Re: [DNSOP] kskroll-sentinel and unclear results

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 25 May 2018 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 815DC126BF3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2018 19:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 0h3OI3HMx29C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 May 2018 19:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 9B5961200F1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 May 2018 19:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [169.254.53.3] (50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w4P2okpb020957 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 24 May 2018 19:50:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141] claimed to be [169.254.53.3]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 19:51:40 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.11.2r5479)
Message-ID: <607759DF-1039-4BA9-A48C-60CF54398BA5@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iLV3R8YxZdN1==FBhekrmSDx+xPm1_Xj8q_1qi0MJ6FGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A53AF3DD-205D-4A8D-82DF-3255287FAFB0@vpnc.org> <CAHw9_iLV3R8YxZdN1==FBhekrmSDx+xPm1_Xj8q_1qi0MJ6FGQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/eBjT8d1ErJby4JAFrTV1RXdGCEA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] kskroll-sentinel and unclear results
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 25 May 2018 02:51:47 -0000

On 23 May 2018, at 11:49, Warren Kumari wrote:

> On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:29 PM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> 
> wrote:
>
>> Greetings. As I re-read the current draft of
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel, I'm feeling a bit uneasy about the
>> description of "Vleg" and of what happens when you get a result that
>> doesn't fit into the query/type table. The draft is fine for when the
>> results are Vnew, Vold, and nonV, but it gets mushy for other 
>> results.
>>
>> It's just a name, but "Vleg" indicates that the resolver is a legacy
>> validating resolver (that is, doesn't do
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel). As the document says, that's one
>> possibility, but you can also get the same set of answers from a set 
>> of
>> resolvers that validate and support the protocol, but don't all 
>> support
>> the key whose Key Tag is in the query.
>>     Similarly, if all the client's resolvers support this mechanism, 
>> but
>>     some have loaded the key into the trusted key stash and some have
>>     not, then the result is indeterminate ("Vleg").
>> The draft also uses "indeterminate" in other places for the result.
>> Given that, calling it "Vleg" could lead implementers of tests to the
>> wrong conclusion. Calling it "Vind" would be clearer.
>>
>> And this brings up the second point. The earlier sections of the 
>> draft
>> mix saying that the tests are for "a resolver" and for "a system of
>> resolvers". Although Section 4 does a good job of discussing the
>> complications of measuring for a user that has more than one resolver
>> that have different configurations, earlier sections make the 
>> protocol
>> sound more definitive than it is.
>>
>> If others agree with me that the draft can use better language around
>> these, I'm happy to offer new proposed text.
>
>
> ​I for one would like to see proposed text - we can decide from that 
> if it
> makes things clearer.

The proposed text is at
    https://github.com/APNIC-Labs/draft-kskroll-sentinel/pull/21
It's an omnibus change, so you might want to pick up parts, but I think 
as a whole it deals with the above concerns in a consistent fashion.

--Paul Hoffman