Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Mon, 06 February 2017 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
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 811CE129ED1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:04:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 FT9OkskFt8RV for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6C20129EB2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:04:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.20.6.227] (unknown [172.20.6.227]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CEC55600C8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:04:40 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1486397081; bh=JTRfGkqAmne+C6iI6FuqoH8r8t+lwAiQ4RRggkOTFaE=; h=From:To:Date; b=hPFFqV0Q9NZ6WPzutM/vBfK743YUWgcA67dXfi6qixQKhCb2Ahusy3hjBNO3HKi1O tnmIdrBlY8UWhgXhB9BlLeuv6qP7iBAcXNcbqKgV+eehlDgEm6HqHiPIwB/P/J23OI 6JNGd9ZOGJgCkQx7SPI1UOTpHtNyqzFR9FDsKd0Q=
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <148616456120.4133.8494448927223938318.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHw9_iKYkZNG=JLSUbCVpsrmkupFM6635eMHJsQXDWcLJmLgKQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170206131153.52329a04@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <7dd02b3e-910b-b287-14cf-d7fe7755cd2d@nic.cz>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:04:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170206131153.52329a04@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/iwXgxq9ObvRrqyWdR8PCJsg793Y>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 16:04:44 -0000

On 02/06/2017 01:11 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Warren,
> 
> I am still wondering about the:
> 
>    3 * (DNSKEY RRSIG Signature Validity) / 2
> 
> Term in the draft, which I see survived the update.
> 
> Why is this not just the DNSKEY RRSIG Signature Validity? In principle
> once the signature has expired it cannot be used to replay the old
> DNSKEY RRset right?

Shane was faster than me, I'm also wondering how 3/2 got here.

I expect that 3/2 = 2/2 to avoid replay attack + 1/2 from RFC 5011.

In any case, it would be awesome if each component in section 6 had own
explanation what role the particular component plays in the equation.

-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Shane
> 
> At 2017-02-03 21:14:03 -0500
> Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Was and I have updated this document to make it clearer and more
>> readable. Please take a read and let us know if any parts are unclear,
>> if you have any other feedback, etc.
>>
>> Is this close to done?