-formatted xml

Browse source 
described the three potential output formats
be more specific with field descriptions
minor corrections
This commit is contained in:
Aaron Kaplan 2013-02-05 19:28:27 +01:00
parent 7bd163952b
commit 0759138dc8
2 changed files with 650 additions and 296 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

514
i-d/pdns-qof.txt
View file

@ -1,14 +1,15 @@
Internet Engineering Task Force A.D. Dulaunoy Internet Engineering Task Force Dulaunoy
Internet-Draft CIRCL Internet-Draft CIRCL
Intended status: Informational L.A. Kaplan Intended status: Informational Kaplan
Expires: July 15, 2013 CERT.at Expires: July 5, 2013 CERT.at
January 2013 January 2013
Passive DNS - Common Output Format Passive DNS - Common Output Format
draft-ietf-xml2rfc-template-05 draft-ietf-dulaunoy-kaplan-pdns-cof-01
Abstract Abstract
@ -18,49 +19,99 @@ Abstract
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 15, 2013. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Copyright Notice 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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
document authors. All rights reserved. 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 document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This Internet-Draft will expire on July 5, 2013.
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Mandatory Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. first_seen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. last_seen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3. rrtype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.4. rrname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Optional Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. sensor_id . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. ttl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.4. bailiwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Dulaunoy & Kaplan info [Page 1]
Dulaunoy & Kaplan Expires July 5, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Output Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Whois Human Readable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.3. Bind format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Mandatory Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. rrname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. rrtype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. rdata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. time_first . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. time_last . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Optional Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. sensor_id . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. ttl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.4. bailiwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.5. class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Extended Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10
Dulaunoy & Kaplan Expires July 5, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013 Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
@ -78,14 +129,15 @@ Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013
nearly identical output format. As the format and the meaning of nearly identical output format. As the format and the meaning of
output fields from each Passive DNS need to be consistent, we propose output fields from each Passive DNS need to be consistent, we propose
in this document a solution to commonly name each field along with in this document a solution to commonly name each field along with
their cor responding interpretation. The format format is following their corresponding interpretation. The format format is following a
a simple key-value structure. The benefit of having a consistent simple key-value structure. The benefit of having a consistent
Passive DNS output format is that multiple client implementations can Passive DNS output format is that multiple client implementations can
query different servers without having to have a separate parser for query different servers without having to have a separate parser for
each individual server. [http://code.google.com/p/passive-dns-query- each individual server.
tool/] currently implements multiple parsers due to a lack of [http://code.google.com/p/passive-dns-query-tool/] currently
standardization. The document does not describe the protocol (e.g. implements multiple parsers due to a lack of standardization. The
whois ref:TOADD) used to query the Passive DNS. document does not describe the protocol (e.g. whois, HTTP REST or
XMPP) used to query the Passive DNS.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
@ -93,119 +145,281 @@ Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Mandatory Fields
2. Limitation
As a Passive DNS can include protection mechanisms for their
operation, results might be different due to those protection
measures. These mechanisms filter out DNS answers if they fail some
criteria. The bailiwick algorithm (c.f.
http://www.isc.org/files/passive_dns_hardening_handout.pdf) protects
the Passive DNS Database from cache poisoning attacks [ref: Dan
Kaminsky]. Another limitiation that clients querying the database
need to be aware of is that each query simply gets an snapshot-answer
of the time of querying. Clients MUST NOT rely on consistent
answers.
Dulaunoy & Kaplan Expires July 5, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013
3. Format
A field is composed a key followed by a value separated by the single A field is composed a key followed by a value separated by the single
':' character and a space before the value. The format is based on ':' character and a space before the value. The format is based on
the initial work done by Florian Weimer and the RIPE whois format the initial work done by Florian Weimer and the RIPE whois format
(ref:http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/dnslogger/whois.html). The (ref:http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/dnslogger/whois.html). The order
ordered of the fields is not significant for the same resource type, of the fields is not significant for the same resource type. That
name tuple. measn, the same name tuple plus timing information identifies a
unique answer per server.
2.1. first_seen A sample output using the common format:
This field returns the first time that the record has been seen by rrname: www.foo.be
the passive DNS. The date is expressed in ISO 8601 and UTC. rrtype: AAAA
rdata: 2001:6f8:202:2df::2
time_first: 2010-07-26 13:04:01
time_last: 2012-02-06 09:59:00
count: 87
2.2. last_seen 3.1. Output Format
This field returns the last time that the record has been seen by the Depending on the clients request, there might be one of three
passive DNS. The date is expressed in ISO 8601 and UTC. different answers from the server: Whois (human readable) output
format (key-value), JSON [RFC4627] output and optionally Bind zone
file output format. XXX FIXME: how does the client select which
answer format he wants? XXX
2.3. rrtype 3.1.1. Whois Human Readable
This output format originates with the original design of BFK's
passive DNS server implementation. The intent is to be be human
readable. Every implementation MUST support the Whois human readable
format.
A sample output using the Whois format:
rrname: www.foo.be
rrtype: AAAA
rdata: 2001:6f8:202:2df::2
time_first: 2010-07-26 13:04:01
time_last: 2012-02-06 09:59:00
count: 87
3.1.2. JSON
The intent of this output format is to be easily parseable by
scripts. Every implementation SHOULD support the JSON output format.
Dulaunoy & Kaplan info [Page 2]
Dulaunoy & Kaplan Expires July 5, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013 Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013
This field returns the resource record type as seen by the passive A sample output using the JSON format:
DNS. The key is rr-type and the value is in the interpreted record
type. If the value cannot be interpreted the decimal value is
returned. The resource record type can be any values as described by
IANA in the DNS parameters document in the section 'DNS Label types'
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters).
2.4. rrname ... (list of )...
{ "count": 97167,
"time_first": "2010-06-25 17:07:02",
"rrtype": "A", "rrname": "google-public-dns-a.google.com.",
"rdata": "8.8.8.8",
"time_last": "2013-02-05 17:34:03" }
... (separated by newline)...
3.1.3. Bind format
A sample output using the Bind format:
google-public-dns-a.google.com. IN A 8.8.8.8
4. Mandatory Fields
Implementation MUST support all the mandatory fields.
The tuple (rrtype,rrname,rdata) will always be unique within one
answer per server.
4.1. rrname
This field returns the name of the queried resource. This field returns the name of the queried resource.
3. Optional Fields 4.2. rrtype
3.1. sensor_id This field returns the resource record type as seen by the passive
DNS. The key is rrtype and the value is in the interpreted record
type. If the value cannot be interpreted the decimal value is
returned. The resource record type can be any values as described by
IANA in the DNS parameters document in the section 'DNS Label types'
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters). Currently known
and supported textual descritptions of rrtypes are: A, AAAA, CNAME,
PTR, SOA, TXT, DNAME, NS, SRV, RP, NAPTR, HINFO, A6 A client MUST be
able to understand these textual rtype values. In addition, a client
MUST be able to handle a decimal value (as mentioned above) as
answer.
3.2. count 4.3. rdata
This field returns the data of the queried resource. In general,
this is to be interpreted as string. Depending on the rtype, this
can be an IPv4 or IPv6 address, a domain name (as in the case of
CNAMEs), an SPF record, etc. A client MUST be able to interpret any
Dulaunoy & Kaplan Expires July 5, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013
value which is legal as the right hand side in a DNS zone file RFC
1035 [RFC1035] and RFC 1034 [RFC1034].
4.4. time_first
This field returns the first time that the record / unique tuple
(rrname, rrtype, rdata) has been seen by the passive DNS. The date
is expressed in ISO 8601 and UTC.
4.5. time_last
This field returns the last time that the unique tuple (rrname,
rrtype, rdata) record has been seen by the passive DNS. The date is
expressed in ISO 8601 and UTC.
5. Optional Fields
Implementation SHOULD support one or more field.
5.1. sensor_id
This field returns the sensor information where the record was seen.
The sensor_id is expressed in a decimal value.
5.2. count
Specifies how many authoritative answers were received with the set Specifies how many authoritative answers were received with the set
of answers (i.e. same data) over all sensors. The number of of answers (i.e. same data) over all sensors. The number of requests
requests is expressed as a decimal value. is expressed as a decimal value.
3.3. ttl 5.3. ttl
3.4. bailiwick the TTL as specified in RFC 1035 [RFC1035] as a decimal value.
4. Acknowledgements 5.4. bailiwick
This template was derived from an initial version written by Pekka XXX FIXME: input from ISC needed
Savola and contributed by him to the xml2rfc project.
This document is part of a plan to make xml2rfc indispensable 5.5. class
[DOMINATION].
5. IANA Considerations the class as specified in RFC 1035 [RFC1035]. Valid values are IN,
HS (for HESIOD), CH (for CHAOS). May be omitted, the default
assumption that a client should make is IN.
Dulaunoy & Kaplan Expires July 5, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013
6. Extended Fields
An x- prefixed key means that is an extension and a non-standard
field defined by the implementation of the passive DNS.
7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the Passive DNS developers who contributed to the document.
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA. This memo includes no request to IANA.
All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section (see
the update of RFC 2434 [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
for a guide). If the draft does not require IANA to do anything, the
section contains an explicit statement that this is the case (as
above). If there are no requirements for IANA, the section will be
removed during conversion into an RFC by the RFC Editor.
6. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
In some cases, Passive DNS output might contain confidential
information and its access might be restricted. When an user is
querying multiple Passive DNS and aggregating the data, the
sensitivity of the data must be considered.
Authentication and signing of the output MAY be implemented on the
server via an extended field, namely x-signature-sha265 which
contains a SHA256 signature of the output text, signed with the ssh-
key of the server sending the answer.
All drafts are required to have a security considerations section. All drafts are required to have a security considerations section.
See RFC 3552 [RFC3552] for a guide. See RFC 3552 [RFC3552] for a guide.
7. References
7.1. Normative References 10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Dulaunoy & Kaplan info [Page 3] [RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
Dulaunoy & Kaplan Expires July 5, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013 Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013
[min_ref] authSurName, authInitials, "Minimal Reference", 2006. [min_ref] authSurName, authInitials., "Minimal Reference", 2006.
7.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[DOMINATION] [DOMINATION]
Mad Dominators, Inc., "Ultimate Plan for Taking Over the Mad Dominators, Inc., "Ultimate Plan for Taking Over the
World", 1984, <http://www.example.com/dominator.html>. World", 1984, <http://www.example.com/dominator.html>.
[I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis] [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
Narten, T and H Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", Internet-Draft IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09, March draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09 (work in
2008. progress), March 2008.
[RFC2629] Rose, M.T., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999. June 1999.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC [RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
2003. July 2003.
Appendix A. Additional Stuff Appendix A. Additional Stuff
This becomes an Appendix. This becomes an Appendix.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Alexandre Dulaunoy Alexandre Dulaunoy
@ -219,10 +433,26 @@ Authors' Addresses
URI: http://www.circl.lu/ URI: http://www.circl.lu/
Dulaunoy & Kaplan Expires July 5, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013
Leon Aaron Kaplan Leon Aaron Kaplan
CERT.at CERT.at
Karlsplatz 1/2/9 Karlsplatz 1/2/9
Wien, A-1010 Vienna, A-1010
AT AT
Phone: +43 1 5056416 78 Phone: +43 1 5056416 78
@ -237,4 +467,94 @@ Authors' Addresses
Dulaunoy & Kaplan info [Page 4]
Dulaunoy & Kaplan Expires July 5, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Abbreviated Title January 2013
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2013).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Dulaunoy & Kaplan Expires July 5, 2013 [Page 10]

78
i-d/pdns-qof.xml
View file

@ -9,6 +9,9 @@
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3552 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3552.xml"> <!ENTITY RFC3552 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3552.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC1035 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1035.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC1034 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1034.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4627 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4627.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml"> <!ENTITY I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml">
]> ]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?> <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
@ -123,49 +126,74 @@ The document does not describe the protocol (e.g. whois, HTTP REST or XMPP) used
</t> </t>
</section> </section>
<section title="Format"> <section title="Format">
<t>A field is composed a key followed by a value separated by the single ':' character and a space before the value. The format is based on the initial work done by Florian Weimer and the RIPE whois format (ref:http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/dnslogger/whois.html). The ordered of the fields is not significant for the same resource type, name tuple.</t> <t>A field is composed a key followed by a value separated by the single ':' character and a space before the value. The format is based on the initial work done by Florian Weimer and the RIPE whois format (ref:http://www.enyo.de/fw/software/dnslogger/whois.html). The order of the fields is not significant for the same resource type. That measn, the same name tuple plus timing information identifies a unique answer per server.</t>
<figure><preamble>A sample output using the common format:</preamble><artwork><![CDATA[ <figure><preamble>A sample output using the common format:</preamble><artwork><![CDATA[
rrname: www.foo.be rrname: www.foo.be
rrtype: AAAA rrtype: AAAA
rdata: 2001:6f8:202:2df::2 rdata: 2001:6f8:202:2df::2
first_seen: 2010-07-26 13:04:01 time_first: 2010-07-26 13:04:01
last_seen: 2012-02-06 09:59:00 time_last: 2012-02-06 09:59:00
count: 87 count: 87
]]></artwork></figure> ]]></artwork></figure>
<section title="Output Format"> <section title="Output Format">
<t> <t>
MUST Human Readable Depending on the clients request, there might be one of three different answers from the server: Whois (human readable) output format (key-value), <xref target="RFC4627">JSON</xref> output and optionally Bind zone file output format. XXX FIXME: how does the client select which answer format he wants? XXX
SHOULD JSON
OPTIONAL Bind
</t> </t>
<section title="Human Readable"> <section title="Whois Human Readable">
<t>
This output format originates with the original design of BFK's passive DNS server implementation. The intent is to be be human readable. Every implementation MUST support the Whois human readable format.
</t>
<figure><preamble>A sample output using the Whois format:</preamble><artwork><![CDATA[
rrname: www.foo.be
rrtype: AAAA
rdata: 2001:6f8:202:2df::2
time_first: 2010-07-26 13:04:01
time_last: 2012-02-06 09:59:00
count: 87
]]></artwork></figure>
</section> </section>
<section title="JSON"> <section title="JSON">
<t>The intent of this output format is to be easily parseable by scripts. Every implementation SHOULD support the JSON output format.</t>
<figure><preamble>A sample output using the JSON format:</preamble><artwork><![CDATA[
... (list of )...
{ "count": 97167,
"time_first": "2010-06-25 17:07:02",
"rrtype": "A", "rrname": "google-public-dns-a.google.com.",
"rdata": "8.8.8.8",
"time_last": "2013-02-05 17:34:03" }
... (separated by newline)...
]]></artwork></figure>
</section> </section>
<section title="Bind format"> <section title="Bind format">
<figure><preamble>A sample output using the Bind format:</preamble><artwork><![CDATA[
google-public-dns-a.google.com. IN A 8.8.8.8
]]></artwork></figure>
</section> </section>
</section> </section>
</section> </section>
<section title="Mandatory Fields"> <section title="Mandatory Fields">
<t>Implementation MUST support all the mandatory fields.</t> <t>Implementation MUST support all the mandatory fields.</t>
<t>TODO pinpoint on the key for the 3tuple (rrtype,rrname,rdata)</t> <t>The tuple (rrtype,rrname,rdata) will always be unique within one answer per server.</t>
<section title="first_seen">
<t>This field returns the first time that the record has been seen by the passive DNS. The date is expressed in ISO 8601 and UTC.</t>
</section>
<section title="last_seen">
<t>This field returns the last time that the record has been seen by the passive DNS. The date is expressed in ISO 8601 and UTC.</t>
</section>
<section title="rrtype">
<t>This field returns the resource record type as seen by the passive DNS. The key is rr-type and the value is in the interpreted record type. If the value cannot be interpreted the
decimal value is returned.
The resource record type can be any values as described by IANA in the DNS parameters document in the section 'DNS Label types' (http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters).</t>
</section>
<section title="rrname"> <section title="rrname">
<t>This field returns the name of the queried resource.</t> <t>This field returns the name of the queried resource.</t>
</section> </section>
<section title="rrtype">
<t>This field returns the resource record type as seen by the passive DNS. The key is rrtype and the value is in the interpreted record type. If the value cannot be interpreted the
decimal value is returned.
The resource record type can be any values as described by IANA in the DNS parameters document in the section 'DNS Label types' (http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters).
Currently known and supported textual descritptions of rrtypes are: A, AAAA, CNAME, PTR, SOA, TXT, DNAME, NS, SRV, RP, NAPTR, HINFO, A6
A client MUST be able to understand these textual rtype values. In addition, a client MUST be able to handle a decimal value (as mentioned above) as answer.
</t>
</section>
<section title="rdata"> <section title="rdata">
<t>This field returns the data of the queried resource.</t> <t>This field returns the data of the queried resource. In general, this is to be interpreted as string. Depending on the rtype, this can be an IPv4 or IPv6 address, a domain name (as in the case of CNAMEs), an SPF record, etc. A client MUST be able to interpret any value which is legal as the right hand side in a DNS zone file <xref target="RFC1035">RFC 1035</xref> and <xref target="RFC1034">RFC 1034</xref>.</t>
</section>
<section title="time_first">
<t>This field returns the first time that the record / unique tuple (rrname, rrtype, rdata) has been seen by the passive DNS. The date is expressed in ISO 8601 and UTC.</t>
</section>
<section title="time_last">
<t>This field returns the last time that the unique tuple (rrname, rrtype, rdata) record has been seen by the passive DNS. The date is expressed in ISO 8601 and UTC.</t>
</section> </section>
</section> </section>
<section title="Optional Fields"> <section title="Optional Fields">
@ -177,10 +205,13 @@ The document does not describe the protocol (e.g. whois, HTTP REST or XMPP) used
<t>Specifies how many authoritative answers were received with the set of answers (i.e. same data) over all sensors. The number of requests is expressed as a decimal value.</t> <t>Specifies how many authoritative answers were received with the set of answers (i.e. same data) over all sensors. The number of requests is expressed as a decimal value.</t>
</section> </section>
<section title="ttl"> <section title="ttl">
<t>the TTL as specified in <xref target="RFC1035">RFC 1035</xref> as a decimal value.</t>
</section> </section>
<section title="bailiwick"> <section title="bailiwick">
<t> XXX FIXME: input from ISC needed</t>
</section> </section>
<section title="class"> <section title="class">
<t>the class as specified in <xref target="RFC1035">RFC 1035</xref>. Valid values are IN, HS (for HESIOD), CH (for CHAOS). May be omitted, the default assumption that a client should make is IN.</t>
</section> </section>
</section> </section>
@ -208,7 +239,7 @@ The document does not describe the protocol (e.g. whois, HTTP REST or XMPP) used
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations"> <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>In some cases, Passive DNS output might contain confidential information and its access might be restricted. When an user is querying multiple Passive DNS and aggregating the data, the sensitivity of the data must be considered.</t> <t>In some cases, Passive DNS output might contain confidential information and its access might be restricted. When an user is querying multiple Passive DNS and aggregating the data, the sensitivity of the data must be considered.</t>
<t>Authentication of the output can be implemented on the server via an extended field.</t> <t>Authentication and signing of the output MAY be implemented on the server via an extended field, namely x-signature-sha265 which contains a SHA256 signature of the output text, signed with the ssh-key of the server sending the answer.</t>
<t>All drafts are required to have a security considerations section. <t>All drafts are required to have a security considerations section.
See <xref target="RFC3552">RFC 3552</xref> for a guide.</t> See <xref target="RFC3552">RFC 3552</xref> for a guide.</t>
</section> </section>
@ -233,6 +264,9 @@ The document does not describe the protocol (e.g. whois, HTTP REST or XMPP) used
<references title="Normative References"> <references title="Normative References">
<!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?--> <!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->
&RFC2119; &RFC2119;
&RFC1035;
&RFC1034;
&RFC4627;
<reference anchor="min_ref"> <reference anchor="min_ref">
<!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy --> <!-- the following is the minimum to make xml2rfc happy -->