Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> Mon, 11 June 2018 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <job@instituut.net>
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 BB8B1130EBF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 s8ujA779GaxJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22a.google.com (mail-ot0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E83C130DF1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id d19-v6so19674047oti.8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=instituut-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pFc2W1B3lP3D2IvC+qsuaKy+EqMRgMZM0GqWEElGG7A=; b=WpAkcCDp37B6VLqg28sGVtphn0pqf18L47vbNNbUCGJ4wam/KsGf0vO/0iZLJEhYZ6 u9VkX7FJFmC9cMolLp+cD5836LthzhZwEl45llJ36ssDNVdRGrKTro3BGzIbxit+kbmR kTIfFxQU8+oM0Jdjq/Uw456NkAClsPtOxHAZex7G/UWzZFSIp+ZneJK15t46PSr69wh1 Yv7kcHu0oRS8o2185rJ6O1Mumu1WNRhiZOiNBh1Pu9ZZIhRBruSo1vH3h/TKFT2YJulD ZoNkgkX6Do2J7T1X9Jr9XMmgTN2pmHnU075myZfByPGu3t1ZHYpaMEen4qe2JSo0MsgT GOWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pFc2W1B3lP3D2IvC+qsuaKy+EqMRgMZM0GqWEElGG7A=; b=pfWKHc6CPMwBF9vVBCG90YSVOoxmH8rp1kkTwfQ0LYRjIIy/wduKf5ZhkMr75fWix7 fLXynkBY/16chCMlHfVWZ6WAIxVJpSneKGJ5KtllSD4JZAEQdHK7r2XB/0UZ/WxHjUY1 8A/XtN5g0Zm7aidm6rHwI25CcHkkAX3W5ObLf3Ka0j+yFaMgSyaxNGJZejkJcttVcKgs hU2qgx5thaAdgmnT5VQtl8bF8C/KBSfliJlolEpiCytlnne3j3F79aVvC61y5y3niVI+ Br4PdBrEePqGOJ78KlcQNTZ2Ezw0XXzRkqAf5vI2n75nMsASU947gVZGCF5ZJtnt0mVJ eQKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E10Ux4xcEGjIv6c7TnQRoxeaHlXB+ljwftxYCz2ZWvrlc6z9Pnl ujJH5e79+Yjmvs0BbyYQSIagps4D0yK3opAfYCtDz6tOALE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJ32qpsI4F+hHsFUfSCkt1Qzd4uHMhHm3ifS6vhUR9KLT4uF/j981LmlYhXmZOsxi/9ddmeYk3z2IM5eRMFuec=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4098:: with SMTP id n24-v6mr345117ote.69.1528746223533; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4a:bd90:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [89.200.42.140]
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_i+jp1qzy6cS7MKvA3jeXV4xhV6jeLZv3b8-=b63BbhCRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADyWQ+EE9YCCM03wKvd-HefpoQVqhOfeeLKLV8L2LJj+tqmEzA@mail.gmail.com> <CACWOCC936z-4j8e+d7bvhfr_Mk8tk64tkuiRDTRtrqrBTJBKJw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLgTvPHe5jeL-0QZJ4+cxes8bBpCEULuDKThpjXoKzrbA@mail.gmail.com> <20180406134501.GC49550@vurt.meerval.net> <4A943DE7-81BC-41AC-93F7-4EC0975DF6B6@gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLTJUdTt_YnuC+sw2aNB10iGZ4bbcmOnf4i-y5Zssu0qw@mail.gmail.com> <20180407062714.GA63728@isc.org> <09F25B8D-25CA-47C4-B1A1-DA56B86D68F8@isc.org> <CAHw9_i+jp1qzy6cS7MKvA3jeXV4xhV6jeLZv3b8-=b63BbhCRA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:43:41 +0000
Message-ID: <CACWOCC_V5D=3Jd74_+AWHMWoLCkZ790s0d7B7_r1QCjTYnArEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?= <ondrej@isc.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/GFqdonfYnOIpwN6f7s2g7bSf_5U>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:43:48 -0000

Dear all,

For what it's worth - all my concerns have been addressed. I believe
the document to be in good shape now and would support a progression
through WG LC. I appreciate the effort the authors have put into
making this an exemplary specification!

Kind regards,

Job


On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> Dear WG (and chairs),
>
> Firstly, thank you to everyone who supported this, those who provided
> comments (especially pull requests!) and implementers.
>
> We have made a number of improvements to the documents based upon your
> comments - the diff can be seen here:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-10&url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-14
>
> Possibly more helpful is the GitHub list of Pull Requests:
> https://github.com/APNIC-Labs/draft-kskroll-sentinel/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
>
> We've added an implementation section - I know that there were more "client"
> side (the Javascript or similar automated tests); I'd been keeping a note
> with a list, but seem to have misplaced it.
>
> BIND and Unbound now support this; AFAIK, Knot supports the older name.
>
>
> I *think* that we've managed to address the comments, but if we happened to
> miss yours, please let us know.
>
> From my read of the WGs views, these, being *labels*, are not *Special Use
> Domain Names*, and so don't need to be added to the SUDN registry.
>
> The authors would like to thank the WG again, and ask that WGLC be resumed.
>
> W
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 9:02 AM Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org> wrote:
>>
>> And the MR was peer-review and merged into BIND master branch with intent
>> to backport the feature into older release branches.
>>
>> I don’t think it’s a useful or helpful to change the rules for existing
>> adopted work.  We need to have a discussion on the mechanisms that would
>> allow implementors to know when to start the implementation of existing
>> draft. From implementors point, it makes little sense to start implementing
>> before the protocol change is almost fully baked (aka WGLC and further),
>> because until then the protocol might change considerably.
>>
>> So, if we require implementation report further down the road, it needs to
>> be more clearly defined than people suddenly shouting “this is not ready”
>> when WGLC starts.  And while the attempt to implement something is certainly
>> useful to get valuable feedback, it also imposes some costs (with undefined
>> limit) on implementors (especially the open source implementors) and it sort
>> of discards the whole “Proposed Standard” -> “Internet Standard”
>> classification at global IETF level.
>>
>> I get that we probably need something more lightweight than “Internet
>> Standard” at the WG level, but this needs to be discussed and consensus
>> reached.
>>
>> ISC gave our feedback during the implementation and here are some nits
>> from me (re-reading the document again):
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>> Section "2.  Protocol Walkthrough Example" will be made into Appendix at
>> publication time, so just reminder here that you also need to change the
>> references like "(see the logic below)” when you move the section - perhaps
>> add direct reference to the other section this refers to?
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>> The table in 3.2 says:
>>
>> "Key Tag is trusted” and “Key Tag is not trusted” - it seems little bit
>> confusing to me; I think that “Key is trusted” and “Key is not trusted”; or
>> some change similar to this needs to be made:
>>
>> “First, the resolver determines if the Key Tag is trusted by comparing
>> numerical value of <key-tag>
>>    to any of the Key Tags of an active root zone KSK which is
>>    currently trusted…"
>>
>> in paragraph just before the table you mix “Key Tag” and “keytag” and
>> there’s also <key-tag>…
>>
>> My understanding of the text and the proposed fix:
>>
>> […]
>>
>>    First, the resolver determines if the numerical value of <key-tag> is
>>    equal to any of the Key Tags of an active root zone KSK which is
>>    currently trusted by the local resolver and is stored in its store of
>>    trusted keys.  If a match is found the <key-tag> is trusted. An active
>>    root zone KSK is one which could currently be used for
>>    validation (that is, a key that is not in either the AddPend or
>>    Revoked state as described in [RFC5011]).
>>
>>    Second, the resolver alters the response being sent to the original
>>    query based on both the left-most label and the presence of a key
>>    with given Key Tag in the trust anchor store.  Two labels and two
>>    possible states of the <key-tag> generate four possible combinations
>>    summarized in the table:
>>
>>     Label      |   <key-tag> is trusted    |   <key-tag> is not trusted
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     is-ta      | return original answer  | return SERVFAIL
>>     not-ta     | return SERVFAIL         | return original answer
>>
>> […]
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>>    o  A query name that is signed with a DNSSEC signature that cannot be
>>       validated (such as if the corresponding RRset is not signed with a
>>       valid RRSIG record).
>>
>> This is called “Bogus” by RFC 4033 Section 5 -> maybe a reference?
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>> In  Section: 7.  Privacy Considerations
>>
>> s/mechansim/mechanism/
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>> That is all folks.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ondrej
>> --
>> Ondřej Surý
>> ondrej@isc.org
>>
>> > On 7 Apr 2018, at 08:27, Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 10:09:50PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> >> I think I heard that ISC was considering adding support, but was
>> >> planning on waiting till RFC / some sort of LC.
>> >
>> > Yes. The work in progress is available here:
>> > https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/merge_requests/123
>> >
>> > --
>> > Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
>> > Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > DNSOP mailing list
>> > DNSOP@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>>
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
> the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
> pants.
>    ---maf
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>