Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pwouters-powerbind-00.txt (fwd)

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 19 March 2018 21:35 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 4BE9B12D94D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 cPQROsVSBQfC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:35:06 -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 D2FE712D94B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404q933PgxzCy6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:35:03 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1521495303; bh=ys0MYNaQ3tiZDoRQ6Z8db5nz0RnvIqT0XwZKV3s7FZE=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=A209KrvCD6q476IciumbOR7sbd4we7ZzgkpcNauydEeT+6QmRHfli+zY3KIBwJfj2 tYxDwEYBBQUZheIBCR7pG5Bd4DQfvgt7BXBlUEdMMUx2Pev2a8PHbJcogYPFcBG1EE 624giUEEsPuX9zAlCTIS62hOesLp86wMpdDzQ5vM=
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 Zla0-bvjTtyg for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:35:01 +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 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:35:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 08E0BC98; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:34:59 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 08E0BC98
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F153E40007E9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:34:59 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:34:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180319205014.rajzau6bvps7jr6p@mycre.ws>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1803191730090.12290@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1803190813150.31565@bofh.nohats.ca> <20180319163434.GA25738@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <CA+nkc8CWtXOiXCVQf4iyJwBS1K4seLxsJmtZyRyz7yuCn+u8hQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180319194945.GG3322@mournblade.imrryr.org> <20180319205014.rajzau6bvps7jr6p@mycre.ws>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 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/RpZb8p5c-zC9xm1wNNXqS1NfSoA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pwouters-powerbind-00.txt (fwd)
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:35:07 -0000

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Robert Edmonds wrote:

> Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> The idea is to log the DNSKEY RRs observed at each zone apex.
>> Without the proposed flag, one would also have to log denial of
>> existence which would make the logs much too large.
>
> Can you expand on what you mean by "much too large"? There are already
> existing large scale passive DNS systems that log every RRset that they
> observe, and on relatively modest amounts of hardware. Is transparency
> for DNSSEC really all that less tractable than the "log every RRset"
> problem?

Do these large scale passive DNS systems then host the data for (m)any
clients to fully download?

There are also privacy aspects. if you need to audit/log every query,
you are uploading more personal identifiable information. Combined with
TTL=0 or really short RRSIG times, these can become trackers. DNSKEY and
DS records don't come with such short TTLs (or if they would it could
itself be seen as a sign of malicious behavior) so there is much less
of a one to one relationship between those queriers and answers.

Paul