Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-01.txt

Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Thu, 09 January 2014 04:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ogud@ogud.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 905311ADF9F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:41:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 GxrV_3hwTCOl for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:41:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp125.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp125.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50FE11ACCF5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 20:41:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp8.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0642F1A057C; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 23:40:51 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp8.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: ogud-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPSA id C3CF51A05DB; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 23:40:49 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
In-Reply-To: <52CD145E.8060801@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 23:40:49 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <04EA28D3-8186-4743-B66B-1F1C06A57524@ogud.com>
References: <20140104204035.7446.24984.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHw9_iKbHbt7+j=C2ub=vRR+0rNgU+3P=WjnpV4gnY=y=q4xOQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140104235045.GA24696@totoro.home.mukund.org> <28570EA3-CF74-4FD2-95CD-D8672E64C199@ogud.com> <52CD145E.8060801@nlnetlabs.nl>
To: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@NLnetLabs.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 04:41:02 -0000

On Jan 8, 2014, at 4:03 AM, Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:

> On 01/08/2014 05:53 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>> Note; 
>> This case is one of the reasons I want children to remove the C* records after parent performs the update, 
>> then there is no chance of JoJo updates by parent depending on which Nameserver is polled. 
> 
> But the parent would still need to deal with the case that the C* is the
> same: The child may not yet have removed the record because it had not
> yet come to the conclusion that all DS records at the parent name
> servers are in sync. In this scenario, the parent shall also not take
> action (just like if there was no C* RRset).
> 
> I think looking at the inception time is a better approach to prevent
> JoJo updates.


So you want an Parental Agent to look inside the RRSIG(s) as tiebreaker ?

	Olafur