Re: [dane] An AD bit discussion

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> Wed, 26 February 2014 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <cloos@jhcloos.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 36D4A1A0841 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:11:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, 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 C7OgKCTy4VY9 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:11:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ore.jhcloos.com (ore.jhcloos.com [198.147.23.85]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126651A0860 for <dane@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:10:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ore.jhcloos.com (Postfix, from userid 10) id 9705C1DDEC; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:10:29 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhcloos.com; s=ore13; t=1393441829; bh=8mkUD8CuyYkqslWrT1v/233fcukjeP0KEykag73uRnE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=b7bagig4yVNOVRsI73q1b1DJIKEfhvCZvKYyiQkH5deQJyeJRZ6gmlCofwFub8TTg 98SsEI41H+8DYnzzYhqs6zA4ORyzT64S5MFWBC174G1wx8/BzKvjQW4aKpTP7iuFpW BFu/I1sWqB96U1cWK3Jk0OLncRwu51M7IDjLq5KqBug==
Received: by carbon.jhcloos.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 4BA5D60030; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:03:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
To: <dane@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402260845520.3528@bofh.nohats.ca> (Paul Wouters's message of "Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:12:20 -0500 (EST)")
References: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402260845520.3528@bofh.nohats.ca>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13001 (Ma Gnus v0.10) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)
Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAgMAAABinRfyAAAACVBMVEX///8ZGXBQKKnCrDQ3 AAAAJElEQVQImWNgQAAXzwQg4SKASgAlXIEEiwsSIYBEcLaAtMEAADJnB+kKcKioAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC
Copyright: Copyright 2014 James Cloos
OpenPGP: ED7DAEA6; url=http://jhcloos.com/public_key/0xED7DAEA6.asc
OpenPGP-Fingerprint: E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:03:40 -0500
Message-ID: <m3txbly9ui.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
Lines: 18
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Hashcash: 1:30:140226:dane@ietf.org::mbPIfvYGiOyd1nla:000m6hGc
X-Hashcash: 1:30:140226:paul@nohats.ca::wbNSo4DzjlpFrWvW:00RDgAl
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dane/ki1rZsZGr8Q3sf4vW2mUi7rIHjk
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
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, 26 Feb 2014 19:11:27 -0000

>>>>> "PW" == Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>; writes:

PW> Now for my question. Until we reach 4), what should we do with the AD
PW> bit in getaddrinfo() ?

PW> A) strip the AD bit in struct addrinfo for "untrusted nameservers". A new
PW>    configuration mechanism will allow white-listing nameservers and 127.0.0.1
PW>    will always be on the whitelist.

PW> B) do nothing

I've always preferred a local resolver, and with dnssec a local
verifier, on every system.  If there are systems unable or unwilling
to do that, then A is a reasonable compromize until they can and will.

-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>;         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6