Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] DNSSEC Strict Mode

[Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:21 AM Samuel Weiler <[e-mail]> wrote:
...

> Recognizing that I'm likely biased by my history of working on the
> current "mandatory algorithm rules", I don't buy the need for this
> complexity.  In practice our "weak" algorithms aren't _that_ weak.
> And, if they are, we might as well stop signing with them entirely.


I think that was true for a long time, but I'm not sure it's still true, or
will stay true.  I'm particularly motivated by the ongoing discussion about
adding Algorithms to the registry [1], and a recent overview of
Post-Quantum cryptography for DNSSEC [2].  Also, 829-bit RSA was factored
last year [3].  Validator update timelines are Very Slow, so we should be
thinking about adding features we might need before we need them.

Even if we are currently in a state where zone owners feel like they have
simple, safe choices, I don't think we should assume that this will remain
true indefinitely.

This seems like unnecessary further loading of the camel.
>

FWIW, my preference would be to simply remove the lax-validation rule from
RFC 6840, which would simplify the standard overall ... but there must
have been a good reason for it.  Strict Mode might be a stepping-stone in
that direction.

Ben, if you decide to persist with this idea, I've filed some issues
> in your GH repo.
>

Thanks!

[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-iana-cons-00
[2] https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/37/contributions/811/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_numbers#RSA-250