Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-01.txt

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 27 July 2018 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 C5C361310CA for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.422
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 1f_02n-PkOQO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-f49.google.com (mail-lf1-f49.google.com [209.85.167.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 267881310C4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-f49.google.com with SMTP id j8-v6so4203176lfb.4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yf2d6ckflxNLicjyAnD5CK0YCMDgPOz/rc0h8FG51Ac=; b=FFf3yLljUD64Mql3QUNbKbOx2e9AuWpt7SfrkM6xjEFKJ1IwA/PjRwxs//3KzjCN/X 0P430/oFUYrOgSEzyySeurIUc4u1vMmuEnrwWjpbWPg5BBDj4xhh0M0yIcHSW1t9BHVC mKEe87BTDNXSY5XrGSj2qOJkkdR3GBXuW6tvRAn0cbDKK7ozkoUbiPICOeub+R3aQ3kF /iQU0Ik5TL4/Cbevpv5FXfk9UL13ZwL9/PNF7rtIiMn7xXjglymmGhsrivC5O58qo/8A 0fD3ToQcJT6vrdyE7LDaiT1yAjwWa/PS7c/VkpRa85x2Gc5C95+7qIaPxBW/yzVMA+ve lTuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEc3LLOiio2BkDjca0aT80vs49czsgyf8C52dQDdTcPV0eQUDFc X/+lsGPBmmRSgJSCbxKiy/kpZhCD+vUxYD/INQM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdP4btH0UoPtR9DNXntwyFEo/S4DscUEU6qAgwCrv0dRTArXpMaqjtl9M/M7qKadqrYMPZvHgXw+JAbJYq1yHs=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:6902:: with SMTP id e2-v6mr4531966lfc.70.1532718009258; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 12:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4DCC5A51-1AB0-47B6-92B5-79B6894F9A9C@verisign.com> <CAJE_bqcELQbQeHPvvEBHOxpRyWYL76BmT_-G4jW4pTnUUXFMUw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAObRXL2LoB3f=296ZPE1Pp1nHkG---pRPAmyO1trTROxneHDQ@mail.gmail.com> <FF0A0A24-705F-46E3-BF31-314078636EE2@isc.org> <CAAObRXLjnOeaGZyHhvxH3xPwGBp=zxx6AjLSSm=CXR33NM-LjA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAObRXLjnOeaGZyHhvxH3xPwGBp=zxx6AjLSSm=CXR33NM-LjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:59:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqetth7KLPsFaQD_S9w-LQYLaAz+7c9F9iG7TLX7zfzaOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: songlinjian@gmail.com
Cc: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, mweinberg=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/SHkAD52dIeejbj4OA_c83HKANI4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:00:25 -0000

At Fri, 27 Jul 2018 10:59:53 +0800,
Davey Song <songlinjian@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The problem is that when you have every recursive server in the world with
> > a copy of the root zone from “random places” you want to reduce the
> > possible error spaces into manageable chunks when things go wrong which
> > they will.  Being able to verify the contents of the root zone you have are
> > not modified helps.
>
> Generaly speaking it is ture for any file replication. But it is not
> relevent with DNS context.

Right, so I think one main question is why the root DNS zone case is
so special that a protocol extension is justified.  Personally, I'm
not yet fully convinced about it through the discussion so far.  As
several other people seem to be persuaded, however, maybe I'm too wary
just because of my hat of handling eventual "named triggers an
assertion failure after zone transfer for some bogus zone digest"
CVEs.  But at the same time, if my sense of the wg's take on the "DNS
camel" discussion is correct, I think we (WG) should require a higher
level of justification for new protocol features.  Again, personally,
I don't yet think draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest has passed this test.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya