Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: (with COMMENT)

"J.C. Jones" <jc@mozilla.com> Wed, 04 December 2019 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <jjones@mozilla.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 587E412098C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:54:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.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 TRTs2W4vNNER for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x736.google.com (mail-qk1-x736.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::736]) (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 33C8B12004E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:54:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x736.google.com with SMTP id a10so1586137qko.9 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 14:54:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=370ftA8tEixk1nxhlEYjOUAO3jCaLRA9nlb4YskUH0I=; b=JQowZMG5eKEDUmiGcEbI0D7NFPQdolsLKHVUdt08ZO5WAq1MSyiv94cWx5jfT94WzT dVTcQJaaozjAra7JvqyDJmbWAMw/kYgdrBCLuX/8UJ5c+MxmRgX32B9oFl9ZoMqBJiVL PRERA3E3k3J3i0Q15DnTliMpUge3skbrEfygk=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=370ftA8tEixk1nxhlEYjOUAO3jCaLRA9nlb4YskUH0I=; b=lDSoaM7LN2zvoAknEvxX9g9si+mjP1s4cOkVTaR9ANR2Vu57HbgjGCSJcyqjzztuy+ v5YyUm4lwKQ175J6dR10RO8S9OQGuREqUZQn7eaUycrn67lm5/UUiqbh0WsZ1x7wcBeg ut3U+3UBeD/52LMmXXkXGPsnDQ1crhi5pa21fuJlBVTSJtDdgRI/HrY5DQ9iHc7gA0mh htwGdJ7V6weY09wWWRpWxexD5PJlFud0FRWJ2ncYKhOdc8gDFYA4pe2iSJA+fefkZUJ1 8r0ytCof/4ga6LwSmm9sSR1U6EpS9gi72ElRheXDwCUTf5EGjRhSNpe0B1WcqKxLBEfQ mDbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXScWONk1ZVl9ngwjo/2J4homtUAUrfWHMH1XglcbzufdR0kH4D rX7RRm4DZGyx4FmGxSzLESzXYzv/+rl9Eli8qONNdl8jOqE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyiRXKpUPAYu9v72CBbebtYdNx+vIEYCDzG+AC/dNwItpOdyc6aCE2FDf6M+LxI33pCEYVvn2423sZxVKMDVQE=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6c6:: with SMTP id 189mr5231382qkg.179.1575500087889; Wed, 04 Dec 2019 14:54:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157535743570.1893.17344031020923882056.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <24038.57652.748207.835678@gro.dd.org> <c3f7c8f2-7a7c-007d-2bfb-95c4fd555f5e@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <c3f7c8f2-7a7c-007d-2bfb-95c4fd555f5e@nostrum.com>
From: "J.C. Jones" <jc@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 15:54:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAObDDPAa3WZ9t3Trj00Cc_1-_5=-3wBgA_H0atB7B2YiAcy2MA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000152fd50598e8b315"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/i5FzaQtCYQ5IJRF7pae1mPsatqc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 22:54:55 -0000

All,

I think the CABForum is indeed the right mechanism to alert both CAs and
root programs to such a change, and then the root programs can include it
in their periodic notices to their included CAs -- which will then cover
all bases.

I would be happy to introduce the information to the CABForum's server
certificate mailing list, and indicate its origin of course. Alternatively,
anyone can email it to the CABForum Public List <public@cabforum.org>;
directly and then the appropriate CABF Working Group Chair would be
responsible for forwarding it onward suitably. (Note: I'm a member of that
public list's recipients, so I could confirm it wasn't lost.) I think
either would be fine -- but if you'd like me to do the introducing, I'd
appreciate it if you could synthesize me a quick rundown of what CAs need
to know.

Cheers!
J.C.




On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:24 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:

> [JC -- note for you at the very bottom]
>
> On 12/3/19 4:27 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> > Thank you very much for your review, Adam.  I have incorporated your
> > feedback into the document (which is not yet pushed to datatracker).
> >
> > Here's the diff:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/vttale/serve-stale/commit/3ae0f4e5f79e0b326608beaa77b74a1efe62663c
> >
> > Adam Roach via Datatracker writes:
> >> The addition of what I must presume is intended to be RFC 2119
> >> language to a document that doesn't cite RFC 2119 seems
> >> questionable.  I would suggest either explicitly adding RFC 2119
> >> boilerplate to RFC 1035 as part of this update, or using plain
> >> English language to convey the same concepts as are intended.
> > I definitely agree it is questionable, and if something needs to be
> > done to resolve this then your first suggestion is the one that is
> > more agreeable to me personally, but I can also see how that too is
> > questionable and might get some pushback.  It's a bit of a weird
> > situation.
> >
> > It is perhaps worth noting that several other RFCs that have updated
> > 1035, starting with 3658, have already used 2119 normative keywords.
> > So in spirit it's already there, just not with an explicit remark in
> > any of the that formally puts the boilerplate on 1035 itself.  (And,
> > in the end, that means 1035 is a weird hodge-podge of old world and new.)
>
>
> That would be all the more reason to formally update RFC 1035 to
> incorporate RFC 2119 terminology. I'll note that this document does go
> well beyond the simple task explained in its title to do some general
> unrelated housecleaning (cf. the high-order bit of the TTL), so it seems
> to have taken exactly this kind of broad document maintenance under its
> remit.
>
>
> >>>   A proposed mitigation is that certificate authorities
> >>>   should fully look up each name starting at the DNS root for every
> >>>   name lookup.  Alternatively, CAs should use a resolver that is not
> >>>   serving stale data.
> >> This seems like a perfectly good solution, although I wonder how
> >> many CAs are likely to read this document. If I were the type to
> >> engage in wagering, I'd put all of my money on "zero." I'm not sure
> >> specific action is called for prior to publication of this document
> >> as an RFC, but it seems that additional publicity of this issue and
> >> the way that serve-stale interacts with it -- e.g., to CAB Forum and
> >> its members -- is warranted.
> > Completely agree, except to the point that if it were known that there
> > was money riding on it then someone at a CA would read it just to take
> > your money. :)  That said, anyone have thoughts on how best to bring
> > it to their attention?
> >
>
> I'm copying JC Jones on this mail to seek his advice on this point.
>
> /a
>
>