IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] nsec3-parameters opinions gathered

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Mon, 08 November 2021 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.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 9DB8C3A1118 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 08:13:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 qe1daFU5Io5p for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 08:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) (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 64D7F3A102B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 08:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 1A8GDNHl011730 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 8 Nov 2021 16:13:23 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.922.14; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 08:13:22 -0800
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0922.014; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 08:13:22 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
CC: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] nsec3-parameters opinions gathered
Thread-Index: AQHX1LuNq0Wi9eDbN0qwob5lWSQwqg==
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 16:13:22 +0000
Message-ID: <24CDB11E-0D7F-4EF4-BD97-5857498FF3FE@icann.org>
References: <ybl7ddnr16f.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <206e17b4-a920-8e3e-586d-ecc29855fae3@nic.cz> <45a10ca4-93e1-3c9c-7434-83c387d5246e@NLnetLabs.nl> <E354E8D8-5584-4607-A98D-76869F5CC68B@ogud.com> <20211108080026.GA5135@miek.nl> <yblo86uoj6g.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
In-Reply-To: <yblo86uoj6g.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_36668237-9B3B-4722-9F08-5DC58191464F"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-11-08_05:2021-11-08, 2021-11-08 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/IIM3EPlzgQDBy5wd65w5i6AAIbk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] nsec3-parameters opinions gathered
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: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 16:13:50 -0000

On Nov 8, 2021, at 5:45 AM, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:
> 
> Folks, can we boil this down to a concrete suggestion.  Section 3.1
> already says this:
> 
>   First, if the operational or security features of NSEC3 are not
>   needed, then NSEC SHOULD be used in preference to NSEC3.  NSEC3
>   requires greater computational power for both authoritative servers
>   and validating clients.  Specifically, there is a non trivial
>   complexity in finding matching NSEC3 records to randomly generated
>   prefixes within a DNS zone.  NSEC mitigates this concern, and if
>   NSEC3 must be used then selecting a low iterations count will help
>   alleviate this computational burden.  Note that deploying NSEC with
>   minimally covering NSEC records [RFC4470] also incures a cost, and
>   zone owners should measure the computational difference in deploying
>   both RFC4470 or NSEC3.
> 
> Which is fairly strong (SHOULD [use NSEC]) with reasoning behind the
> statement already.  How do you think we should specifically change that
> text?

Instead of "low iterations count", maybe "low iterations count (preferably 0)"?

--Paul Hoffman

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status