Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <shuque@gmail.com>
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 049161296D7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 5oPB9m218d69 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9383A1294DC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id r69so29768141vke.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tMj+ZZEfSkP8uxP/Ch/G7pqDtFu0Gq7aTW2dI7IxyLg=; b=Ji4ckqO52dVR7bL6Q/fGpSHbSWeamIrj/Lpu1oXik8ElF4F7wvKKhLGN0Mg1XfmC6/ 6jdyxrgSpSTF8pi7bwNpc37SvWYpcNSeTpIW10Bk2NjC7GG+N9Y1/EDNod+OzoIYfLdZ NxbPHiP2YmOUuK+vMPIEjzBVhiNB2C3a+8+jjAqhPLALf9LNI3Lp8Mwgb6xnqS7CVjuo SaIGx9ziZI+M1Aa3tbmHnc5xgrXbf5U2qpzwMbpDmOhm9iAYt6LRwBIG6LxhAuQz9Br9 +VnJr2yXc6sbHi8DPMfbt6HHNmL2Tgv2jnhLV4cgGN5II7AQJC9irZ/Vu/MqCjFCp0il JVzA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tMj+ZZEfSkP8uxP/Ch/G7pqDtFu0Gq7aTW2dI7IxyLg=; b=f5s7w0FA+cD+1vb22L/2ETdfUrrvUfxO6lE7IQpyL+Ix/9dKtSEAX6RXriSsu7UVRP Z26e1Ih7sFseH0wQSwmJIUCgu+b6A+dCWj/TiGtqouBkU3C23HbuskrIGJlVnPFcAxPp nJwIMaZupsWdouylPEPbBzIRV5S67/Uev47yJ3HbTksQFFSaVAbIiN2lDOnGO/JQdctJ MxWQXoQE7He5PaWHR80Li3Jtthsb6FYCwyUUnP6F3H+cR0cAxu+smydUVUW1STt7SaY8 tCTavRkgSqaNMTg7HuDYYEfCtDIdq1lMysi0xQAr93vV5AYrmmMbHSbr5loNJRhF83I0 u2fg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0SRT5361/wmzHGi+Wih+EL/y//9EHBUv3MM31Mkk++iM6AJsNKzzkZDNX4LFkSLicXKaDLiIN5CWjQlg==
X-Received: by 10.31.78.134 with SMTP id c128mr1127270vkb.10.1490815195587; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.84.207 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <58DC06A4.7060502@redbarn.org>
References: <22745.35498.811412.936974@gro.dd.org> <69EA837B-77BE-4202-8BFF-0243CF6AAC07@redbarn.org> <B18C12F9-D3EF-46D7-90D4-E58CEA575966@puck.nether.net> <20170328132050.018870d5@aardbei.mobile.plexis.eu> <CAHw9_iLOnKz_0c95FBzo0vt5n0TARwDYYYGvTafaQRcnZev64w@mail.gmail.com> <58DA9B68.2020007@redbarn.org> <CAHPuVdXMqkKwxQiQ4Npsy+ucrzFVh=3ZR1HqyVQgLG+g_siHvg@mail.gmail.com> <58DC06A4.7060502@redbarn.org>
From: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:19:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHPuVdWg++hBOC=u=8HArbxzUKFXZcE8=qx69S4WBGbHv7OwXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Pieter Lexis <pieter.lexis@powerdns.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1148453828aee5054be376ce
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/hO3_Q3pTMgy2v2wDVRQaq5JEvQk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:20:03 -0000

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:

>
>
> Shumon Huque wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org
> >     ...
> >
> >     speaking of resimprove, i hope you'll include in this draft the idea
> of
> >     using delegation-TTL as a delegation-recheck interval, and using an
> >     authoritative NXDOMAIN from the delegator as proof that you need to
> run
> >     an "rm -rf" in your cache.
> >
> >     i bring this up because we need to be able to kill more cached data
> >     faster-- the opposite of stretchiness-- for abuse control reasons. if
> >     you're going to soften the signaling for cache expiration, you really
> >     ought to balance that out with this simple method of also hardening
> it.
> >
> > Perhaps you've forgotten (since you participated in the discussions), but
> > the portion of resimprove that dealt with expunging cached data below the
> > NXDOMAIN boundary was rescued, expanded on, and published as
> > RFC 8020 ("NXDOMAIN: There Really is Nothing Underneath") late last
> > year.
>
> yes, i know that RFC 8020 includes both the idea of stopping downward
> searches when a cached NXD is encountered, and the idea of pruning (like
> "rm -rf" in UNIX) existing cache entries when an NXD is received. those
> changes, in addition to QM, will do much to pacify the DNS data model.
>
> however, it's equally vital for malicious DNS content takedown, that the
> part about remembering the delegation NS TTL and using it to
> periodically revalidate the existence of that delegation, also be
> brought forward. this becomes even more vital if we're making TTL
> stretchy, and i would be happy to see tale's document cover this topic.


> in other words, the prune-and-stop on NXD must be given a new source of
> NXD, which is delegation revalidation. i'd love it if delegations all
> had a one hour or less TTL, at least for public suffixes.
>

Yes, I forgot to comment on that piece in the previous email. I agree
that delegation revalidation should be published also. Among other things,
I think it effectively solves the ghost domain problem that was discussed
during the last IETF and DNS-OARC.

-- 
Shumon Huque