IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] on staleness of code points and code (mentions MD5 commentary from IETF98)

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Tue, 28 March 2017 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.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 B16F7129672 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 k9BkOZpFER8x for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (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 0EF071296EF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01FD7349315; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:05:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id EA7F2216C1C; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:05:03 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:05:03 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: Jan =?utf-8?B?VsSNZWzDoWs=?= <jv@fcelda.cz>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <20170328150503.GA21064@isc.org>
References: <58D96BC0.9040701@redbarn.org> <20170328024127.GC96991@isc.org> <CAM1xaJ-gCKqm63BuNszLxyt0_HevXSwB5H0+wg4ugatZSFJNPA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1703281532260.13590@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1703281532260.13590@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Gs-MHVKDCFsMpNFjahvkQbQyUso>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] on staleness of code points and code (mentions MD5 commentary from IETF98)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 28 Mar 2017 15:05:25 -0000

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 03:36:40PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> Chris Thompson just mentioned to me another reason for dropping support
> for RSAMD5: it uses a different DNSKEY tag calculation, which implies that
> dropping support should simplify validators more than dropping other
> algorithms.

To be clear, for the benfit of those not in the room yesterday, I do *not*
object to deprecating RSAMD5, I agree with the "MUST NOT" in the signer
column, and that it's pointless to support it in new validator
implementations.

My problem is with elevating "pointless" to the force of a "MUST NOT".  I
think it should be reduced in force to "OPTIONAL", "NOT RECOMMENDED", or
even "SHOULD NOT".  Kill it on the supply side.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email