[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Request: Review changes - draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-03 → 04.

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:28 AM, Edward Lewis <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Aug 20, 2024, at 20:42, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul -
>
> I'm confused from your responses below - is this a WG document where the
> WG gets to decide, or is this an IANA document (like the one it was
> replacing) where IANA gets to decide? I *think* I saw you argue both ways
> in your response below.
>
> This question interests me.
>
> When DNSSEC was designed, there was a decision to treat all zones the
> same. The fear was large delegated zones (COM) would need special
> treatment, we didn’t want the protocol to different per zone for that. We
> didn’t address the uniqueness of the root zone though, specifically in
> distributing the trust anchor for it. This left a gap we’ve never
> addressed.
>
> IANA has addressed this for the DNS running on the global public Internet.
> Said in the sense that there is one DNS protocol and possibly many
> instantiations of a running DNS system. (I knew of a non-Internet DNS at
> one time, operating on a separate, private inter-network. It may not be
> around any more, on the other hand, when it comes to the inter-planetary
> work, there may be a DNS system per, say, planet.) This document is
> addressing how IANA is, has, and will be distributing the trust anchor for
> the root zone they manage.
>
> On the one hand, IANA wants to do what is in the best interests of the
> global public Internet and as such, seeks expert opinions of which this
> document is an example. The WG can’t materially change the document -
> without convincing IANA to alter something operational. This doesn’t make
> WG review futile, a “rubber stamp” step, IANA is listening to the feedback.
> OTOH, I wonder if this is truly a WG document or something that is best
> through the Independent stream but reviewed by the DNSOP WG.
>
> I doubt there is enough energy for the WG to design a “standards based”
> means for root zone trust anchor management and distribution that is out of
> band, despite the gap, as there is only one working example (IANA’s) and
> IANA has its methods (including this document) in place.
>
> “Automated Updates of DNSSEC Trust Anchors” is the WG’s in-band mechanism.
> A while ago I wrote a replacement for that to address issues uncovered in
> looking at a root zone DNS Security Algorithm change but abandoned the work
> once I realized the only operational deployment of it would be for the root
> zone, which isn’t enough to justify the standards work. The root zone
> implementation of Automated Updates isn’t precisely “by the RFC” but it
> works and for any change to the DNS Security Algorithm, it’ll be “made to
> work”, an alternate approach isn’t worth pursuing.
>
> Syntax is easy. Semantics are hard and this document has a bit too much
> ambiguity for a naive relying party. Strangely, if this were simply a
> signed file of hashes with a time associated with it indicating the IANA's
> current view (at time of publication) of the trust anchor set, I'd have a
> lot less to argue about. Someone tried to do too much I think.
>
> Protocol-defining IETF documents are meant to spur implementations, seeing
> multiple independent implementations interoperate is the goal. As a result,
> the documents often leave details up to the reader/implementer.
>
> But this document is not a pure protocol-defining document, it is an
> operational process document. As such, it ought to be more concrete. That
> is, if the goal is to describe the entirety of distributing the trust
> anchors.
>

I do not believe that that is the goal, nor should it be.

>From the Abstract:
"This document describes the format and publication mechanisms IANA uses to
distribute the DNSSEC trust anchors."
and Introduction:
"The publication of trust anchors for the root zone of the DNS is an IANA
function performed by ICANN, through its affiliate Public Technical
Identifiers (PTI).  A detailed description of corresponding  key management
practices can be found in [DPS].

This document describes the formats and distribution methods of DNSSEC
trust anchors that is used by IANA for the root zone of the DNS.  Other
organizations might have different formats and mechanisms for distributing
DNSSEC trust anchors for the root zone; however, most operators and
software vendors have chosen to rely on the IANA  trust anchors.

The formats and distribution methods described in this document are a
complement to, not a substitute for, the automated DNSSEC trust anchor
update protocol described in [RFC5011]."

This document describes the "format and publication mechanisms IANA uses",
not "this is what we believe that the IANA should do" - there are other
venues for that discussion.


The document could be here to just present the marshaling of the trust
> anchor materials - describing the syntax as it does - leaving the
> interpretation up to the writer (IANA) and reader (relying parties).
>
> Maybe this document ought to just describe what’s in the file. Maybe this
> document ought to expand to include rules for relying on the document as
> Mike suggests.
>

This is a -bis to RFC7958, and the changes are intentionally relatively
minor - see Section "1.2.  Changes from RFC 7958".  A document  providing
more rules and checks and processes and algorithms and advice for
implementers and operators ingesting the trust anchors would be a fine
document to write — but it is (to me) clearly a different document to this
one.
Just like RFC7958 this has some operational warnings, but does at it says
"A validator operator can choose whether or not to accept the trust anchors
described in this document using whatever policy they want."

This is just a cleanup document - let's get this shipped so that the IANA
can publish new TAs in a better format.

I’m not decided on this, frankly I need to go over the thread again. But
> its going to be a debate over whether this document is only about
> marshaling the trust anchors or it is about managing the trust anchors.
>

Managing the trust anchors is (luckily!) not this documents purpose. The
TA's management is IANAs job, and it's a hairy one — this document isn't
the place to do it…

My initial email in this thread said:
"As this required a change to the XML syntax, I'd like to get the DNSOP WGs
review / feedback on these changes.

The IANA is eagerly awaiting this becoming a standard so that they can
update their trust anchor with the DNSKEY material - so, if you have any
strong objections to these changes, please let me know by end of day
(anywhere!) on Aug 18th."

I encourage people to write an "implementation considerations for trusting
a new TA" document, and / or advice to the IANA on managing the TA(s),
succession planning, etc… but again, that is not this document. It
**could** even be a rfc7958bis-bis, but I feel it is a much larger topic
and would start from scratch.

I think that we are falling into the perfect becoming the enemy of the good
enough. We can always bis this document in the future and / or publish a
more comprehensive document, but for now I think that this is good enough
to progress.

Thank you very much everyone for the review and feedback,
W



>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
>