Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis

Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl> Thu, 10 October 2019 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
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 D9BDD1200C3; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 zxpt1QevFjay; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (dicht.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2a04:b900::1:0:0:10]) (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 7FEC112001A; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.local (unknown [IPv6:2a04:b904::7c3]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 749201C6DD; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:10:13 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=NLnetLabs.nl
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=benno@NLnetLabs.nl
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1570723813; bh=HSwxTaCvZY5Cx69uqKpcVsC0WFTRN69iLmz2sprPt40=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=lxomxinenQE/xZRg+9jsq9VfREtFL5+VD6e/fxfsASPgT1kGxAYFg9ETRTUTuyziq 1sQN3tqjckxaD0hY8ReeNJMwMs7P6WREcSDw0/+ANOdpYZn4mZOK8wju3vEFgDs7Rh CVRRgJZrJg2uR2lSPXyH93nfBeJwjHfTiSn9tAsQ=
To: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>, DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis@ietf.org
References: <631b86bb-0f76-7d07-e8b9-16e16aae20c4@NLnetLabs.nl> <20190710214154.GA29340@server.ds9a.nl>
From: Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <b04b6aa6-dad3-5c6d-3ec2-d6fcadae37b1@NLnetLabs.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:10:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190710214154.GA29340@server.ds9a.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/aJ6QQ_Yq10_JejbvzWgspAkFaAk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis
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, 10 Oct 2019 16:10:20 -0000

Belated thanks for your feedback.

I will proceed with the authors for the next step to submit the draft to
the IESG for publication.

Best,

-- Benno


On 10/07/2019 23:41, bert hubert wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:56:26PM +0200, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>> >From the feedback on the mailing list, the chairs believe that all
>> feedback and comments have been addressed by the authors, either in the
>> draft or on the mailing list.
> 
> With tremendous apologies for not spending a second on this draft earlier, I
> do miss one sentence.  But first, let me state that I (and the camel) are
> elated that this draft actually obsoletes documents and doesn't add
> substantially to the pagecount, or might even reduce it (!).
> 
> The sentence I miss comes after this first paragraph:
> 
>    TSIG was originally specified by [RFC2845].  In 2017, two nameservers
>    strictly following that document (and the related [RFC4635]) were
>    discovered to have security problems related to this feature.  The
>    implementations were fixed but, to avoid similar problems in the
>    future, the two documents were updated and merged, producing this
>    revised specification for TSIG.
> 
>    While TSIG implemented according to this RFC provides for enhanced
>    security, there are no changes in interoperability. TSIG is on the wire
>    still the same mechanism, only checking semantics have been changed.
>    Please see section 10.1 for further details.
> 
> Rationale for this new paragraph is that it will save like 10000 questions
> on if this TSIG is compatible with the old TSIG, or if software X implements
> RFC9xxx TSIG or the old one, and if there is fallback etc.
> 
> I fully realize how late my suggestion is.
> 
>> This starts a Working Group Last Call process of three weeks and ends
>> on: 31 July 2019.
> 
> I'm very much in favour of this cleanup and I applaud the authors for doing
> the hard work to make it happen.
> 
> 	Bert
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>