IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Questions on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Mon, 19 April 2021 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 CF6F33A39C7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 b2v1Od8I8PbE for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (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 CEE2F3A3A2C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-E2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.7]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 13JGXVja027168 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:33:31 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.858.5; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:33:30 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.0858.010; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:33:30 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com>
CC: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Questions on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHXNTm7WSaWKNvZUEW1TrhS9M3cBA==
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:33:30 +0000
Message-ID: <8E609BE8-B440-4E29-B454-724055A0DFF2@icann.org>
References: <161805873252.19178.11471347094062424385@ietfa.amsl.com> <88395F35-AF22-489C-B9D6-2FFE4EB1A767@depht.com> <5F3F8198-23EA-4BA9-A07E-EF7AB035CE72@icann.org> <70F7005D-6F8B-4BC0-BDAF-A415F62A7E8E@depht.com>
In-Reply-To: <70F7005D-6F8B-4BC0-BDAF-A415F62A7E8E@depht.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0E6616FD-4D4C-4AC2-97DF-5411DB256783"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-19_11:2021-04-19, 2021-04-19 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ZEc1iWG2dEOYU4Cbk6C4PKKwUNY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Questions on draft-ietf-dnsop-private-use-tld-01.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: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:33:53 -0000

On Apr 19, 2021, at 7:17 AM, Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 16 Apr 2021, at 17:18, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 16, 2021, at 5:31 AM, Andrew McConachie <andrew@depht.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> If I understand section 4.3 correctly, DNSSEC validating stub resolvers SHOULD NOT resolve these names. Is that the intention of Section 4.3?
>> 
>> No, definitely not. The text says:
>>   3.  Name resolution APIs and libraries SHOULD NOT recognise these
>>       names as special and SHOULD NOT treat them differently.  Name
>>       resolution APIs SHOULD send queries for these names to their
>>       configured caching DNS server(s).
>> Not recognizing them as special means to treat them like any other name. There is no mention of DNSSEC.
>> 
> 
> I realize now my question was unclear. My understanding is that a DNSSEC validating stub SHOULD attempt to validate these names, which will fail. Therefore a DNSSEC validating stub cannot use these names.

That's correct, as it would be for any private-use TLD. In fact, it's not just about validating stubs: an organization wanting to use a private-use TLD cannot have validating stub resolvers or validating recursive resolvers anywhere in the organization.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email