[DNSOP] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Fri, 08 July 2016 20:33 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D3412D872; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t5HyrwgSMa-1; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B47512D894; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local ([173.57.161.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u68KWnHt069615 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:32:51 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [173.57.161.14] claimed to be unnumerable.local
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds.all@ietf.org
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <0371ee99-778c-5ded-0c31-3c6d8d6b55c7@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 15:32:49 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-rSAaD0sbxBEGJx2mNVEIyZuTys>
Subject: [DNSOP] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 20:33:04 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 8 Jul 2016 IETF LC End Date: 11 Jul 2016 IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready, but with nits and perhaps a process problem Potential process problem: This document intends to move RFC7344 from Informational to PS in place (without republishing RFC7344. The intent to do so is buried at the end of the document (the abstract doesn't mention it). The Last Call for the document does not make it clear that _this_ document is elevating RFC7344. (It at least mentions it, which is good, but the writeup about the elevation can be read to say "we're considering this elevation somewhere else, keep it in mind while evaluating this document"). There is no hint from the subject line that this is a call to bring RFC7344 onto the standards track. Unless there is some other communication effort that I've missed on a quick search, I think it is very likely that most of the IETF community outside the dnsop working group missed this intent. I strongly encourge a last call focusing _specifically_ on moving RFC7344 to the standards track without republication. My personal feedback on elevating RFC7344 without republishing is that it's not the right thing to do. At the very least "Category: Informational" appears in the document itself, and that will not change. If the IESG decides to proceed with this as currently formulated, count me in the deep rough. Nits: In 1.2, "that decision SHOULD be fully under the child domain's control"... Why is that a 2119 SHOULD? I think this is commentary on that it would be a bad idea for someone else to unilaterally decide to turn of DNSSEC for a child domain? Why not just say that (it would be even better to expand on _why_ it's a bad idea. If you really think this is the right way to say what you mean, and you keep 2119, please talk about when it would be ok to not follow that SHOULD. In 1.3, consider pointing to Appendix A of RFC7344 to better define RRR. In the Security Considerations, you have "Users SHOULD" and "all options SHOULD be considered". These are not meaningul uses of 2119 - please use prose to say what you really mean. If you want to keep them, please talk about when it would be ok to not follow the SHOULD. I think you're trying to say "Completing the rollover via an unsigned state is dangerous and should only be used as a last resort" or something similarly strong. Consider pointing back to the 5 scenarios you spell out in section 1.2 in the security considerations section. The asserted existance of operational and aoftware limitations that necessitate turning off DNSSEC to facilitate a change of operator is certainly a major security consideration. Consider doing more to the DNS Security Algorithms Number registry than the current instructions indicate. Simply adding a reference to this document to the row for number 0 does not convey that this "reserved" number is actually being _used_ in a protocol, and that when it is it's an algorithm number that is not a number for an algorithm. I don't know how to say that cleanly, but the registry should say more than simply "reserved" if this document is approved. Typo-nit: s/digiest/digest/
- [DNSOP] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dnsop-maint… Robert Sparks
- Re: [DNSOP] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dnsop-m… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dnsop-m… Jari Arkko
- Re: [DNSOP] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dnsop-m… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-dnsop-m… Robert Sparks