IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] kskroll-sentinel and unclear results

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 01 June 2018 00:05 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 6725C1200E5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 17:05:44 -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 3Rcv7LPxKmL6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 17:05:43 -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 034A31200C5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 May 2018 17:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.119] (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 w5104b9G035881 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 31 May 2018 17:04:39 -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 [10.32.60.119]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 17:05:33 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.11.2r5479)
Message-ID: <FEABBEFB-C171-4474-9E5B-041CF0FC0F5F@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <970EF265-57FE-4A0A-8AB5-772CD8C76BBF@apnic.net>
References: <A53AF3DD-205D-4A8D-82DF-3255287FAFB0@vpnc.org> <CAHw9_iLV3R8YxZdN1==FBhekrmSDx+xPm1_Xj8q_1qi0MJ6FGQ@mail.gmail.com> <607759DF-1039-4BA9-A48C-60CF54398BA5@vpnc.org> <CAHw9_iKp=XKoU_kp0R-zZ1-jxaJOXLY5teh-MRsPjXOjQqtxKw@mail.gmail.com> <970EF265-57FE-4A0A-8AB5-772CD8C76BBF@apnic.net>
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/gXWNzAAHQzvACdx35kUOfTn3S1Q>
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, 01 Jun 2018 00:05:45 -0000

On 31 May 2018, at 16:49, Geoff Huston wrote:

> Warren’s analysis indicates that when we apply the proposed tests to 
> a user’s collection of resolvers (as distinct from a single 
> resolver)  the proposed test methodology generates responses that may 
> well be unclear at best, particularly when the collection of resolvers 
> include validating and non-validating resolvers and resolvers that 
> variously do and do not recognise this sentinel mechanism. So I’ve 
> been thinking about a subtly different test methodology than that 
> described in the draft that is intended to provide better 
> clarification of the capabilities of the user’s DNS resolution 
> environment.

This is an interesting new method of analysis! Are you thinking of 
updating the draft to include it? If so, I think that my proposed 
additions would be able to be updated to point to the new material.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email