[DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl-04: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 17 May 2021 14:50 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88A03A3ACA; Mon, 17 May 2021 07:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org, tjw.ietf@gmail.com, tjw.ietf@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.29.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <162126301878.6110.17012836155352242589@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 07:50:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/6XQcUgiG0tGndGJZ0g3VibTGNWY>
Subject: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 17 May 2021 14:50:27 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank to Tiru Reddy for the SECDIR review. Section 5. Per: An attacker can prevent future records from appearing in a cache by seeding the cache with queries that cause NSEC or NSEC3 responses to be cached, for aggressive use purposes. This document reduces the impact of that attack in cases where the NSEC or NSEC3 TTL is higher than the zone operator intended. Shouldn’t this text read s/An attacker can prevent future records/An attacker can delay future records/? Per Section 9 of RFC8198, “If the resolver is making aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3, one successful attack would be able to suppress many queries for new names, up to the negative TTL." If the timing is right, this delay could be indefinite. Isn't the mitigation provided here that the attacker needs to seed the cache more often?
- [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-iet… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft… Peter van Dijk