IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] More private algorithms for DNSSEC

Nils Wisiol <nils@desec.io> Thu, 21 April 2022 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <nils@desec.io>
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 A6E923A0E3E; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=a4a.de
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 2cn9gJKDPaUv; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.a4a.de (mail.a4a.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:10a:1d5c:8000::8]) (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 8A62B3A0D7B; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=a4a.de; s=20170825; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Content-Type:References: In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=POsYfRXJqKx47xkqDm7ynJWfUL6iBdda+MrxmCZGTtY=; b=s2QKEwomvSV2LFjPnICb/qid6R 2AYvQs7C5xU0zwKL/HnXOIPBwe4FWvIcRMZsMu3W/sY/JWa/VqgrLYyLiEHIi6giT+YSjtwYYZoQ7 A60Ww3KxSbYt73+b4MQoZk1TkyLtdentnV/cCr6vyAIop9+xaVe45EmoCV3hT3XNmvy0cTDOZMhgp gOWuIcjUNA4ME6lSs5Fq0G+5H9Xe+H9pa/IER03bjuDNeo63V+lfiKWmmjJyyE7KMWcyNgtV7UGlE /CUKOatl2u2ChgabqSvKV9P9QHyU4ECE4oPSuOBKN322V24oMd9cSpgJNpGBkr5yOFjMsri+iesPB nDw/rTKw==;
Received: from [2a02:8109:b03f:e20c:a07b:ece0:4f51:4cd8] (helo=tp) by mail.a4a.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <nils@desec.io>) id 1nhRi6-0003Il-LR; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:58:42 +0200
Message-ID: <ff47a9b169a53d6617bd85244e6e6b02da20be1b.camel@desec.io>
From: Nils Wisiol <nils@desec.io>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>, "Blacka, David" <davidb=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Peter van Dijk <peter.van.dijk@powerdns.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:58:41 +0200
In-Reply-To: <0228D3CA-02F8-40F0-90A9-2C762193E57E@isc.org>
References: <5C105C71-B18C-4366-94F5-E8D60970109C@icann.org> <20B389EF-4909-43A0-9BC8-F57F5E332E8A@verisign.com> <1D59C3FB-4FCC-4A03-8E13-EA6902B14D2A@icann.org> <54622bd0dd3253187a9c9b69d0a1188a4d898bd9.camel@powerdns.com> <2DF5B8EA-80E8-4732-8863-F3797A780F6D@verisign.com> <0228D3CA-02F8-40F0-90A9-2C762193E57E@isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5-0ubuntu1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/i4bGeFCyQrNvtklSjWhlOT4ru48>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] More private algorithms for DNSSEC
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 21 Apr 2022 07:58:53 -0000

On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 16:45 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > On 16 Apr 2022, at 05:24, Blacka, David <
> > davidb=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > 
> > RFC 4955

Wrt to the assignment of additional numbers for experiment, RFC 4955
says in Sec. 5:

> Alternately, the experiment MAY use the Object Identifier (OID)
> private algorithm space instead (using algorithm number 254), or MAY
> choose non-private algorithm numbers, although this would require an
> IANA allocation.
> 

For reasons laid out in this thread, choosing the later option enhances
the experiments (cf. "MAY" RFC 2119) and is thus explicitly allowed. I
believe this is what Paul is proposing to do. I support such an
assignment.

Best,
Nils

-- 
deSEC e.V. · Kyffhäuserstr. 5 · 10781 Berlin · Germany

Vorstandsvorsitz: Nils Wisiol
Registergericht: AG Berlin (Charlottenburg) VR 37525

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email