Re: [DNSOP] DLVs and ITAR

Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org> Mon, 14 September 2009 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <kim.davies@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B1A3A6A72 for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tICeuncukkws for <dnsop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org (expfe100-1.exc.icann.org [64.78.22.236]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CC93A69B2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.232]) by EXPFE100-1.exc.icann.org ([64.78.22.236]) with mapi; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:01:14 -0700
From: Kim Davies <kim.davies@icann.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:01:12 -0700
Thread-Topic: [DNSOP] DLVs and ITAR
Thread-Index: AcozOjd0H0IOZovzR+KIyi6Gyu31xQCGl0nC
Message-ID: <C6D3B6D8.15D4D%kim.davies@icann.org>
In-Reply-To: <200909112347.n8BNl2d9009836@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IETF DNSOP WG <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DLVs and ITAR
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 14 Sep 2009 16:00:30 -0000

Hi Mark,

On 11/09/09 4:47 PM, "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> Publish new DNSKEY, publish new DS, wait at least the max TTL of
> the old DS/DNSSKEY TTLs.  Remove old DS, remove old DNSKEY.
> 
> The same thing should be happening with ITAR.  Publish new DNSKEY,
> publish new DS, wait the prescribed period for the trust achors to
> be updated, remove old DS, remove old DNSKEY.
> 
> At the moment no one knows how long to wait as you havn't told
> anyone what that period should be.

Are you suggesting ITAR needs to add TTLs, or ITAR should be somehow
technically enforce sufficiently long overlap periods, or should just
provide rules that TLD operators are expected to abide by?

The assumption right now is it is for the TLD operators to act responsibly
and make changes as appropriate. ITAR is just an oblivious republisher of
data that they have submitted, and has subsequently verified is genuine. It
seems to me the problems you describe are ones of encouraging best practice
amongst TLD operators, rather than a specific defect in ITAR.

Kim