Re: [DNSOP] New Version of draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-00: Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC

Frederico A C Neves <fneves@registro.br> Thu, 22 March 2018 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <fneves@registro.br>
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 AA629124B18 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 NtCOS3NxSV00 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clone.registro.br (clone.registro.br [200.160.2.4]) (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 418061200A0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by clone.registro.br (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4C35229D14A; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:56:06 -0300 (BRT)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 14:56:06 -0300
From: Frederico A C Neves <fneves@registro.br>
To: =?utf-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?= <ondrej@isc.org>
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180322175606.GJ94914@registro.br>
References: <EBE54422-0A97-4B33-BD55-01CACF1F272A@isc.org> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1803221314140.11686@bofh.nohats.ca> <701AEF92-EE3D-4D1C-93ED-F0B5971EC67F@isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <701AEF92-EE3D-4D1C-93ED-F0B5971EC67F@isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/gq5KbTj9XmsAP7Funmlw00EARyo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version of draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update-00: Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC
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: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:56:10 -0000

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 05:47:58PM +0000, Ondřej Surý wrote:
... 
> > They should switch away from SHA1 as SHA1 is being deprecated industry
> > wide. Even if we recommend to move away from RSA (which I'm not sure if there
> > is consensus on) to ECC, I would like to move them to ED25519/ED448 over
> > the ECDSA* variants.
> 
> I don’t think this is currently feasible to do so, so we need to have a feedback from WG.
> 
> > If it is too soon for that now, I would simply not
> > recommend moving away from RSA. And maybe make ECDSAP256SHA256 a MAY
> > instead of a MUST.
> 
> What would be the technical/security reason for skipping ECDSA?
> 
> Ondrej

Besides of this question this is a recommendation to be change in the
future. Current ED25519/ED448 deployment is negligible if any. It will
take at least 5 year for the situation to improve.

Fred