Re: [dnsext] CAA RRTYPE review - Comments period end Mar 11th

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

Just to be clear here, what is being proposed here is the version of the
specification described in the -02 version of the draft which was simplified
in response to feedback from the list.

In particular we removed a feature from the previous version of the
specification that allowed a single CAA RR to contain a list of property
entries. That was considered to be confusing


Looking through the draft, there is a typo where some text in 3.1 seems to
have escaped this change and may be the source of confusion.

The CAA data field consists of a sequence of at least one property entry.
 Each property entry consists of a sequence of:

This should read.

The CAA data field contains one property entry.  A property entry consists
of a sequence of:


I also note that I did not do a block diagram of the data section. This
should be

+0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-|0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-|
| Flags          | Tag Length = n |
+----------------+----------------+...+---------------+
| Tag char 0     | Tag Char 1     |...| Tag Char n    |
+----------------+----------------+...+---------------+
| Data byte 0    | Data byte 1    |...| Data byte m   |
+----------------+----------------+...+---------------+

Where n is the length specified in the tag length field and m is the
remaining octets in the data field (m = l - n - 2) where l is the length of
the data section.


I will make these corrections to the editing copy of the draft.

This does not change the intended semantics of the proposal.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Frederico A C Neves <[e-mail]>wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Bellow is a completed template requesting a new RRTYPE assignment
> under the procedures of RFC5395.
>
> This message starts a 3 weeks period for an expert-review of the DNS
> RRTYPE parameter allocation for CAA specified in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-donotissue-02
> IANA #412190
>
> If you have comments regarding this request please post them here
> before Mar 11th 18:00 UTC.
>
> Best Regards,
> Frederico Neves
>
> --begin 5395 template CAA--
>  A.    Submission Date: 3 Dec 2010
>
>  B.    Submission Type:
>        [X] New RRTYPE
>        [ ] Modification to existing RRTYPE
>
>  C.    Contact Information for submitter:
>           Name: Phillip Hallam-Baker
>           Email Address: [e-mail]
>           International telephone number: [phone]
>           Other contact handles:
>
>           (Note: This information will be publicly posted.)
>
>  D.    Motivation for the new RRTYPE application?
>        Please keep this part at a high level to inform the Expert and
>        reviewers about uses of the RRTYPE.  Remember most reviewers
>        will be DNS experts that may have limited knowledge of your
>        application space.
>
>  The Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) DNS Resource Record
>  allows a DNS domain name holder to specify the certificate signing
>  certificate(s) authorized to issue certificates for that domain.  CAA
>  resource records allow a public Certification Authority to implement
>  additional controls to reduce the risk of unintended certificate mis-
>  issue. And is designed to be extensible in order to support related
>  concerns including enforcement of issue restriction in applications.
>
>  E.    Description of the proposed RR type.
>        This description can be provided in-line in the template, as an
>        attachment, or with a publicly available URL:
>
> A detailed specification is posted is given in
> draft-hallambaker-donotissue:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hallambaker-donotissue/
>
>
>  F.    What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that
>        need and why are they unsatisfactory?
>
> The only current means by which this information can be expressed
> in the DNS is via a TXT record which is not differentiated for this
> purpose.
>
> The approach here addfresses purposes that are clearly outside
> the purpose of the CERT record and similar 'keys-in-DNS'
> approaches.
>
>
>  G.    What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)?
>        Note: This can be left blank and the mnemonic decided after the
>        template is accepted.
>
> The proposed mnemonic is CAA standing for Certification Authority
> Authorization.
>
>  H.    Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA
>        Registry or require the creation of a new IANA sub-registry in
>        DNS Parameters?
>
>        If so, please indicate which registry is to be used or created.
>        If a new sub-registry is needed, specify the allocation policy
>        for it and its initial contents.  Also include what the
>        modification procedures will be.
>
> Yes, the following registry assignment is requested.
>
> 5.2.  Certification Authority Authorization Properties
>
>  IANA [is requested to create] the Certification Authority
> Authorization Properties
>  registry with the following initial values:
>
>             Meaning                                          Reference
>  -----------  -----------------------------------------------  ---------
>  path         Authorization Entry by Signature Path            [RFCXXXX]
>  policy       Authorization Entry by Certificate Policy        [RFCXXXX]
>
>  Addition of tag identifiers requires a public specification and
>  expert review as set out in RFC5395 [RFC5395]
>
> Note that information carried in this record addresses application
> layer concerns. As such it is highly desirable to employ a tag-value
> approach to attribute specification than the code-value approach that
> is employed at lower layers in the stack.
>
>  I.    Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS
>        servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being
>        processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])?
>
> No.
>
>  J.    Comments:
>
> While the CAA proposal made in the accompanying Internet Draft
> represents a complete technical proposal, development of a full CAA
> standard will require further work that cannot be begun until a DNS RR
> assignment is made.
>
> In particular the CAA proposal MAY be proposed as the basis of future
> minimum issue guidelines for Domain Validated Certificates published
> by CA-Browser Forum. It is hard to see how such a proposal could be
> made without first obtaining significant experience of enforcing CAA
> issue restrictions.
>
> The CAA proposal MAY also be relevant to ongoing work in the IETF
> Applications area (WEBSEC) and the security area (TLS, IPSEC, Proposed
> KIDNS).
>
> Given the large number of moving parts, the proposal has been crafted
> with the intention of minimizing the number of dependencies in the
> system.
> --end 5395 template CAA--
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/