Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-12

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Thu, 03 May 2018 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
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 6D72B12EAFC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 May 2018 14:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 6fjGkKexrQNB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 May 2018 14:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1572412EAFE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 May 2018 14:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.199.5.28] (unknown [50.235.236.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7344C89289; Thu, 3 May 2018 21:57:57 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5AEB85E3.5010506@redbarn.org>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 17:57:55 -0400
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.25 (Windows/20180328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
CC: Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide@gmail.com>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <CADyWQ+EE9YCCM03wKvd-HefpoQVqhOfeeLKLV8L2LJj+tqmEzA@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC936z-4j8e+d7bvhfr_Mk8tk64tkuiRDTRtrqrBTJBKJw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLgTvPHe5jeL-0QZJ4+cxes8bBpCEULuDKThpjXoKzrbA@mail.gmail.com> <20180406134501.GC49550@vurt.meerval.net> <4A943DE7-81BC-41AC-93F7-4EC0975DF6B6@gmail.com> <5E7C31BE-EA5F-4A68-96FE-975CFAF77E42@apnic.net> <5AEB417B.5080101@redbarn.org> <8BE43818-87BC-47F1-BFA0-A53621B78395@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <8BE43818-87BC-47F1-BFA0-A53621B78395@apnic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/84VBCcrHj2hrsedt5dveYOasLWo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-12
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: Thu, 03 May 2018 21:57:59 -0000


Geoff Huston wrote:
>
>> On 4 May 2018, at 3:06 am, Paul Vixie<paul@redbarn.org>  wrote:
>>
>> what are the implications for older (pre-KSKROLL) validators when
>> icann eventually rolls the key?
>
> I assume that you are referring to security-aware resolvers that do
> not perform the actions specified in this draft. There are no
> implications at all for these resolvers.
>
> Any trusted key measurement conducted using such a resolver will show
> that the resolver is a security-aware resolver, but is not performing
> the sentinel method.

thanks. i feared for a moment a second TCR.

-- 
P Vixie