IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] NSEC4

Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl> Fri, 06 January 2012 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <miekg@atoom.net>
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 47BE521F8908 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 04:52:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yYPAfwr9ZY3m for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 04:52:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elektron.atoom.net (cl-201.ede-01.nl.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:7b8:2ff:c8::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE22E21F8906 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 04:52:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by elektron.atoom.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E3EBA4005C; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 13:51:58 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:51:58 +0100
From: Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20120106125158.GE26463@miek.nl>
Mail-Followup-To: dnsext@ietf.org
References: <20120104092946.GA4199@miek.nl> <40816163-6712-4FEF-9FE3-324A2A8BCA09@nominet.org.uk> <4F04329A.6040507@nlnetlabs.nl> <D3E76A95ED8345D1F635F172@nimrod.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="65ImJOski3p8EhYV"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D3E76A95ED8345D1F635F172@nimrod.local>
User-Agent: Vim/Mutt/Linux
X-Home: http://www.miek.nl
Subject: Re: [dnsext] NSEC4
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: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:52:01 -0000

[ Quoting <alex@alex.org.uk> at 19:43 on Jan  4 in "Re: [dnsext] NSEC4..." ]
> What we should have done is defined that mapping (base32 encoding here) as
> part of the hash algorithm. What we also should have done is specified the
> identity mapping as part of the standard. NSEC3 fatigue as someone said.

Yes and yes.

Wrt hash algorithm rollovers in the nsec3 record, we *might* make a rule
that if the algorithm of the DNSKEYs supports the hashing algorithm
you can also use that in the nsec3 record.

But of course there are some issues...

 grtz,

-- 
    Miek

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status