IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Mon, 11 May 2015 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966671A9100 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 09:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 zq3sEfhVdnno for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 09:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x236.google.com (mail-ig0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E9071A9104 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2015 09:05:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so73924802igb.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2015 09:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=308uXQmhkGsudCH0HzTtJH01iFcxEYF2YQDjGcN105Y=; b=e6T0T6qwvBe4AG4vnNDkKp6ooGFf/5t6S6eTvOHOT3TIeY5ABYFBOt/jSgX4RPW2A2 tVDIgPCRhX2LHE7oVafv7V5vFDtUnBZfnvtiyIM4kdpXM4YGu/whViuU9LNrL1CQa+Lc UZ8sqFA5VOkqLX/QkEuO3PqeKkk9Fv/FpFAacCtGUdP8TS21rZLfxzebQm3wPC7+2EgA 2SeFvF2hnSL+osu18AxJaodrMpb223biumRey5nDGvL4A/YaDAuJBdaaHy5zpG3czBRL HhKiCTDoa19Y8tZj81L+IbqG1/eRp6Yy3tXgLTXJtvbprdsCbjurJ0KRWizkYzmfsp1j wliw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.62.148 with SMTP id y20mr15027745igr.17.1431360312807; Mon, 11 May 2015 09:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.50.80 with HTTP; Mon, 11 May 2015 09:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iLbx_soi1+LaSwMKarLcT1kBCrFdaX8diwMVZp70KeePA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <553EBF02.3050703@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqc-T75k3sQZKtAF1VHp49biGn+Es5v5FivNSz5e3oB-Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL9RLp0jynT0m_D6dGZYhmdonvBC-5ifTdB63eh5gvBeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqesFPG6d3UsFmtFRjUBQqfifHkaBMR0sXAaNKuN10HL4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iLbx_soi1+LaSwMKarLcT1kBCrFdaX8diwMVZp70KeePA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 09:05:12 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1ES3jpcecvKJZnwG6mPCJgqaF-Q
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeUeuRnFAkq-=ZSCwX62=z2QDQ=gG7Yq88dmrf72g5N5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/anyj85wiNgBWWKRkQVx81jFmMBs>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 11 May 2015 16:05:18 -0000

At Sat, 9 May 2015 15:08:11 +0200,
Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:

> > 1. In my very original comment on this matter:
> >    www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg12614.html
> >    I noted one other corner case, which we might also want to clarify:
> >      On a related note, there are some corner cases which may also be
> >      worth noting: queries for DS or DLV (or anything similar to that).
> >      So, for example, zone1.example.com/DS should still be validated even
> >      if there's an NTA for zone1.example.com.  Again, this might sound
> >      obvious, but I think it's worthwhile.
>
> I have spent some time trying to figure out some text that explains
> this without becoming really complex and wordy. If anyone has some
> text that they would be willing to send I'd appreciate it...

I didn't think we'd need wordy text to explain this, but I wouldn't be
opposed to omitting this topic from this document.  In practice, it
wouldn't matter much whether we validate zone1.example.com/DS in the
example case since everything else on and under zone1.example.com
won't be validated anyway.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email