IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Tue, 05 May 2015 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <each@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339D91A87C9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2015 09:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 XtvSoE7XNyOk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2015 09:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [199.6.1.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A28471B2F3B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2015 09:44:53 -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)) (Client CN "mail.isc.org", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (not verified)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F39721FCAB8; Tue, 5 May 2015 16:44:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id BBF82216C1C; Tue, 5 May 2015 16:44:49 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 16:44:49 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Message-ID: <20150505164449.GA70790@isc.org>
References: <553EBF02.3050703@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqc-T75k3sQZKtAF1VHp49biGn+Es5v5FivNSz5e3oB-Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLxtR9avcm6pEPVmdwF+hmR13mi1v2ZvjetJyF4irntog@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iLxtR9avcm6pEPVmdwF+hmR13mi1v2ZvjetJyF4irntog@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/LbzPUmqB6T5qOgVOBkZd5Dg8Qmo>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 May 2015 16:51:12 -0000

On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:24:13PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> The way that our resolver works is that the closest TA would win, and
> so a positive TA under a negative trust anchor *would* be used. To me
> this seems to be the obviously right thing to do, and so, unless
> anyone objects, I'll add text to the document stating that.

This matches the BIND implementation.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email