IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Mon, 08 October 2012 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.com>
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 2BC8721F85B4 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 MYyAaAA4z0Nv for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD8521F85AF for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hq12so3083335wib.13 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 06:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=/f0g7oJO0RhlhowG9BeDLmaEV6yhBLbVCD2s8bzaLZ8=; b=kdm2WXlF+prmO85o7fzXzhXgjEAGskrwEMFsmvWgdF+zexCxxxm+0CggPvnmU3yM6H 5UsBxEVarjalTzAps7qR8TMDHkHmx6GoFAT0WPbob6zuT78qhG1veo4eJVFC5R1P9KW5 3Gs2+mAGwGzpD1Op5/W35y+Wc7+zrANuB07aoS7WVzItfGatW2xLPmjR2pssP7xX5OFr eycLiyvhbee0fuSwE9zpGL+NhWRhupUXcfj4k1kZ8nDTM+GcLzC3WgST4pNNnmkhuvLI I0bTxxrNm6dNVpRVDCxprkIG3J+a7qmMYM5u8S/CurVtfD70CgJd4lYJ/f3P9BMn704s aV4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=/f0g7oJO0RhlhowG9BeDLmaEV6yhBLbVCD2s8bzaLZ8=; b=cZZWBnn2Pv867LfTCWEOWkj6eEJxpLvFoFum/xFVjqeCL5BK+kgd1pWCPbyfzNi6e/ qWNpKvdapIHx1G4T8g3pFV1XL38wWAA6TbCFXfDJ4ovzWRTMGKRgkVSonV6Whh9auEwK ah1DqfKmkb8komQiGDjKsMqsuCDpS2qeD7fEPk8ujriQcH21aC4HZ3Qdwui9lsCK1gLe DwC+ANwXyslVbdeXd2BFjkkuRXNGortKVWvo+ro+Pnzyr+RdWGhxGkEcLIDmFYmLoC5Z aeidnRguTTXhrbT2P2+drUrx44FygHkd3CZ4quXe+ikCyzUsp8fYdfGUBL5dZfscxULS Yjhw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.85.99 with SMTP id g3mr22104425wiz.5.1349704167159; Mon, 08 Oct 2012 06:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.236.201 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20121008134833.9AA9828EDD88@drugs.dv.isc.org>
References: <CABrd9STyyyALzF00p_dgB-pr_+9wfApjJA+v=Ru1QGjd8fgxNg@mail.gmail.com> <20121008134833.9AA9828EDD88@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:49:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CABrd9SR1_m-8WEcCiu9v5SjT-vrrsZYA14SXq76eGUED=8-zKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnm4Z17/gWkixi/nx7HlkZ/nyp1RfXK4sW8U03ZAigIEEbN10MkMkfR8/7R5YWkxvnPHlG+Hve5cCxri5nV1BUvSRgsbMIpDW0RwYcQcsXfvZGPIbm8aslzQ5MWeh/pgEhQ7oUOBBivLUWRaPHjbgqsvWlrs/9fIiQujxVjhovz63dx7Gqws5R9G3FP/cLgBq7i93jc
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 13:49:29 -0000

On 8 October 2012 14:48, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

The owner and the next owner are ordered...

>
>> 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