IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Problem with draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-19

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Mon, 08 October 2012 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B3221F851E for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.242, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wr33tUSD8KUz for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080C621F84CF for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAADBC94F5; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:48:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (c211-30-172-21.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.172.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3DE3216C81; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 13:48:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA9828EDD88; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 00:48:33 +1100 (EST)
To: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <CABrd9STyyyALzF00p_dgB-pr_+9wfApjJA+v=Ru1QGjd8fgxNg@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:38:25 BST." <CABrd9STyyyALzF00p_dgB-pr_+9wfApjJA+v=Ru1QGjd8fgxNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:48:33 +1100
Message-Id: <20121008134833.9AA9828EDD88@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Problem with draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-19
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:48:46 -0000

In message <CABrd9STyyyALzF00p_dgB-pr_+9wfApjJA+v=Ru1QGjd8fgxNg@mail.gmail.com>
, Ben Laurie writes:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-19#section-5.
> 1
> says
> 
> "When canonicalizing DNS names (for both ordering and signing), DNS
>    names in the RDATA section of NSEC resource records are not
>    downcased.  DNS names in the RDATA section of RRSIG resource records
>    are downcased."
> 
> This appears to be true, but it caused us some confusion: DNS names in
> NSEC _are_ still downcased for ordering purposes, and need to be or
> there's not much point in NSEC.

Given that NSEC records are singletons there is nothing to order.
 
> It'd be nice you have a clarifying comment in 5.1...
> 
> BTW, at some point I appear to have fallen off this list, but not sure why...
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email