Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-00.txt

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Sun, 26 August 2018 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 32779130E03 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 16:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 w2g-TQ8FNGCo for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 16:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33DB8130DD5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 16:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:9061:ce0d:93bf:336d] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:9061:ce0d:93bf:336d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 032D3892C6; Sun, 26 Aug 2018 23:07:53 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5B8332C7.2050209@redbarn.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 16:07:51 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.25 (Windows/20180328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
CC: Paul Vixie <vixie@fsi.io>, dnsop@ietf.org, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
References: <153507165910.12116.7113196606839876181.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPt1N1=o3KRa_X2KTuW1=KagOv1R0KM=QvT0QBf5YrOSWTr9mw@mail.gmail.com> <461B2749-E2A4-42B8-9FB3-824D96039423@bangj.com> <2581322.trI6Ix2n6k@linux-9daj> <AA14BDA5-2173-4CED-97E7-3F550ADCB51C@bangj.com> <5B832FBD.9070505@redbarn.org> <90C3CC19-0A39-4D53-A17B-9DBA79F05C2C@bangj.com>
In-Reply-To: <90C3CC19-0A39-4D53-A17B-9DBA79F05C2C@bangj.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/IFOm_5B1UHpiY2jiMJKAiFVZqYs>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 23:07:54 -0000

Tom Pusateri wrote:
>
> There’s no attack vector here. And a collision would have to be
> another valid RR already in the database with the same owner name and
> class. This is literally impossible. Probably not even with md5!

as i wrote when the discussion of catalog zone hashing got to this 
point, "if collisions are impossible even with md5, then please use md5, 
and include a security considerations paragraph or two as to how this is 
not a problem. for that matter, if md4 or md3 will work, use those. 
unnec'y hash complexity is a form of security theater."

-- 
P Vixie