IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-vandijk-dprive-ds-dot-signal-and-pin-00.txt]

Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641973A1025 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 1IErSmAZeeNS for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx3.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 E4FDB3A1026 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx3.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BD356A307; Fri, 29 May 2020 21:49:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from plato (e82143.upc-e.chello.nl [213.93.82.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A9063C0382; Fri, 29 May 2020 21:49:05 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <6eeb07835f51f24190b272525a469def9a666be1.camel@powerdns.com>
From: Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 21:49:04 +0200
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005291128460.31882@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <158987990316.29446.4343920282978207647@ietfa.amsl.com> <a15e2d1df86820f2483516662d3712d8a60161cd.camel@powerdns.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005191134560.13722@bofh.nohats.ca> <ec6bc9248179a9ab56ea490f82b14c7e90ffe819.camel@powerdns.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005241222410.4172@bofh.nohats.ca> <36E4371F-BCBE-43F7-9D4B-8439B3FF1D2A@isc.org> <aa745f51e4b7fd0955ae9e444416772b32c75dbf.camel@powerdns.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2005280037220.18104@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <f2584afc08bcbc7b1e2de98c23f51a086205b5ba.camel@powerdns.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2005291600050.11689@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <alpine.LRH.2.21.2005291128460.31882@bofh.nohats.ca>
Organization: PowerDNS.COM B.V.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/tUYtqYTGh9P28j3MmASYKqMsZPo>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-vandijk-dprive-ds-dot-signal-and-pin-00.txt]
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 19:49:09 -0000

On Fri, 2020-05-29 at 11:31 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> 
> Note for DNSKEY algorithm, we could use 253 or 254:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4034#appendix-A.1.1
> 
> DNS software might already support ignoring these algorithms without
> adding too much noise to the DNSSEC validation process of having
> "wrong" DNSKEY's.

PowerDNS does nothing specific for those numbers. A quick grep of the Unbound codebase suggests the same there.

I wouldn't expect any noise from unknown algorithms - have you seen otherwise?

Furthermore, 253 and 254 are specifically targeted at people/organisations/groups that do not want/cannot afford/... an IANA registration. In other words, people that don't want to go through the RFC process. I don't think that's the path we want to be going down here :)

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email