Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-04.txt

Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl> Tue, 10 January 2017 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
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 F0589129538 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:34:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 XRfPTS5DxNUX for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:34:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [185.49.140.10]) (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 E581F128B44 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:34:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:981:19be:1:31ac:2630:a2ed:a669] (unknown [IPv6:2001:981:19be:1:31ac:2630:a2ed:a669]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57495B59F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:33:58 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=pletterpet.nl
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <147792810754.32434.7815626160706350019.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <f3c5f93a-c1ae-8cff-2782-6352669f4920@pletterpet.nl> <11dd4e3d-3620-a478-cee5-6be4f9b9a141@pletterpet.nl> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1701101141250.4762@bofh.nohats.ca>
From: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
Message-ID: <04c6766e-87fe-9355-f651-633df6fe961e@pletterpet.nl>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:33:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1701101141250.4762@bofh.nohats.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/D-HcISzdiOE8TNg9p5TlKW2XL_k>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-04.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 10 Jan 2017 17:34:03 -0000

On 10-01-17 17:50, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
> 
>> I see that IESG has approved this document, but I am still wondering
>> this:
>>
>> On 01-12-16 13:20, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>>  I read this again. I still wonder if in the case of DNSSEC Delete
>>>  Algorithm it wouldn't be easier to say: In case the DNSSEC algorithm is
>>>  0, the Digest/Public Key MUST be ignored.
>>>
>>>  This way, you don't have to change the CDS/CDNSKEY format defined in
>>> RFC
>>>  7344, most likely causing less problems with deployed software.
> 
> I personally think the simplification of using all zero's is good. If
> someone accidentally changes the wrong number in the DS record when
> changing parameters, it will prevent a mistaken delete request. While,
> the zone might still fail, at least it won't be forced to go through a
> period of insecure while the parental DS gets repopulated.

I am fine with using all zero's. I just don't think the change in
resource record format is a good idea, dropping the last RDATA field
from the CDS record.

Matthijs


> 
> Paul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop