Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest-01.txt

This is a not uncommon problem in 'make this protocol work in future' spec.
It could say "for version ZERO of this protocol" and then say "future
versions of this protocol should stipulate what other values mean, and how
this affects handling of all-zeros state, and other states"

Saying "must not validate" baldly basically says "will always be zero" to
me -Which I think is what you're saying!

_G

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 3:04 PM Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:

> Duane,
>
> On 2019-09-06 02:01, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> >
> > With this version the authors feel that it is ready for working group
> last call.
>
> Sorry for a late comment, but I decided to give this one thorough last
> read-through.
>
> I'm a little concerned that the way the Reserved field is described may
> make adoption of later versions of ZONEMD difficult. The relevant text:
>
> 2.1.3.  The Reserved Field
>
>     The Reserved field is an 8-bit unsigned integer, which is always set
>     to zero.  This field is reserved for future work to support efficient
>     incremental updates.
>      .
>      .
>      .
> 4.  Verifying Zone Message Digest
>      .
>      .
>      .
>     7.   The Reserved field MUST be checked.  If the Reserved field value
>          is not zero, verification MUST NOT be considered successful.
>
>
> The question is, what can a zone producer do to support both this
> version of ZONEMD as well as a new version? Adding a non-zero Reserved
> ZONEMD value will break any implementation using this specification.
>
> I think what would be ideal is for non-zero Reserved values to be ignored.
>
> If we treat non-zero Reserved the same as unknown algorithms (that is,
> using placeholders) will that be okay? It may complicate generating
> compatible ZONEMD in future ZONEMD implementations. With the envisioned
> incremental version I think it will be fine; if you want both a
> full-zone and incremental ZONEMD then it will indeed be complicated, but
> I think probably few zones will need that. I have no idea whether using
> the placeholder technique will work for more weird and wonderful later
> versions.
>
> I suppose it is okay to reject the use case and not worry about
> compatibility, since we expect the incremental version to be used mostly
> for large zones where the current ZONEMD simply won't work... 🤔
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>