Re: [DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8078 (5049)

Dick Franks <> Sun, 25 June 2017 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA822126CB6 for <>; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qq9_mYyPToB6 for <>; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 144A5126B71 for <>; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 95so56546389ott.3 for <>; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=64KwgIR/VCuazJ4BcbnSdOm7FJv5Rf9MenPNCqnwVYg=; b=HuUGk6mVg9avjHY/pcAbOdsaMIta1RCunFX+1wlKhQCLlAZ9PmJxfsN8z5Dy+WMm6e mAnp/VXHgiSseFDeSn5FXbscUaGWEaaOMnLnh5rDpcGUJSKUAcpK/zUFx/8UY4o+JgcA 5PRzrsyiJih/rCqFj/Fz/IfejQ+g5sNp5uIIKuqGaXdFn2y4t6oNIHfcoZo231h9csXK BJP+6Ot1KMZvoLZMX2y/mnS5J0GZOUU8OrnD3g5hLskFB478NjzJGhAMfseGy8daSq3J t7aSKAkiWvTZ3YF8SnGWijAND2UU5QyAX0FZKpDiZQ3HkzUz3cZPOKKEghVWbLVnB9V+ E4WQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=64KwgIR/VCuazJ4BcbnSdOm7FJv5Rf9MenPNCqnwVYg=; b=AZaq4s6xMkQF2j6zgLbN2D4SvUkBnEyZ85f1J/HroDtLdFVlJZF8kZDRxV5nIVheNT GSjvBr6AnqcWXD9wrGDw8rw2WyhqSEOGzmDk6HOHY5jZkUPFN2Lzo/weo6qOpNeVrsWc 2X8Z5NfixVvNqTedeUvd8VSZ0qJtPubuTvKRXXBqPpLhjR/5TpbIZfVN6N23BCK1FNKN uF/SScRyhmD+RZZe6ytZTOBuUt+f7E+yw5CfGIlWmBd2/MfSTYYE4ZVdPUvlJKy1/ftR eLbDLfMHjj9pL60hqJwrxAchAlbG8G1ZiL8uID3GHwoiR7d1yWiU/eKNVtcR9QWPU8fj DcHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOw1ey0jAOuEGRjafCAumkJ+OR4BnIKZQG5nmRc1guyCFNXAKkt9 Hhq0iGDAA3s9DeiZdta63yjFXp/icg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p49mr10633648otc.239.1498414781337; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Dick Franks <>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 19:19:00 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: whcS1nj543z5_QDGdmOekuqI9ek
Message-ID: <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ond=C5=99ej_Caletka?= <>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?w5NsYWZ1ciBHdcOwbXVuZHNzb24=?= <>,, IETF DNSOP WG <>,,,, Olafur Gudmundsson <>, RFC Editor <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c10ec2c495e10552cce074"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8078 (5049)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 18:19:44 -0000

 On 24 June 2017 at 16:45, Ondřej Caletka <> wrote:


The result that made it to the RFC is that there should be indeed one
> byte with value of 00 in the Digest/Public key field instead of no data
> at all.

That does not appear to be the position at all.

RFC8078 mandates a specific presentation format notation for the entire
RDATA string whenever algorithm is zero, and irrespective of actual values
in other fields.

The RFC is conspicuously silent about the equivalent wire-format

This avoids the need of defining new format and updating all the
> deployed software. It's not only about parsers of the wire format but
> also about zone file parsers, that would need an update as the single
> zero is not conformant with currently defined presentation format of

It is clear from the text of draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-04 that the
notion of mandated presentation format notation was already present.
Moreover, that version also carried the warning:

    This is a change in format from strict interpretation of
    [RFC7344] and may cause problems with some deployed software.

Your primary argument was therefore a non-starter even before the
appearance of the unparseable single zero.

I believe changing RRdata format just for this one purpose would add an
> unnecessary complexity.
> That train has already left the station.