IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] DNSKEY Flags vs. CDS/CDNSKEY

Paul Wouters <paul@cypherpunks.ca> Fri, 07 February 2014 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@cypherpunks.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C561A0566 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:31:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 CJuL3azuT951 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B601A0444 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:31:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E004800C0; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:31:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (paul@localhost) by bofh.nohats.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id s17NUxqL019364; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:31:00 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: bofh.nohats.ca: paul owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:30:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@cypherpunks.ca>
X-X-Sender: paul@bofh.nohats.ca
To: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140207183127.GA32053@totoro.home.mukund.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1402071829350.28278@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <CAJE_bqe95pn8rHvK3UffPDn+_rGYiq2G5sfdgqisH4JG7gFjBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_i+Jt4Ok+CddheGT_nA=e4srgbUSQy98GeQ9qGn_Cncjag@mail.gmail.com> <52F52215.9090709@dougbarton.us> <CAHw9_i+Aanz5NZVO5Q_x=1zyFzHZSmeU6yoLx3cDkwD2sC-XMA@mail.gmail.com> <20140207183127.GA32053@totoro.home.mukund.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSKEY Flags vs. CDS/CDNSKEY
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 23:31:03 -0000

On Sat, 8 Feb 2014, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:

> Did you see my reply to your email a few weeks ago where I asked why new
> CDS/CDNSKEY RR types are required instead of adding a new bit to the
> Flags field of the DNSKEY RR.

That does not allow prepublishing of DS records for DNSKEY's not
published in the zone yet, which is a strategy for publishing an
emergency rollover key at the parent in case of a compromise of
the signer. This key can be completely offline and even the public
key part unknown to any party.

Paul

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email