IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-05.txt> (Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC) to Proposed Standard

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 18 February 2019 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 501D2127598; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 16:13:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 SFvi5NasxfLX; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 16:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 1A958124D68; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 16:13:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 442kpm42TFzDcp; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 01:13:04 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1550448784; bh=N6WOpBbimHqJQeLNC3rwQHpzSalhVoHMDFfbcB3R8eM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=GBIo0Cm5yAcnz8iZe0nTEivsGlL/8yvBCbUPJFnZgUfZj1O6KIrqe1vH7hszM55mc 1CQPhV+PmMQRFalSpxjXX1+vm7EVAfwvXQutCrrxWlfk/3e3B263vQlgTUG/igLK/Q BoGMgCBbA6cwosnuU0uQe1paBi/XzUQQwz4Cwjkg=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dyIB6hQirCpc; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 01:13:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 01:13:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 67EEC5C854; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 19:13:01 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 67EEC5C854
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B55140D358A; Sun, 17 Feb 2019 19:13:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 19:13:01 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@internetstiftelsen.se>
cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <811668FC-D40D-495D-B209-4CF1CDA8F31D@iis.se>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1902171911350.30077@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <155008617010.9548.7174990317415826094.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <811668FC-D40D-495D-B209-4CF1CDA8F31D@iis.se>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/3PxkJaB-nFn8r6PSumrzZ8_oGoA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-05.txt> (Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:13:09 -0000

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Mats Dufberg wrote:

> The table in section 3.3 ("DS and CDS Algorithms") of the draft states that SHA-1 is "MUST NOT" for "DNSSEC Delegation" but in the narrative text under the table it states "SHA-1 [...] is NOT RECOMMENDED for use in generating new DS and CDS records."
>
> The two statements should be consistent in the final RFC.

Done, thanks for spotting that.

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-06.txt

     SHA-1 is still in wide use for DS records, so validators MUST
-   implement validation, but it is NOT RECOMMENDED for use in generating
-   new DS and CDS records.  (See Operational Considerations for caveats
-   when upgrading from SHA-1 to SHA-256 DS Algorithm.)
+   implement validation, but it MUST NOT be used to generate new DS and
+   CDS records.  (See Operational Considerations for caveats when
+   upgrading from SHA-1 to SHA-256 DS Algorithm.)

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email