Support for CAA records

[oyvindhagberg]

It would be nice to have support for CAA records, including a sensible form of access control:

For uio.no sonen sin del, så er det primært to ting som ligger i _extra filen : 2) Ca 140 CAA-innslag. Dette er jo ting som det kanskje vil bli mer av etterhvert, og hvor det kan være ønskelig å delegere tilganger til e.g. www-drift? Så det med å få støtte for CAA-records i mreg tror jeg egentlig hadde vært en fin ting, dersom DIA har kapasitet til det. Jeg kan evt. høre med Frank om hvor stort behovet er?

Anders

[terjekv]

Okay, so if I understand https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6844#section-3 our CAA records need to support three fields:

• flag: An integer 0-255.
• tag: On the form (from the RFC):
  • issue <Issuer Domain Name> [; <name>=<value> ]*: The issue property entry authorizes the holder of the domain name or a party acting under the explicit authority of the holder of that domain name to issue certificates for the domain in which the property is published.
  • issuewild <Issuer Domain Name> [; <name>=<value> ]*: The issuewild property entry authorizes the holder of the domain name or a party acting under the explicit authority of the holder of that domain name to issue wildcard certificates for the domain in which the property is published.
  • iodef <URL>: Specifies a URL to which an issuer MAY report certificate issue requests that are inconsistent with the issuer's Certification Practices or Certificate Policy, or that a Certificate Evaluator may use to report observation of a possible policy violation. The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) format is used [RFC5070].
• value: A string field, cannot have spaces.

And in the zone file we are to output something the CAA records as such:

$ORIGIN example.com
   .       CAA 0 issue "ca.example.net"
   .       CAA 0 iodef "mailto:security@example.com"
   .       CAA 0 iodef "http://iodef.example.com/"

It is worth noting that CAAs can be set for both domains and specific hosts.

Oh, and there would have to be a specific access control for the record type itself, rather than following the host. Typically a specific list of groups may have access.

Have I understood the request?