RFC 9539: Unilateral Opportunistic Deployment of Encrypted Recursive-to-Authoritative DNS
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document sets out steps that DNS servers (recursive resolvers and authoritative servers) can take unilaterally (without any coordination with other peers) to defend DNS query privacy against a passive network monitor. The protections provided by the guidance in this document can be defeated by an active attacker, but they should be simpler and less risky to deploy than more powerful defenses. The goal of this document is to simplify and speed up deployment of opportunistic encrypted transport in the recursive-to-authoritative hop of the DNS ecosystem. Wider easy deployment of the underlying encrypted transport on an opportunistic basis may facilitate the future specification of stronger cryptographic protections against more-powerful attacks.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC9539
- Published
- February 2024
- Authors
- D. K. Gillmor; J. Salazar; P. Hoffman
- Status
- EXPERIMENTAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- int
- Pages
- 24
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 9463DHCP and Router Advertisement Options for the Discovery of Network-designated Resolvers (DNR)Current
November 2023
- RFC 9250DNS over Dedicated QUIC ConnectionsCurrent
May 2022
- RFC 9445RADIUS Extensions for DHCP-Configured ServicesCurrent
August 2023
- RFC 9462Discovery of Designated ResolversCurrent
November 2023
- RFC 7830The EDNS(0) Padding OptionCurrent
May 2016
- RFC 9464Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Configuration for Encrypted DNSCurrent
November 2023
- RFC 2065Domain Name System Security ExtensionsObsoleted
January 1997
- RFC 9527DHCPv6 Options for the Homenet Naming AuthorityCurrent
January 2024
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?