Re: [DNSOP] DNSKEY Flags vs. CDS/CDNSKEY

Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Fri, 07 February 2014 23:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ogud@ogud.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824CF1AD739 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:46:13 -0800 (PST)
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] autolearn=ham
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 agUPoX_FL0ac for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:46:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp69.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp69.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36281AD72A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:46:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 139571483F1; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:46:07 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp1.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: ogud-AT-ogud.com) with ESMTPSA id 64F7A148467; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:46:06 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140207183127.GA32053@totoro.home.mukund.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:46:05 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <52FF9BF5-30BD-48C3-B2AC-A35818C24FC2@ogud.com>
References: <CAJE_bqe95pn8rHvK3UffPDn+_rGYiq2G5sfdgqisH4JG7gFjBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_i+Jt4Ok+CddheGT_nA=e4srgbUSQy98GeQ9qGn_Cncjag@mail.gmail.com> <52F52215.9090709@dougbarton.us> <CAHw9_i+Aanz5NZVO5Q_x=1zyFzHZSmeU6yoLx3cDkwD2sC-XMA@mail.gmail.com> <20140207183127.GA32053@totoro.home.mukund.org>
To: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSKEY Flags vs. CDS/CDNSKEY
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 23:46:13 -0000

On Feb 7, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>; wrote:

> Hi Warren
> 
> Did you see my reply to your email a few weeks ago where I asked why new
> CDS/CDNSKEY RR types are required instead of adding a new bit to the
> Flags field of the DNSKEY RR. Please can you look for my last email
> which lists some advantages? There may be a good reason for it, but I
> don't want you to miss considering it. :)
> 

We considered it but there are drawbacks including:
- changing a flag on a DNSKEY record means the key footprint and hash of key change, so matching 
  a key after a change in flags is hard for parents as they do not know which flag was changed. 
- Publishing a future TA in the DNSKEY set makes the DNSKEY RRset larger 

There are advantages to the new RR types 
- CDS allows the publication of a new Trust Anchor without exposing the public key of the new trust anchor 
- Putting a new key in a different RRset keeps DNSKEY smaller 
- less chance of confusion by parents. 

So in short we considered it and rejected that approach. 

	Olafur