Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?)

"Wellington, Brian" <bwelling@akamai.com> Tue, 19 June 2018 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <bwelling@akamai.com>
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 DE33F130F2C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 xzx89p_HVwYW for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 9F8FC130E63 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122331.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5JLgDAk010456; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 22:42:21 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=/00QR5Ma1rIAMvBLz2HVV7yNtzzLkAv8BhKMCJLrO98=; b=L7khH6W4DY+n+AN00+I64dgmvk8FYyQijzrFL9gmLyXFWj5pXJzNSg6aKDpqmscVr8w6 LsiFEu3LY8FQyWsOfmJ8NgXRwoGcPnsrX0Biq0C6+4pokyrvcD5CjnF40k/QNvGK873H ys6/G8BsyaF2Y8Ko3EgZqTW50jpiTu5qnBNmjXkSbdSHcCoaoAo/2IddsXDgY1x4D49y PbMMGLLvSFexpy64X+U1vfD5BHHnsLVedV8j/BATxMak5zck0tidY8rk8KEWiMjyxZ62 lIJHXB1LbLNzJkJP9q/7W9ZoWjc1lZ70VzpyzuySmYOawab1Ny6zf9GwlIgq6kGyAZbO RQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint3 (a96-6-114-86.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [96.6.114.86] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jpgqbkmkc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 22:42:21 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w5JLewfl008658; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:42:20 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.32]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2jmwwc6h47-2 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:42:19 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG3MB4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.26) by USTX2EX-DAG3MB6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:41:33 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG3MB4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.27.26]) by USTX2EX-DAG3MB4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.27.26]) with mapi id 15.00.1365.000; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:41:33 -0700
From: "Wellington, Brian" <bwelling@akamai.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
CC: =?utf-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?= <ondrej@isc.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?)
Thread-Index: AQHUCA7lh2Z6z5mhhEK1H8CLezXTMaRojAoAgAAFw4A=
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:41:33 +0000
Message-ID: <D770751E-437F-48AA-8B1B-19A9F3A966CE@akamai.com>
References: <6C8533C2-6510-4A0E-A7EA-50EB83E43A7D@isc.org> <CD6DB8C1-108A-433E-8CD9-34F549844D10@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CD6DB8C1-108A-433E-8CD9-34F549844D10@isc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.113.41]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8A125AE1-DF99-4A10-98D6-34A61A5F34DB"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-06-19_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1805220000 definitions=main-1806190233
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-06-19_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=932 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1805220000 definitions=main-1806190233
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/88XYozu2SQ7BmoizSHSJTykf4Q8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:42:26 -0000

SIG(0) was implemented in BIND 9 back when BIND 9 was basically the only modern implementation, and no one used it then.  The fact that no servers have implemented it since then means that there really isn’t any demand.

Brian  

> On Jun 19, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> SIG(0) is much superior for machines updating their own data  to TSIG as you don’t need a secondary storage for the TSIG key.   You can replace a master server without having to worry about transferring TSIG secrets off a dead machine. You just copy the zone from a slave and go.
> 
> There are other scenarios where it is also superior like automaton delegating  In the reverse tree.
> 
> No I don’t think it should go. 
> 
> It should be widely implemented so it can be used. There is a lot of self fulfilling prophecy in the DNS of people will never is this so we won’t implement it. 
> 
> -- 
> Mark Andrews
> 
>> On 20 Jun 2018, at 06:48, Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> as far as I could find on the Internet there are only SIG(0) implementation in handful DNS implementations - BIND, PHP Net_DNS2 PHP library, Net::DNS(::Sec) Perl library, trust_dns written in Rust and perhaps others I haven’t found; no mentions of real deployment was found over the Internet (but you can blame Google for that)...
>> 
>> Do people think the SIG(0) is something that we should keep in DNS and it will be used in the future or it is a good candidate for throwing off the boat?
>> 
>> Ondrej
>> --
>> Ondřej Surý
>> ondrej@isc.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop