[dbound] draft-brotman-rdbd

"A. Schulze" <sca@andreasschulze.de> Fri, 29 March 2019 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <sca@andreasschulze.de>
X-Original-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dbound@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5665A12025D for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=andreasschulze.de header.b=ZkA5CVAE; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=andreasschulze.de header.b=w3dudAi3
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 3l1x_-2qhiCR for <dbound@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta.somaf.de (mta.somaf.de [IPv6:2001:470:77b3:103::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EC5C120254 for <dbound@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=andreasschulze.de; i=@andreasschulze.de; q=dns/txt; s=ed25519; t=1553879187; h=to : from : subject : message-id : date : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=SqKIUGsTj+aOyoOU9fmvX8FfRk4bYCyuO0pbH90yUWQ=; b=ZkA5CVAErehD7dYXbwN2KEs3hhu92eVIQkpaXwfkUj3RPIf5r3aqVWTU a6tdWXkyRtNwjwzZQuFjZT2wJ52TBA==
To: dbound@ietf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=andreasschulze.de; s=201903-A9C5ADDF; t=1553879187; x=1558879187; bh=SqKIUGsTj+aOyoOU9fmvX8FfRk4bYCyuO0pbH90yUWQ=; h=To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Date:Content-Type:from:reply-to: subject:date:to:cc:content-type:message-id; b=w3dudAi3K/pnmLTMgUMEf1IeckS+ilMdAS4ntx87bxW6/kohSOHGwOjS+9wr1iMgy AFh1RMiUEomErPxo0FLFL25i+x/+J/pgfSh8uZax5ya9cRgOheI5yvdmyNaX84A9/D CzCJew+GEh1eR3pKtg3am1ZKCrN7qYYEI3sFLofvqnOEKJEPBg3hZKYpYEj9gjIOJ+ VjHkntaVRpg9/8H1oynUzMWcOr09v0Ovk/Gv6jrFgfpkD8RP3t5gX7mz+aMSKtlf4e +d7BqRC7JodVx8uoqfJjrGNh06N6JGEajsv01dnYQOg29S3ZKQq5nUa3Q9EouDxr86 JA9ft4qK9FxqQ==
From: "A. Schulze" <sca@andreasschulze.de>
Message-ID: <f6862326-40e1-d804-cefe-e63c79a0534d@andreasschulze.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 18:06:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/gB5uOlKgPCCyB4bgYwHhtUuiwG0>
Subject: [dbound] draft-brotman-rdbd
X-BeenThere: dbound@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS tree bounds <dbound.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dbound/>
List-Post: <mailto:dbound@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dbound>, <mailto:dbound-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 17:06:33 -0000

Hello,

I read the draft. In general I like a possibility to express relationships.
As noted by Warren at the mic, there is also a desire to express "no relation" explicitly.

som thoughts/questions:
1.
> We include an optional digital signature mechanism...
why optional? without any signature wouldn't it possible to any third party to express any relationship?

> RDBD is intended to demonstrate a relationship between registered domains, not individual hostnames.

where is the border? May publicsufficlist help defining them?

2.1 / 2.2
as zone apex is likely to be overloaded today, defining something like _drbd.example covering RDBDKEY and RDBD data comes in mind.

editorial:
1, mention DKIM like mechanisms, but 2.1 introduce to me unexpected "The RDBDKEY RR uses the same registries as DNSKEY for its fields."
.. confusing


> The trailing "." representing the DNS root MUST NOT be included in the to-be-signed data,
> so a relating-domain value above might be "example.com" but "example.com."
what's the reason for not making the root explicit?


the current concept I understand as every random domain can express itself as related domain to a relating domain.
That allow enumeration via passive DNS technics for example without putting any effort in validating signatures.
I understand the desire to allow such enumeration but a more privacy friendly version [1],[2] is welcome, too
And, yes, DNSSEC shouldn't be optional. Re-using existing DNSKEYs may make the signature/validation stuff easier.

Andreas

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/cPUM4AKeowvUPQY3wclWQpAKgEE
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/tXghAjUAiezkJLA0FlO0Sy__lrQ