Re: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Wed, 14 October 2020 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 B60873A09FD; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 xpPpHcSsLrz0; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (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 423EC3A0A3B; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korb.sei.cmu.edu (korb.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.30]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 09ED1DGS015481; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:01:13 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu 09ED1DGS015481
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1602680473; bh=LLNddSVI5IFE6t561JdJm0C4jK/lOvEd/cEPCoAfnxs=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=TMnR4uSCHC5fe3/FAz5w2wIqILY4CBR/N2numfBAznhGjPCmYT+/a9k3fSO18g/Wi pQv5gpYXTRsHD77WCaPBF6v8PK4iJiDhGK2ccMMys19DLALZWd4UQF5lY4hNVoZXwe j0qWdn9+y3r2n77yMXP2eY+GbqBg8S8z7DnF6O6w=
Received: from MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (muriel.ad.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.47]) by korb.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 09ED1Aum030768; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:01:10 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) by MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:01:10 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb]) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb%13]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 09:01:10 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "Wessels, Duane" <dwessels=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest@ietf.org>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, "dnsop-chairs@ietf.org" <dnsop-chairs@ietf.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHWm4scjI2g8fCOZk60H2rcJ0wpo6mM04UA///AHKCAA0+HgIAETbrwgAMmDYD//8X3wA==
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 13:01:09 +0000
Message-ID: <19f42f327b1848ab9a73add0d926a1bf@cert.org>
References: <160195246471.4620.11112787341926255318@ietfa.amsl.com> <514C2BA5-37C3-48E5-B1FE-DCA96C7F37B3@verisign.com> <5fbeea49742e4866878af08d9681c8fe@cert.org> <51CC3897-1A88-41F7-A56C-0BB4E69EBBC9@verisign.com> <d5e8101c9c40421489b35a7e15e8b726@cert.org> <A17A9498-5987-4ABE-82C0-8FBC780200C2@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <A17A9498-5987-4ABE-82C0-8FBC780200C2@verisign.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.203.52]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ESPO0lkgmtYXqdr5IqMl9q6LLn8>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 14 Oct 2020 13:01:18 -0000

Hi Duane!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Wessels, Duane
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:28 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest@ietf.org; Tim Wicinski
> <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>om>; dnsop-chairs@ietf.org; dnsop@ietf.org; Wessels, Duane
> <dwessels=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest-12:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> 
> 
> > On Oct 12, 2020, at 9:24 AM, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Duane!
> >
> > Thanks for the extensive changes in -13.  They address my concerns.  I have
> left one remaining comment about clarifying "provably secure" with a
> reference.  Otherwise, I've cleared my ballot.
> 
> Thanks Roman,
> 
> Instead of "provably secure," how does this look to you:
> 
>    1.  The verifier MUST first determine whether or not to expect DNSSEC
>        records in the zone.  By examining locally configured trust
>        anchors, and, if necessary, querying for and validating DS RRs in
>        the parent zone, the verifier knows whether or not the zone to be
>        verified should include DNSSEC keys and signatures.  For zones
>        where signatures are not expected, or if DNSSEC validation is not
>        performed, digest verification continues at step 4 below.
> 
>    2.  For zones where signatures are expected, the existence of the
>        apex ZONEMD record MUST be validated.  If the DNSSEC data proves
>        the ZONEMD RRSet does not exist, digest verification cannot
>        occur.  If the DNSSEC data proves the ZONEMD does exist, but is
>        not found in the zone, digest verification MUST NOT be considered
>        successful.
> 
>    3.  For zones where signatures are expected, the SOA and ZONEMD
>        RRSets MUST have valid signatures, chaining up to a trust anchor.
>        If DNSSEC validation of the SOA or ZONEMD RRSets fails, digest
>        verification MUST NOT be considered successful.

This language looks good to me and is even better than a reference.  Thanks for clarifying the text further.

Roman