[DNSOP] question regarding draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-03.txt/proof of non-existence of the ANAME record

Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de> Wed, 29 May 2019 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
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 F33E71200F9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 00:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 zbnmOOwy-cVm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 00:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kmx5b.knipp.de (kmx5b.knipp.de [IPv6:2a01:5b0:0:29::6a]) (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 8E2C5120072 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2019 00:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.54]) by kmx5b.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F971300332; Wed, 29 May 2019 07:53:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [195.253.2.27] (mclane.do.knipp.de [195.253.2.27]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EDAA55FD; Wed, 29 May 2019 09:53:01 +0200 (MESZ)
To: dnsop@ietf.org
From: Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Message-ID: <99f63475-40dc-8e82-9acf-1311326dc9dc@knipp.de>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 09:52:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:69.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/69.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spamd-Bar: /
Authentication-Results: kmx5b.knipp.de; none
X-Rspamd-Server: s671
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2F971300332
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8391, ipnet:195.253.0.0/16, country:DE]; IP_WHITELIST(0.00)[195.253.2.54]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Al2I7bD4U0enQ3BxZ8TpBTWdWx8>
Subject: [DNSOP] question regarding draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-03.txt/proof of non-existence of the ANAME record
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 29 May 2019 07:53:35 -0000


Hi all,

while still struggling with the basic ANAME processing (as described in my other 
mail), I wondered whether with DNSSEC, an authoritative name server MAY, SHOULD 
or MUST prove the non-existence of an ANAME record when it receives an A or AAAA 
query and no sibling ANAME record exists for the delivered address records.

My personal opinion is that there is no big harm if a man-in-the-middle silently 
removes the ANAME record from the response, as the returned address records 
should still point to some valid hosts, so I would not include it. In the case 
that there are neither address records nor an ANAME, the NSEC/NSEC3 record which 
covers the non-existing address record would also cover the ANAME, so this case 
is not a problem at all.

Nevertheless, I wanted to bring this to your attention just in case that you 
haven't considered that already (it is not clear from the spec that you did).

Regards,

Klaus