IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Resolver behaviour with multiple trust anchors

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 31 October 2017 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 3654213FA5B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 ZbU7oICVTv5N for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 D0DE013FA4F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3yRKf46zFFzF7T; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:30:20 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1509474621; bh=Twixip/R3hh7gpSPgNiOt8yfHcLk4hf5vRXt0yzSCOI=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=os7zSeg7CA9QgDg8u1s2/iDgpSvv7+YX0IKbuJHo3xUzlwNr1QH20h6jC2Pr/bwZC ZJZGZJPUfmDK0YbBpGfUVobdXffwLTF3pFoLNvncpB4wewP5J/gbUZa7i6ihhpGwDn 50S6DR4mxqlI3yExRnN2i4EIybWNw3VYqG8ru1S4=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xFo63j8H4EP9; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:30:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:30:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.252.1.42] (unknown [2.50.18.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9C6F62D29; Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:30:18 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca A9C6F62D29
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15A432)
In-Reply-To: <CAN6NTqxy4SWxsUNZyBA=1TZxdhWtVxaTDYLoA1qO2nKf202g9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 22:30:13 +0400
Cc: Moritz Muller <moritz.muller@sidn.nl>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E94AE36A-CA69-47DB-A2B7-41D0C3644855@nohats.ca>
References: <121CDBC2-D68C-48EE-A56E-46C61FC21538@sidn.nl> <CAN6NTqxy4SWxsUNZyBA=1TZxdhWtVxaTDYLoA1qO2nKf202g9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur@cloudflare.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/JK4PxlzEWBbuQOjJEMUqTxqEMZI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Resolver behaviour with multiple trust anchors
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, 31 Oct 2017 18:30:26 -0000


> On Oct 31, 2017, at 22:25, Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur@cloudflare.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> There are three ways to treat this case: 
> Any-TruestedKey-works  
> ConfiguredKey-trumps-DS 
> DS-trumps-configuredKey
> 
> I think the Last one is the "most" correct from an operational expectation,

Not really, as that would mean you cannot have internal only zones in split-dns view, unless you are
building in weird assumptions like ConfiguredKeyTrumpsNSECbutNotDS

> But I suspect the middle one is implemented 

It better, it is the only working solution :)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email