Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-01.txt

Bob Harold <> Thu, 25 May 2017 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77677124D85 for <>; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bfJb1_kUlvP4 for <>; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88798129C16 for <>; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b68so107214121ywe.3 for <>; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google-2016-06-03; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=D7zFwcw2/qfD4Vu09Ot/EeWBU01ug5uCKgX2FvT/4rc=; b=MMAbTD+1HsQuyBRe3SxMOQ8KwqS2YFKovMSQ/3n8kiIEKyadLG91qlCKGZfsWuIlGG Q2im5BoFR7uUKW36AAL2NPCb2+YFCh/Bbgr6QazJ+H1qRlggXjxJtrc6TPBqkegr9kzf dAvq5A1QKeOhiQAwXqxx4WYq4O/+U3+ALtSrD0+RKzJCYmkk3scS4wrKHQOfn6aRQ/TO FDS5ny7xby4pw220LWf12XJRu5/E9mvRi6oYgZnl9HOzM/H3hjIZs+RA6Y+spQFJQ4qS YFKrEXw/TprZufnl/h1wARDAarhrO6r10AKBBbj/vhjJjQ7qdJiRNpcR2iTtoY/8v03p OmKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=D7zFwcw2/qfD4Vu09Ot/EeWBU01ug5uCKgX2FvT/4rc=; b=ftod4jjEpsrqwk2sa1DCpE+aT3NNGVBuYxDOEJ6x7dCryuyzhFH5+3BOhkvorWtCUj f8cjkEgsDRQpmAtbj69EOjvC3svCWBGGRjTPYmTdiZN1f6l1XqPlTCWwUdPD/x5O15u7 R6pom4q5kdfO+PaXOi32bqy25FohQAymMSuugc0DdSqV25VXxrlnwVimaCGhp9ZAldts 70mECa+p726NuTc+nlJ2YHntfZku3+ls3PqvgiNnA4mvnst8RQXEnS8bZK6/2LwqBQU/ LPiuZqbuRDGNVVAiP6xEsn68So1iduu5MGwrpXMRjfFwwhb4nTiu670/LMqTXU11pOsw nUlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcByhqXc07mK6vCg47GslbXffrE9G434wacRI66/mL/ENEFaEi1c N4FCUSlZlERO8R/IbJl/OqzA0xoj31wL538=
X-Received: by with SMTP id b134mr33204306ywe.4.1495736827681; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 25 May 2017 11:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Bob Harold <>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:27:06 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114fb58e4aaee805505d5e80"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 18:27:10 -0000

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:

> Most people reading an RFC about the DNS probably expect it to be about
> the public DNS we know. That public DNS currently has one KSK, and there
> are no plans to change that (although there might be in the future). Given
> that, and given Mike's comments on the doc, I propose the following.
> Change the Abstract from:
>    This document describes the math behind the minimum time-length that
>    a DNS zone publisher must wait before using a new DNSKEY to sign
>    records when supporting the RFC5011 rollover strategies.
> To:
>    This document describes the math behind the minimum time-length that
>    a DNS zone publisher must wait before using a new DNSKEY to sign
>    records when supporting the RFC5011 rollover strategies in zones
>    that have a single key signing key.
> Just before Section 1.1, add a paragraph:
> This document describes only the case where a zone has only a single key
> signing key (KSK). It does not apply to zones that have multiple KSKs. The
> current public DNS has a single KSK covering the root zone, and this
> document focuses mostly on that KSK in its discussion.
> --Paul Hoffman

Although the root zone is mentioned, I don't think "this document focuses
mostly on that KSK"

I might be wrong, but it would seem to me that the doc covers two
1. How long to wait after publishing a key before signing exclusively with
that key.
2. How long after you stop signing with a key before you remove it.
And both should apply no matter how many keys a zone happens to have.

Bob Harold