Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-04.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 30 October 2018 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 ABB0D126DBF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 PwI_x9SAPZQu for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 28F05123FFD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 19:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42kbZF3VGVz35k; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:51:01 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1540867861; bh=cT+VATfb4U8ALl6ZX38zcCwVIGfK/Y+Y87YqFizXXxs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ni3PLU/tr7oa0pm0DlOcyZPqHGBEaYe2iO3PYdGzWruswQ3A03Xbp7W5n8NwYHzCt oMkqnwLxxBfS0uDpwhXHVwZKMVyEh4UWvYX+d/UlKwYUn/vNzyS5nWWsM+nR5eWENJ BrpCl13MthwURP4N2luNo+YSf8u213ieaKddrkLI=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Cw_MVGOlHuR; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:50:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 03:50:59 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 32F6449ED72; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:50:58 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 32F6449ED72
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8A841C3B37; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:50:58 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 22:50:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels@verisign.com>
cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <16BC7FEB-CC3D-4DEE-82D3-CB148FD0F2B8@verisign.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1810292243340.10602@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <154020795105.15126.7681204022160033203@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+nkc8CR3KL0EVfkWF2U1coRh+chhNxjGWNevOG++BAt0YDwXw@mail.gmail.com> <601062EA-8853-47D9-B535-F71F25C80033@verisign.com> <CA+nkc8CaZ3ZbdWRBts2Zk6zjwZ4upnYJvO3N7eczqem-XCzXVQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1810251642030.29075@bofh.nohats.ca> <16BC7FEB-CC3D-4DEE-82D3-CB148FD0F2B8@verisign.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/DB5rCp48BVlJ29snZ5jDqUXylLg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-04.txt
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: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 02:51:05 -0000

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Wessels, Duane wrote:

>> What if we signed root-servers.net and allowed people to AXFR that
>> zone along with the root zone. Would there be any need to do any
>> checksumming? It seems a much simpler solution to protecting the unsigned
>> glue records then a new checksum method.
>
> First, I don't really see how it makes things simpler.  You'd have to look
> in two places (zones) rather than one.

It would then all be using just DNSSEC, and not other kinds of
authentication or verification schemes that _also_ need DNSSEC.

> Second, A signed root-servers.net zone doesn't cover all the root zone glue.

Indeed, I was wrong there. And to turn all that glue into signed records
will be a larger task, even if assuming all newgTLDs would have signed
records for the glue in the root.

> Whether or not root-servers.net should be signed is, IMO, a separate discussion.

Yeah, I only meant in the context of this discussion.

So you convinced me that it is okay to move forward with this.

Paul