[dane] CT for DNSSEC

Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com> Thu, 16 March 2017 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <weihaw@google.com>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B001273E2 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.741
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 mLb_9Kle5fbv for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22a.google.com (mail-ot0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93436120227 for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id i1so63198306ota.3 for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=N5a7SYBMuxUFKPTAWK6NoA9VLJ0xQbcUi6eOXWbmdcI=; b=EFNuT5K8cOgmM1SKBYmNm+efJhg0L/f5k2Lvsf0tSeAM7ARngppQwMaRsE62i9XqiZ HpztrcAHJjMu3PEnKpr92Yvl/YzNSs7iAwkXzMqK1gkCFksRDzfEILpYENLvVv7bhOiy HoSv8VNxDTy9ati+/2otPLM3CnJzt8Q6CI4vO/TcYxhwuXI0g/6yAAveWnj1ceID0e+K 3n/wE1k74QMF3aufau96tjyacsnyH3tI9lV+qdCAMFZCHKPOoHjRUdWF5lLR6CLMRVDv d9Kk0wLX/B+cn8U6TnVoBTR/Qehw/IEUChc68Hp8yWVc8lRndGZ/dxmvLXMjBeepTdSQ uDhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=N5a7SYBMuxUFKPTAWK6NoA9VLJ0xQbcUi6eOXWbmdcI=; b=ZSwpGEdbyoGkK3O+xe8pPx7CAf3yyTLBaqLrlzsb5ctK6LG7co8qCjiikpxp1Zmgjj dUym3Cio3CIkyNF+9QQE6OVNFSbwxt//3h53I7HiH01vODVYp3rNUn57CpB2eE5GX/6i nvabXR7ixzBwtu/rdVTvOd2aEYxo9d0yfFO8De059Gj4OZeVN/lOPuXYctEjaF05SrRx xm1nGGf0+D6sBf1nW6cM7rGGXgdDfVOajFshOVpn0Amf0EhoZ6FWzgJhphmTQE5mfswI C7hspkyB/cO/wNA7Mslg+Z6Lwc8Hmio4d357Ds6qOt3VuLPJKRktIyjSHqx0z+wcuZWa KauA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2Bv3d9HjN2ST/k3e/u+Lpk7TwmwHXK3GB+FA4sP/K1Wj8hJ/ce4OG17Zv2JPevoavwWHYDM3RlzEKnMPm/
X-Received: by 10.157.11.229 with SMTP id 92mr4947740oth.85.1489684185705; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.41.226 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAFsWK0bCDZmg0csCfXAJ1=jqbOBc7sUUvSg-6ZKjxuAQKmQPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: trans@ietf.org, dane@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="001a1142ef02bd0357054adc200f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/WC1UeiyifsHV1bEXd6fChvVuDVg>
Subject: [dane] CT for DNSSEC
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:09:49 -0000

Hi folks,

I saw there was significant interest
<http://blog.huque.com/2014/07/dnssec-key-transparency.html> in exploring
CT for DNSSEC back in 2014 of which a draft draft-zhang-trans-ct-dnssec
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-trans-ct-dnssec-03> was created.
It seems to have quieted down since.  I believe the motivation is still
there which is to prevent a parent zone from potentially misbehaving and
spoofing the child zone.  Is there still interest in this?  From the list
archives, I can't see what the issues were though I'm guessing one of them
was respecifying the DS resource record to use a SCT which might have
caused compatibility concerns.  (But please correct me if I'm wrong)  Other
than that, the draft seems pretty reasonable.  Were there other concerns?

thanks,
-Wei