IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOPI-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-02.txt

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 09 February 2022 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
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 C3B773A0D28 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:33:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 qrq6NvzWO1Rj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:33:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) (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 6D4D23A0D43 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:33:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F3A732FCC2; Wed, 9 Feb 2022 13:33:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <163777315136.16773.10633006296842101587@ietfa.amsl.com> <yblh7c1fpwf.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <914ced6b-52c7-9354-4b91-87f80cd26037@pletterpet.nl> <6153c0ed-523a-5225-40ac-5be9fd5e6ed5@isc.org> <92dde682-7b1b-9fa3-f469-cb6623dc5ac4@pletterpet.nl>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 13:33:48 -0800
In-Reply-To: <92dde682-7b1b-9fa3-f469-cb6623dc5ac4@pletterpet.nl> (Matthijs Mekking's message of "Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:43:00 +0100")
Message-ID: <ybl7da39137.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nAovCom3RAK0XGcww3oc8y1-1Rg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOPI-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-02.txt
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, 09 Feb 2022 21:34:05 -0000

Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl> writes:

> Can we make use of the keyword MAY? This allows I think for text that
> will not get out of date:
> 
>    Validating resolvers MAY return an insecure response when processing
>    NSEC3 records with iterations larger than 0. Validating resolvers MAY
>    also return SERVFAIL when processing NSEC3 records with iterations
>    larger than 0. This significantly decreases the requirements
>    originally specified in Section 10.3 of [RFC5155]. See the Security
>    Considerations for arguments on how to handle responses with non-zero
>    iteration count.

Thanks for the good text Matthijs.  I've added it tot he bottom of the
existing 3.2, which seems to be where consensus indicated it should go.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email