From nobody Wed Feb 9 13:41:48 2022 Return-Path: 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 2D5043A0D29 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:41:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 RawD0MaF2fah for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (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 C2E2B3A0D05 for ; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:41:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4699728B37; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:41:41 -0800 (PST) From: Wes Hardaker To: =?utf-8?B?VmxhZGltw61yIMSMdW7DoXQ=?= Cc: dnsop@ietf.org References: <163777315136.16773.10633006296842101587@ietfa.amsl.com> <4e4527b6-b0b3-33f3-3849-8a593fe29a1d@nic.cz> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 13:41:41 -0800 In-Reply-To: <4e4527b6-b0b3-33f3-3849-8a593fe29a1d@nic.cz> (=?utf-8?B?IlZs?= =?utf-8?B?YWRpbcOtciDEjHVuw6F0Iidz?= message of "Fri, 26 Nov 2021 12:30:07 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-02.txt X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 21:41:46 -0000 Vladim=C3=ADr =C4=8Cun=C3=A1t writes: > Note that a validating resolver MUST still validate the signature ove= r the NSEC3 record to ensure > the iteration count was not altered since record publication (see {{R= FC5155}} section 10.3). >=20=20=20=20 > It might be better to clarify that this "MUST" does not really apply to t= he SERVFAIL case.=C2=A0 (The text > around has changed recently.) >=20 > I think this SERVFAIL will generally be best implemented by simply ignori= ng any NSEC3 above the > corresponding limit.=C2=A0 Maybe I'd even standardize the case that way, = but I don't care really. It's an > advantage unstated in the draft that this is very easy to do, leaving no = room for bugs (e.g. > unintentional downgrade opportunities). So I've re-arranged things a bit to hopefully address the flow better. Let em know if you think further improvements are warranted. --=20 Wes Hardaker USC/ISI