Re: [dnsext] historal root keys for upgrade path?

Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> Thu, 27 January 2011 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
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 75EBD3A69E3 for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:11:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.154
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.445, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 C8xp0Ld5Jq2f for <dnsext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:11:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E0A3A69F2 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so2722932fxm.31 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:14:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NC1txP70fuHahicYRE5W9Z1cIuqap1yWJQKO4r1y4WY=; b=gq77j0mFQp+0jTD28+qOmzEWZPY3rWGd8JVrs96brId+Nj63/39SC5z1qPj77EC4Jh nqSUyRd4ty2Kk98LdNvMtMOelzENUW9tT9UCAuePTVpxWv8yozzp5mTWVGIr32Hf4oK3 275HGK3lXgb838elzjj2h74kk4BLzWEJEfOSw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=EIlP0PsoZwDM/WTQc25RjJYZTBfuhzo3AmspgT9YtMpf/Lmd/nWHrvEI00y6WTG4F6 WjMTuKCLfzmpLHshfJbLnT3Mjwg2Osw4swpe8tF6ZmnMwTxqNXlud/Co3uoEBM7uYa8d PCPVxl1rf2J2IEDkK+V+oMZA49eo8Jk9G5cLI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.101.135 with SMTP id c7mr1293034fao.76.1296155508113; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:11:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.108.71 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:11:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=eOGd0Ce0ei-c_MysqbHpp7NUWFPc-xCpt=muq@mail.gmail.com>
References: <alpine.LFD.1.10.1101251250040.30991@newtla.xelerance.com> <4D3F233C.7000900@vpnc.org> <alpine.LFD.1.10.1101251510140.30991@newtla.xelerance.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1101261442120.3329@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <AANLkTinCB-d2HWGY4kSOmfSCMNQ-D61keEE+1poTu11g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.1.10.1101260958490.30991@newtla.xelerance.com> <82vd1amfjm.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <AANLkTi=eOGd0Ce0ei-c_MysqbHpp7NUWFPc-xCpt=muq@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:11:47 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=YQ_dtrZ9ufeZyEcy70GfiDL6CFEnL6sV2ZHKs@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] historal root keys for upgrade path?
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, 27 Jan 2011 19:11:48 -0000

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Brian Dickson
<brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> wrote:
>> * Paul Wouters:
>>
>>> Remember this has to work on a product that has just been factory
>>> defaulted to a config from 10 years ago, and the device is EOL with
>>> no firmware upgrades.
>>
>> Why?  Where does this requirement come from?
>
> Regardless of oversimplification, having $vendor ship all routers with
> DNSSEC not only supported, but enabled by default, should be
> commended.

BTW, the reason we should consider this a really big win, is the
following observation for use cases:

(1) $Enterprise deploys new $router or $switch in their infrastructure
(2) $router/$switch has DNSSEC configured on by default, and
presumably successfully bootstraps its valid root trust anchor
(3) $Enterprise configures DHCP on $router/$switch, using
$router/$switch as the validating (non-stub?) resolver
(4) $Enterprise desktops use physically-secure infrastructure to the
resolver, which does validated DNSSEC resolution. Note that $desktop
does not strictly need DNSSEC.
(5) #WIN

Brian