Re: [DNSOP] dnssec-kskroll-sentinel-06 clarifications

Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat@nic.cz> Mon, 19 March 2018 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir.cunat@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 0D0E412EB37 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.01 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 aHN56jEKWy6k for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:10:30 -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 A06BF12D969 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:586f:b5ff:fe77:f7c0] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:586f:b5ff:fe77:f7c0]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF350626A9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:10:21 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1521475821; bh=7rQnfzQc954tTPqij06D0vsPNY2SdAx9oy8YaIO/Dk4=; h=To:From:Date; b=w0XO+8xyxgdJGYJIQReoze3Wc3dJB021p8gSc5SiM0bETOfL+sGT4K0/8JHezWn/5 YHvOdurSiE90TehjAEUccguz1Vixawr1N/1DUPIc3xjf8o0g1PLQDrY96EdNia01m0 frgiS1bL/icQ5er6oNIMggn+lDru3M/+e62RheSQ=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <dfb0182f-fada-c1ea-93fc-4f8c29046725@nic.cz>
From: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltw61yIMSMdW7DoXQ=?= <vladimir.cunat@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <4f4fffb1-09ed-9155-5c5a-7a64fa2e5c60@nic.cz>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:10:21 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dfb0182f-fada-c1ea-93fc-4f8c29046725@nic.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7ssz1fnzHXYxjiCt2RSNKmED9iU>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] dnssec-kskroll-sentinel-06 clarifications
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:10:35 -0000

On 03/18/2018 09:44 PM, Petr Špaček wrote:
> The current text in section 5 is written with an assumption that query
> with +CD bit cannot result in "Secure" status and thus cannot trigger
> sentinel processing, but this depends on implementation.

I just want to note that this situation of answering +cd queries by
validated cached RRs isn't very implementation-specific.  One way to
come to this: it seems generally desirable to have aggressive caching
(rfc8198) on forwarders, due to serving as a cache shared by multiple
resolvers, and validating resolvers tend to use +cd to query the
forwarders (rfc4035#section-3.2.2).

--Vladimir