Re: [dns-privacy] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-08: (with COMMENT)

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:31 AM Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2/6/20 09:08, Adam Roach wrote:
> >
> > For the specific example chosen, it's been made pretty clear over the
> > years that at least the clients for the specific service you cite have
> > no interest in incurring this additional cost. If that's the working
> > group consensus, then I have no interest in over-riding it. But
> > ignoring operational realities seems kind of ivory tower-ish, which
> > feels like the kind of thing that undermines the general credibility
> > of the rest of the document.
> >
>

Could you please be more specific?

When you say "for the specific service", do you mean DNSSEC?

And do you mean the signing of DNS zones using DNSSEC, when you refer to
clients of that service?

Perhaps you missed my microphone comments at the last IETF?

Specifically that GoDaddy will be turning on DNSSEC for the vast majority
of its DNS hosting customers?

This represents about 40% of the DNS zones on the Internet.
(The exact time frame is not set in stone, but we expect this to be done in
the first half of 2020.)

Given that this significantly alters the calculus, I don't think that is a
good enough reason to object in and of itself anymore.

The other aspect of this is the asymmetry involved in the defenses against
impersonation:

   - The choice to sign a DNS zone is under control of the zone owner
   - The choice to deploy RPKI on routes (to protect against BGP hijacking)
   is under control of the IP prefix holder
   - Both methods rely on third parties to cooperate to achieve the
   protections offered
   - RPKI routing filters are now widely deployed, and RPKI registrations
   are substantial
   - The remaining issue is DNSSEC validation; many (most?) of the public
   recursive operators do this already

The logic should be, defend against all feasible attacks, rather than
justifying the non-defense in one area (DNSSEC for DNS) based on the
assertion that another area is not being defended (RPKI for BGP).

Brian


>
> I realize that my editing made one of the pronoun antecedents here go
> away. The second sentence should have said something more like "If
> keeping the current text is the working group consensus..."
>
> /a
>
>