Re: [dnsext] Clarifying the mandatory algorithm rules

Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net> Thu, 17 March 2011 15:45 UTC

Return-Path: <casey@deccio.net>
X-Original-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852B53A6968 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IP-h+J1tmtIO for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEB83A6983 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so16275qyk.10 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.18.9 with SMTP id u9mr1291495qaa.126.1300376795133; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.227.203 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <a06240802c9a7b6cb4cc3@192.168.1.105>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011180553250.83352@fledge.watson.org> <4CE51293.5040605@nlnetlabs.nl> <a06240801c9101620d463@192.168.128.163> <22284.1290447209@nsa.vix.com> <4CF4D54B.5000407@nlnetlabs.nl> <20110310223438.978E9C0E902@drugs.dv.isc.org> <4D79DDFA.3010006@nlnetlabs.nl> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103140901170.99213@fledge.watson.org> <20110314213319.A2799C8CA0B@drugs.dv.isc.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103141750530.74870@fledge.watson.org> <a06240800c9a50cf4632a@10.31.200.110> <AANLkTimUUa5zkr+hZH4jR-euENg_n=9EwtRVBN-cxr9_@mail.gmail.com> <a06240802c9a7b6cb4cc3@192.168.1.105>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:46:35 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin+hMZ-27VjkQq7_44zNguMiefhxbgGD+-XZxPP@mail.gmail.com>
From: Casey Deccio <casey@deccio.net>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec51a870ef2b5bb049eaf90cf"
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Clarifying the mandatory algorithm rules
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:45:08 -0000

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> wrote:

>  >"It seems like you are favorable towards the validator verifying an
> RRSIG
> >for every algorithm (which it understands, of course) that exists in the
> >DS RRset."
>
> No, no, no, quite the opposite.  For any given resource record set, a
> validator ought to try algorithms until any one works. Same for signatures
> and keys.
>
>
My apologies for the misinterpretation.  Even with the clear context of your
opinion, I somehow got lost with your opening paragraph of your example.

Casey