IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] new dnsop related draft: RFC5011 security considerations

Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> Wed, 03 August 2016 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@time-travellers.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 7646612DA9D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 04:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 rjqyvXGgC3Rm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 04:58:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time-travellers.nl.eu.org (c.time-travellers.nl.eu.org [IPv6:2a02:2770::21a:4aff:fea3:eeaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CEA412DA98 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 04:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:470:78c8:2:224:9bff:fe13:3a9c] (helo=pallas.home.time-travellers.org) by time-travellers.nl.eu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <shane@time-travellers.org>) id 1bUuoa-0002YG-Iq; Wed, 03 Aug 2016 11:58:24 +0000
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:58:19 +0200
From: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>
To: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
Message-ID: <20160803135819.3421ce3f@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
In-Reply-To: <0lfuqoqhd7.fsf@wjh.hardakers.net>
References: <0lfuqoqhd7.fsf@wjh.hardakers.net>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Sig_/.KDL9aMzx=x=Prxmp6yzX9G"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/glyMGb1rTtBwaDPSZZ5CqFGnuBM>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] new dnsop related draft: RFC5011 security considerations
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 11:58:38 -0000

Wes,

At 2016-08-01 15:00:52 -0700
Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> wrote:

> The following draft, authored by Warren and I, might be of interest to
> the dnsop crowd:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-00
> 
> [it currently does not have a home]

Reading this document it basically seems like the hold-down timer is
actually a potential for mischief, rather than a good thing. There is
no mitigation recommended, right? I can't think of a fix that doesn't
involve protocol changes.

My own feeling is that the hold-down timer is tricky operationally, and
adds no actual value. I'd support using your draft as the basis of a
proposal to deprecate the hold-down timer completely.

Cheers,

--
Shane

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email