Re: [DNSOP] Multi Provider DNSSEC Models

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 22 March 2018 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 00C1E1272E1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 nQL0Ab64N_-I for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.142]) (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 D890112D86E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:34017) by ppsw-42.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.139]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1ez0Tk-0009EC-8J (Exim 4.89_2) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:42:04 +0000
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:42:04 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHPuVdXCWfDP7DwLe84CArfMeqE=b9yQqYJns92km6RWs8ntjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803221335190.4063@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CAHPuVdVi5C3nyVuG2aiLefN7eFPOx+GnOCxU40iio_Gn0oQ8qA@mail.gmail.com> <DFCE50F5-2385-4512-BF9F-1266C0DA4D6E@dotat.at> <CAHPuVdXy+oYgQEUoHoxN7W1BnuCoa+opHbQ9tbLZX2xDj2xoZg@mail.gmail.com> <9724C1F6-C470-4B4F-AFB3-2085A1B47B26@ogud.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803221242040.2781@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAHPuVdXCWfDP7DwLe84CArfMeqE=b9yQqYJns92km6RWs8ntjg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iGGQmFI5ynN3Jd0LoBV-dZRFD0o>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Multi Provider DNSSEC Models
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 13:42:12 -0000

Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>; wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>; wrote:
> >
> > From the provider point of view, I think there are a couple of models:
> >
> > (a) provider has KSK and ZSK; zone owner needs to be able to import other
> > provider public keys into this provider's DNSKEY RRset, and export signed
> > DNSKEY RRset.
> >
> > (b) provider only has ZSK; zone owner needs to be able to export public
> > keys, and import signed DNSKEY RRsets.
>
> One thing I would like to discuss is whether this document should recommend
> just one model to maximise the chances that multiple providers implement a
> common interoperable scheme that a zone owner can successfully deploy.
> Providers might be persuadable to implement both models, but anything more
> than two, I would guess, will not be practical.

I think providers need to implement all the functionality I sketched
above. The zone owner might act as provider (a) holding the KSK private
key; or they might outsource it.

The risk the Olafur mentioned of a KSK provider dropping imported DNSKEYs
from other providers is probably a matter for contracts and lawyers :-)
But it sort of illustrates the point that this functionality is really
useful for phased migration from one provider to another without going
insecure.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>;  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Shannon: South veering west, 5 to 7, increasing gale 8 or severe gale 9 for a
time. Rough or very rough, occasionally high for a time. Squally showers.
Moderate or poor.