Re: [dane] An AD bit discussion

Petr Spacek <pspacek@redhat.com> Wed, 19 March 2014 10:28 UTC

Return-Path: <pspacek@redhat.com>
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 2AD341A06AF for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 03:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 eZ3aRt12n6DT for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 03:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3091A071B for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 03:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s2JASeTd014601 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 06:28:40 -0400
Received: from pspacek.brq.redhat.com (vpn1-4-232.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.232]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s2JAScZZ016298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 06:28:39 -0400
Message-ID: <53297155.8070201@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:28:37 +0100
From: Petr Spacek <pspacek@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dane@ietf.org
References: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402260845520.3528@bofh.nohats.ca> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1402261638490.13302@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20140226173630.GZ21390@mournblade.imrryr.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1402261809330.18502@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20140226182432.GB21390@mournblade.imrryr.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1402261842130.13302@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20140226191144.GC21390@mournblade.imrryr.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140226191144.GC21390@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 10.5.11.12
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/WEtgw2DWkGueNmH5uSiizEuXJtw
Subject: Re: [dane] An AD bit discussion
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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, 19 Mar 2014 10:28:55 -0000

Hello list,

On 26.2.2014 20:11, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:02:45PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote:
>
>> Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org>; wrote:
>>
>>> I think it requires EDNS0,
>>
>> The AD bit is in the message header not the OPT pseudo-RR, so
>> syntactically it doesn't require EDNS0. BIND works OK (try
>> dig +qr +noedns). However the spec is silent on this matter.
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6840#page-10
>> Also I think it is arguable that RFC 4035 says servers should set the
>> AD flag in the response regardless of whether the client indicates
>> it is security-aware. But implementations do not do that.
>
> You're right about the AD bit of course,  I was thinking of "DO".
> Below setting either "AD=1" or "DO=1" elicits a validated response
> from unbound, but with "DO=1" additional RRSIG records are returned.
> The libresolv API does not currently expose a portable mechanism
> for setting AD=1 in requests.

I have heard that there was a discussion about AD bit handling at IETF 89. 
Could somebody summarize it, please?

I understand that everybody is more interested in DANE and DNS-privacy but I 
would like to finish this discussion and either drop the AD-bit special 
handling altogether or move to implementation phase :-)

Thank you very much for your time!

-- 
Petr^2 Spacek