Re: [DNSOP] draft-fujiwara-dnsop-delegation-information-signer

fujiwara@jprs.co.jp Thu, 05 November 2020 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
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 3AC103A16A3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 20:49:50 -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 raKgL3GMS4c2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 20:49:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp [IPv6:2001:218:3001:17::10]) (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 CE0963A16DD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 20:49:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from off-sendsmg31.osa.jprs.co.jp (off-sendsmg31.osa.jprs.co.jp [172.23.8.161]) by off-send01.osa.jprs.co.jp (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0A54nkTI014373; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 13:49:46 +0900
Received: from off-sendsmg31.osa.jprs.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss91 (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D296024086; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 13:49:45 +0900 (JST)
Received: from localhost (off-cpu08.osa.jprs.co.jp [172.23.4.18]) by off-sendsmg31.osa.jprs.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA7A6024082; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 13:49:45 +0900 (JST)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 13:49:45 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20201105.134945.746830416880055656.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
To: marka@isc.org
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
From: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp
In-Reply-To: <484191FC-B161-4AC3-9A4A-538BEDA3BA6E@isc.org>
References: <20201104.133137.359450294432060529.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> <484191FC-B161-4AC3-9A4A-538BEDA3BA6E@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 24.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-9.1.0.1231-8.6.0.1013-25768.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.965-5.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--12.965-5.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSS-9.1.0.1231-8.6.1013-25768.005
X-TMASE-Result: 10--12.965000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: e01xcIcDidBCXIGdsOwlUu5i6weAmSDKYawhvkuLgj6qvcIF1TcLYOUf NhOSN2u8Ja+j7uN5ofaDNcz/VLysaEM+/sRSQraK34b00P59ZxmxQtRrr9ApRTxZFF39deGHezK Bji0+3F6rd6rC1y5zrCRcQVrHO2A5XNpsQYEVcal5zXLXCu83xSIk3dpe5X+hXKZrN6TIU9EADV ryRoxCDr4FBAM7vmVTkV0LBNlEVSz0kLWHzhc9QZCB65RjRY3sU28wNQtPmHOgDWpkqTKvodKwr 7FTJsja3UwJgnKc1S5zc6JRsx7OjkbuMg/D9GEQGv7XR3J9BSrOwndHdfxk90Tqq9Xa45y5VUeJ KoiOgYG6WGhueQ8jeR2Oyrse5EG/yaSTLlm3Ps0o7b5tLxYZrcSHcUCk5Po0A8122KFhsXyjxYy RBa/qJX3mXSdV7KK4QiE5bJj38wDP/MyuVlT/C0tIkhusciGXPllU9ZtDDM8gBwKKRHe+rwDTeC F26O6Lgs0afAFyt3JZ/niLNWwSxcIfiL8r5F53wSG/YXSw/uw=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/R1b0rQ6k1EVuoRyngOzsprRon9M>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-fujiwara-dnsop-delegation-information-signer
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 04:49:50 -0000

> From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
> One problem with DiS is that assumes that address records in the additional
> section *always* come from the delegating zone (see how the hash is created).
> This is not how DNS works.  Address records can, correctly, come from other
> sources, even when the name is *below* the zone cut.
> 
> Take a server that serves example.net and sub.child.example.net.  That A record
> comes from sub.child.example.net not example.net when the name of the server is
> a.sub.example.net.
> 
> 	child.example.net NS a.sub.example.net
> 	a.sub.example.net A 1.2.3.4
> 
> Mark

"a.sub.example.net" is not a "in-domain" glue. (it is "sibling" glue).
Then, DiS RR for child.example.net will be generated
from "child.example.net NS a.sub.example.net".

Authoritative server of "child.example.net" responds
  child.example.net NS a.sub.example.net in authority section
  with/without a.sub.example.net A 1.2.3.4 as a glue in additional section.

Sibling glue "a.sub.example.net A 1.2.3.4" is not a target of DiS RR
for "child.example.net NS".
Validator can validate "child.example.net NS a.sub.example.net".

Validating resolver can accept the sibling glue "a.sub.example.net A 1.2.3.4".
Or,
validating resolver may reject the sibling glue "a.sub.example.net A 1.2.3.4",
and treat it similar to out-of-bailing domain name,
then, resolve "a.sub.example.net" A/AAAA from root (or child.exapmle.net).

Then I think the idea works.

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>

>> On 4 Nov 2020, at 15:31, fujiwara@jprs.co.jp wrote:
>> 
>> I submitted draft-fujiwara-dnsop-delegation-information-signer-00.
>> 
>> Name:		draft-fujiwara-dnsop-delegation-information-signer
>> Revision:	00
>> Title:		Delegation Information (Referrals) Signer for DNSSEC
>> Document date:	2020-11-03
>> Group:		Individual Submission
>> Pages:		6
>> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-delegation-information-signer-00.txt
>> 
>> DNSSEC does not have a function to validate delegation information.
>> I think it is a large missing peace of DNSSEC.
>> 
>> I have a question why we did not include signature validation function
>> to delegation information ?
>> 
>> Probably, because it is non-authoritative information.
>> Or, because it was difficult to define the necessary and sufficient
>> delegation information.
>> 
>> It is now widely agreed (although not explicitly documented) that the
>> delegation information is the information used for name resolution and
>> does not result in name resolution.
>> 
>> We have a word "in-domain" glue which is the necessary and sufficient glue.
>> 
>> And the idea may offer the signature for root priming data.
>> 
>> If someone interested the document, I would like time slot at dnsop WG
>> meeting.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> --
>> Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> 
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org
> 
>