Re: [DNSOP] NSEC/NSEC3 for unsigned zones and aggressive use

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Fri, 21 July 2017 08:30 UTC

Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
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 D18CA129AA0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 TzY1Uj98QboX for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A80A812778D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 01:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:8f23:502f:10bd:1a2a] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:8f23:502f:10bd:1a2a]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0AB60622A1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:30:14 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1500625814; bh=hfSw/QP4K3p16S7t1H1JDVRRcUl7+mxhGp5bt8cpNMQ=; h=To:From:Date; b=mGxVJuZHGOD2gQnMrVdv9t+t6zAXnZ4a/YjYGEBJv4XX+E5P7LO2Ik4rtlVxmhhpL ihXThyLtQqqpfPhA7JBpByXzobPqGExtloPKADVyBs6THP6OjgbgWVxnemUEmcq1sw m2lMUxoTyJCpaUTPqc3ZgjipVF5Y1ywlKSNt4Tms=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20170718094654.GA31988@jurassic> <6EE82876-6085-42FA-B2F1-850E9EAE6083@vpnc.org> <20170718125056.GA7982@jurassic> <20170720150031.GA22702@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <138b3c18-70ae-c2ca-1f63-e68e256e6e48@nic.cz>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:30:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170720150031.GA22702@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0mTpI0CLxbG2uX_anzNrCF9iRI0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] NSEC/NSEC3 for unsigned zones and aggressive use
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 21 Jul 2017 08:30:17 -0000


On 20.7.2017 17:00, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 06:20:56PM +0530,
>  Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org> wrote 
>  a message of 27 lines which said:
> 
>> It is to put draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse to use with unsigned
>> zones.
> 
> That's quite funny. During the development of RFC 8020
> (draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut), which addresses the same concern as
> draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse, many people said that the feature
> was dangerous, and we should mandate the use of DNSSEC. In the end, it
> is not mandatory (see sections 2, 3rd para, and section 7 of RFC
> 8020).

It is worth noting that implementation in Unbound enables this only for
DNSSEC-signed zones to avoid problems with broken CDNs.

In other words, DNSSEC is used as indicator "we can do DNS properly".
That sounds reasonable to me.

Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC


> draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse is more aggressive (because it can
> now synthetizes answers) so it seems to me the same reasons should
> apply?