IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] fragile dnssec, was Fwd: New Version

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 17 August 2017 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 A7F9F132192 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=zhTJ63/L; dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=QZ/z15+o
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 KjywxbDTXsBt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (www.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::4945:4343]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57482132063 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 44215 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2017 13:54:53 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=acb5.5995a02d.k1707; bh=O9Kz05TzoEb2s3ZQiZRqUFafyrONfoL5E/2O8k7gZa8=; b=zhTJ63/LOC/42fmstBzjyvUk/VglQGfNORgAhD1F0LbSfnV8C3Rb///xfaO9rTKxinfqubqM7HPEZKQ/y0G+CVttkLRXZMnnTe5gYulVrqAc3iDGfuex9men0h6ludFiW+ttWBtCpXeXgRAz3CpUqvK7qv4UeSH/Ds6//FfTX8L9rZIj9MR8MMvP7QK3UwH8cd8/JZA8d7nJaf9AFtoy9ETx8EpzOF2Exf68ESo+BPoMxPajGipQPCm95jtehuRk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=acb5.5995a02d.k1707; bh=O9Kz05TzoEb2s3ZQiZRqUFafyrONfoL5E/2O8k7gZa8=; b=QZ/z15+oTAZV+TIsOvK3u8NDiFUEDTQYpzElDMhvyU144318c2Rr05b93dWiKYOTm4X5EDVAnGujEVHXyWjh8BsPRP32aO+6ol1gugV0AEfy11Ax8L4ppNXTMI0xUymyF8lxQrry+DfCP1NruYugP37CKs9ABfI3mpz3Rieyz3n1Ax5vX+E1ipU5dl56TQjp+rLc3n7L1GXyqtFUwx/vOHRxwLjoCsUIoTXWkds6NG07uRRZExTuQvEA53wl2RSn
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 17 Aug 2017 13:54:52 -0000
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:54:51 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1708170941210.63290@ary.local>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAiTEH9=sz_PE2QrJiM9gFxrVnUrVcuHcimut3cXxsC7ndE8GA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170816071920.BA2C98287EA4@rock.dv.isc.org> <20170816230917.4475.qmail@ary.lan> <CAAiTEH9=sz_PE2QrJiM9gFxrVnUrVcuHcimut3cXxsC7ndE8GA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/N5BBVhmLrvdLZOyMwStpynaSHRw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] fragile dnssec, was Fwd: New Version
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 13:54:57 -0000

> Have a look at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-dnsoperator-to-rrr-protocol/

I've talked to Jacques about it, will try it when I have a chance. I only 
have two .CA domains so it's not a very high priority at this point.

I agree that at this point it's the most promising approach if registries 
and registrars can solve the metaproblem of finding the update server. 
There's a dismaying amount of pushback on RDAP among the ICANN registries 
(policy issues, nothing technical) so I'm not holding my breath.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email