IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest-00.txt

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 08 August 2019 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 313BA120168 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.201, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=mccR75cQ; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=cBJ2KreZ
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 ZBDhMbJMCEX5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 C6A9F120159 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1344 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2019 18:51:56 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=53e.5d4c6f4c.k1908; i=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=v/IZpHWHFLDE/Uw7x+R0Irnz0SlK0GJMKtV3dvjGVpM=; b=mccR75cQWiETRgfkBkaB9pNufJhaiNSK/RAXbhN5Lhftk+9EuWxaRZAcYs2z9yWSgdnkqjGXLqc0cl8dIYXEFMgfixUtrJrqpNwa7KwUra696Br7O8+8uYbEiYP8/CVfXjrHGVQp/4ieN/lnCLJgS0D+LfjZDrdXFOtUIZfPlgDhJJrF2iKh+yPtVvdAm0v+sIOL4aAunhHpjGRNq4JtHVZepmJvLK8s2fMJBFupNBmRvYRjnh/vtp9UrTpXfdYs
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=53e.5d4c6f4c.k1908; olt=printer-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=v/IZpHWHFLDE/Uw7x+R0Irnz0SlK0GJMKtV3dvjGVpM=; b=cBJ2KreZClqLiFv4bZjoQkLvSYjYAzOeTCpihKi4GyeSG4vxrk3CNutjONG9WYCpONZL3l2Tx997AcvggIoitKWhrRzY5rSxrMsaK71FSAWp37YDmw6U6R4ETNyknYZAtyz4Sq0EwcGeI64XLFrKIHCSWe8VjfhmmRY1bshy2agModgko0stcuGS4nKKP2P/2VST3xUiXMFJB2WCFsOmqUqkvNO03K+kUmpTanMdOttptYPKVNGqyhdsKW+SP9I2
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, printer@iecc.com) via TCP; 08 Aug 2019 18:51:56 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 654657CF5A4; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 14:51:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 14:51:55 -0400
Message-Id: <20190808185156.654657CF5A4@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: jabley@hopcount.ca
In-Reply-To: <9EFB92DB-CB48-447C-BDF9-4783E9A86D4E@hopcount.ca>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/XtP_Tot3B84vQaWfCjhMF1fIkoo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-zone-digest-00.txt
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, 08 Aug 2019 18:52:10 -0000

I agree with Joe's advice to limit the spec to what you need to
interoperate.  It's a good idea to allow algorithm rollover, but I
don't think it's useful to try and guess how people might implement
it, or to try to invent a way to send back failure reports.


>NEW:
>
>4.1.  Verifying Multiple Digests
>
> If multiple digests are present in the zone, e.g., during an
> algorithm rollover, at least one of the recipient's supported Digest
> Type algorithms MUST verify the zone.

I don't see how that's a MUST.  What else could you do?

> If multiple digests are present in the zone, it is up to the
> recipient to decide how many to check.  The zone digest is valid
> if at least one of the  digests can be verified.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email