Re: [DNSOP] How Slack didn't turn on DNSSEC

Paul Vixie <> Wed, 01 December 2021 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C783A0910 for <>; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:32:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.951
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.852, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UxMUdk6ddgEq for <>; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:32:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E98913A0914 for <>; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:32:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABD641B242A for <>; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:32:35 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=util; t=1638383555; bh=boHv8sy9jXvKWjI3cA7MdPBDA7vGlaOXtxm80CCiiYk=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=SLlGPKa4EcTNHKP1Wo5u5T/RDcJ0obSg3f4c5lfh+2U0OZ/DZgdu30E/q+bPrxIRn 1F1zqo6v6A0hrp5W85NMN/vQoUSw/r/I66whcxkoKn9n72LCcdvXW4x9p6tBqX1UX5 obFHlpnByexqtw1oJTORz+sE54g0amiYjGYVrE6Y=
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:3129:49f8:14c7:f25d] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:3129:49f8:14c7:f25d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 605B27597E for <>; Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:32:35 +0000 (UTC)
References: <> <>
From: Paul Vixie <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 10:32:36 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.52
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] How Slack didn't turn on DNSSEC
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, 01 Dec 2021 18:32:49 -0000

two replies here.

Mark Andrews wrote on 2021-12-01 00:35:
> Also stop hiding this breakage. Knot and unbound ignore the NSEC
> records which trigger this when synthesising.  All it does is push
> the problem down the road and makes it harder for others to do proper
> synthesis based on the records returned.

+1. fail early and fail often.

Tim Wicinski wrote on 2021-12-01 03:07:>
> What I noticed in reading this nice write up was the warning image
> they missed in the Route53 console because of the automation they
> use. But most folks use automation/tooling/etc in their workflow,
> and catching those warnings via automation is a bit tricky.
> ...

sadly for the dnssec adoption curve, there is no substitute for knowing 
what you're doing, and automators who wish to scale dnssec management to 
include well-trained non-wizards are going to create disappointment.