Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6781 Errata?

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 26 April 2018 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 18628127522 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 07:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 BbmoDYSWyh4e for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 07:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 BA73E1241FC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 07:22:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.120] (50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w3QEM38R066289 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Apr 2018 07:22:05 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141] claimed to be [10.32.60.120]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 07:22:48 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.11.2r5479)
Message-ID: <DF0BDF93-023A-405E-BF4E-90186AFA32F8@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAiTEH-U1dHa09ywCAj_y-86Ti4sQf-xrfGFLeuHcXpRrXrAAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAiTEH-U1dHa09ywCAj_y-86Ti4sQf-xrfGFLeuHcXpRrXrAAg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/QKa2DS5ncfTuN3uEGaSmNh7lWqc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6781 Errata?
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, 26 Apr 2018 14:22:54 -0000

On 26 Apr 2018, at 7:15, Matthew Pounsett wrote:

> I've found some confusing text in the KSK Rollover section of RFC 
> 6781, and
> I'm trying to decide whether to submit it as errata.
>
> In section 4.1.2, which describes the various steps in a KSK rollover, 
> the
> following text is meant to describe the last three steps:
>
>    new DNSKEY:  During the "new DNSKEY" phase, the zone administrator
>       generates a second KSK, DNSKEY_K_2.  The key is provided to the
>       parent, and the child will have to wait until a new DS RR has 
> been
>       generated that points to DNSKEY_K_2.  After that DS RR has been
>       published on all servers authoritative for the parent's zone, 
> the
>       zone administrator has to wait at least TTL_DS to make sure that
>       the old DS RR has expired from caches.
>
>    DS change:  The parent replaces DS_K_1 with DS_K_2.
>
>    DNSKEY removal:  DNSKEY_K_1 has been removed.
>
>
> The text for the "new DNSKEY" step seems to contain text that belongs 
> in
> the other two.  Even though rearranging it wouldn't change the 
> meaning,
> it's not clear to me that this qualifies as simple errata.. it's 
> obviously
> too big a change to just be fixing a typo.
>
> Thoughts on whether I should submit it?
>
> Or maybe we just put it on the pile of things that have come up 
> recently
> that speak to a 6781-bis document.

An errata for that would be fine; such a report will probably get put 
into the "Hold for Update" state, but at least it is publicly marked.

--Paul Hoffman