IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] An AD bit discussion

Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org> Wed, 26 February 2014 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2731A0758 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:50:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dj-pPkBXkX6n for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [38.117.134.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96A41A0739 for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:50:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id 2F1A52AAC73; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:50:12 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:50:12 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>
To: dane@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140226175012.GA21390@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402260845520.3528@bofh.nohats.ca> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1402261638490.13302@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <530E274D.6030500@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <530E274D.6030500@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/S2O7HUtQqP0LYd9T2zxlcyuAn4M
Subject: Re: [dane] An AD bit discussion
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dane@ietf.org
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:50:16 -0000

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:41:33PM +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:

> Could you elaborate on reasons for setting AD=1, please?

With "DO=1", applications that only care about the AD bit in the
reply also receive unwanted "RRSIG" records.

Setting "AD=1" may however require a new request option bit, since
RES_USE_DNSSEC sets "DO=1".  I am not sure whether it would be
right to always send "AD=1" when all the nameservers are trusted
and believed to support validation.  Perhaps that's OK, but it may
be prudent to only do this when specifically requested.

-- 
	Viktor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email