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

Vladimír Čunát <> Mon, 19 March 2018 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0E412EB37 for <>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.01
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aHN56jEKWy6k for <>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A06BF12D969 for <>; 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 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF350626A9 for <>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:10:21 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=default; t=1521475821; bh=7rQnfzQc954tTPqij06D0vsPNY2SdAx9oy8YaIO/Dk4=; h=To:From:Date; b=w0XO+8xyxgdJGYJIQReoze3Wc3dJB021p8gSc5SiM0bETOfL+sGT4K0/8JHezWn/5 YHvOdurSiE90TehjAEUccguz1Vixawr1N/1DUPIc3xjf8o0g1PLQDrY96EdNia01m0 frgiS1bL/icQ5er6oNIMggn+lDru3M/+e62RheSQ=
References: <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltw61yIMSMdW7DoXQ=?= <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] dnssec-kskroll-sentinel-06 clarifications
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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).