IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dd] Re: A generalised delegation extension mechanism

Peter Thomassen <peter@desec.io> Wed, 22 May 2024 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@desec.io>
X-Original-To: dd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD31BC1D4CCE for <dd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2024 08:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=a4a.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JPc2CWgpfF9U for <dd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2024 08:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.a4a.de (mail.a4a.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:10a:1d5c:8000::8]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70EDFC1D6ACE for <dd@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2024 08:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=a4a.de; s=20170825; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From: References:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=+JLoJWWVrW9YSaRUHQlGZ8LfSzQamrqTuqFkIfggtls=; b=OZWFAt0Xr6zSCiPhheepPnpJGU Zwo+pP1iDABxiP0IlfpyHLPIfrYQuPEKQVtGhu7SZ8Gd91BQsNxlZsM8BDMitv4aPd19gGMliaBa7 jGuLFwxTnBa6SqajxdmIzagKUfrRARw6r7AF5+HGEEP45kIc/PZNG6t+Wz1NmWtPhXGzQT9wEuVXA vHaJR4/Ap+Z9VyqoaHLEdJcOzD5z8mUtpgNSTz0mSgdMfca6TKsLjoGAqsWM1J8vxhdw86Oi4JvLm eWr1vCJTIkcKiE0yeduIVQITwhOeAkAam/+C/ZENtn/hJhFgAcg0oLiXVTzeHdogg9SGuZslr+fFd UsemZ3Wg==;
Received: from [82.194.120.70] (helo=[10.0.11.79]) by mail.a4a.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <peter@desec.io>) id 1s9nsV-004qPI-HP; Wed, 22 May 2024 17:27:43 +0200
Message-ID: <5fd21765-dfc2-4ae5-a20d-2d0d8eeaf7b8@desec.io>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 17:27:43 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Roy Arends <roy@dnss.ec>, dd@ietf.org
References: <788F5802-B7BB-4C18-A274-9A6BE2C23E30@dnss.ec> <45920ADE-9790-40ED-9D06-6415B54980F5@dnss.ec>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Peter Thomassen <peter@desec.io>
In-Reply-To: <45920ADE-9790-40ED-9D06-6415B54980F5@dnss.ec>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: HKKFYIXLPGL7TIL5JHIXKO74UCIZ7DFJ
X-Message-ID-Hash: HKKFYIXLPGL7TIL5JHIXKO74UCIZ7DFJ
X-MailFrom: peter@desec.io
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [dd] Re: A generalised delegation extension mechanism
List-Id: DNS Delegation <dd.ietf.org>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dd>
List-Help: <mailto:dd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dd-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dd@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dd-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dd-leave@ietf.org>


On 5/22/24 17:07, Roy Arends wrote:
> I haven't seen a response to this. This may be due to it being send before the charter was finalized, but let me rephrase:
> 
> The secure signal (a dedicated DNSKEY or DS type) by which resolvers expect proof of non-existent types at delegations (as we have for DS records) should not just be tied to DELEG, but should be used in all new delegation type responses.
> 
> The document that describes this should be separate and independent of the DELEG type description.

I think this is a good idea.

Peter

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status