Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-02.txt

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 28 July 2021 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 27FA93A15DC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=mc/mkr8x; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=XVw5ebrC
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 KkvYFI42MW4m for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 5B2623A2191 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 14:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 85897 invoked from network); 28 Jul 2021 21:29:48 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=14f87.6101cc4c.k2107; bh=BmixyHS3+ghicLjYar/gNehS7jGA9aIq/KbBk5iqFQ4=; b=mc/mkr8xPP3og/fduuNQ/KHkzHr71XAb0G30KW7r1yTNHEksrKYyT5nRIc84me70QxjpwkNPCUNtYEcPWJVHx3+NlfyKaThTOK92h9wJSYkpU+ygo34QzzxgkyIc5gnEFN3zoIJeRxKiXBmh4i5YrUZhmPaUXQvQwxLkSOZuAo53qFNguQKItr9bhSgsPw0xEwTvN4C58krazBp9qgSkrzstIfCo1OXAaT/x/SND+ltWflztP9xpZ4wz1oTyzOgCN+cI1m5nQCIjLilJ3nUqT8WXmmv/xGzWHxh5MsCIDBwrKMHG7cZCwk6o7TjcVL1C5fR8iLs5p1is6irgaU3Uaw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=14f87.6101cc4c.k2107; bh=BmixyHS3+ghicLjYar/gNehS7jGA9aIq/KbBk5iqFQ4=; b=XVw5ebrCSP2NfsucHowq0Jc7kODEX/BpkBGAtoRAEcrx8RsE9UUy7nElCJ+NFdeqJ62YSLHgxB50h65bqy6VzFvYJPR7gKxZ2MmH13AwXqXfL9okKGbO2obHK3Ech0DtqaXCF4dVtukaboQC3ZZGYDFWZaKwYuBMkHc+tNGA/4325u/TjNPPgv3yseC7TPTTro1QnP3aDr0yJc/Z+Wlwn/fphkET8589frjsnXk2G7p4KpdxJMj0gajoNBGQAIHoPx6Z1K3XEOJmkkkL6l1GhKJFuOcBh24HC9yQUvGiCcyDOhxysPuTgWgg0golnbIdChX+T9x346a+yi3v5Cj16A==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 28 Jul 2021 21:29:47 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0838D2542D0D; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:29:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677272542CEF; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:29:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 28 Jul 2021 17:29:46 -0400
Message-ID: <7ecf93a1-5ff2-b1ab-9dd7-38d91666c1ab@taugh.com>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Shumon Huque" <shuque@gmail.com>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <CAHPuVdV4KOj+Aj503RNuRE=92nS+fqCbL0_5AYiROc5f8jdsRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9_gVstayRZufjKbi3TgKxnsg-Jt52y1Z3Znnmocyf_iSdoiQ@mail.gmail.com> <20210727201504.2939B25365A4@ary.qy> <CAHPuVdX4jwn=U9ONkuGd_LU0cgcGVyNpy7=aHnjqtX8MHTj2tg@mail.gmail.com> <372D08DF-8FD5-48EF-9D1F-261F8E185DFC@gmail.com> <CAHPuVdWDVmq1=B1oqzzx9cCc6E0xEAtMDXLf=g_GdQEW+Mi8=Q@mail.gmail.com> <73667455-8940-93ff-7c80-bfbac56ab0d0@taugh.com> <CAHPuVdV4KOj+Aj503RNuRE=92nS+fqCbL0_5AYiROc5f8jdsRQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/oErupiD-UpypBkHHbzzRRotDc3g>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-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, 28 Jul 2021 21:30:02 -0000

We are clearly talking past each other here.  Let's see what the rest of 
the WG thinks.

I think we need to think harder about "what is required for the DNS 
protocol to work" vs "what do I think might be a nice idea."

R's,
John

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021, Shumon Huque wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 12:20 PM John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2021, Shumon Huque wrote:
>>> Sibling glue was already covered in RFC 1034 (even though there was no
>> term
>>> for it). ...
>>
>> Sure, but we've been cleaning up the ambiguities and errors in 1034 for 30
>> years.  A straightforward reading of that paragraph also gives you the
>> Kaminsky attack.
>>
>
> The Kaminsky attack can redirect in-bailiwick nameserver names just as
> easily as out-of-bailiwick. The defenses against it are (1) make it harder
> (source port randomization etc), or (2) deploy DNSSEC. Glue is
> unauthenticated
> anyway, so the only real defense against misdirection is DNSSEC and
> a secure referral to the child.
>
> Also, sibling glue is easier to accept for a paranoid resolver. It may not
> be in-bailiwick (i.e. a subdomain) of the "delegated zone", but it is in-
> bailiwick of the "delegating zone". If a paranoid resolver, ignores and
> re-queries for the sibling names, it ends up requerying the same authority
> and then getting a response with in-bailiwick glue. So, it just did a bunch
> of additional work for not much benefit in my opinion.
>
> But this is an interesting topic. What do resolver implementations do
> when presented with sibling glue? Can implementers comment? I think
> this can help inform what we recommend in the draft.
>
> "MUST" in RFC-ese means you have to do something in order to interoperate.
>> I think we all agree that the DNS will operate fine without sibling glue,
>> other than NS loops which I personally don't care about. That makes it at
>> most a MAY, and I agree with Geoff's reasons to take it out completely.
>>
>
> I don't agree we should take it out, since as I pointed out, RFC 1034
> explicitly
> covers this type of glue (without giving it a name), and the algorithm will
> include it if it is there. If there is a compelling security or other
> reason to
> remove that, someone should make that case (I haven't heard it yet).
>
> But it seems we will not get consensus on truncating if sibling glue doesn't
> fit, so I'm okay with relaxing that requirement.
>
> Shumon.
>

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly