Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-10 and AD

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 03 April 2018 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 19813120454 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
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 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 UDcEE3yxJHJp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 CE0BC12D879 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.77] (75-104-68-20.mobility.exede.net [75.104.68.20] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w33LBD1f056051 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:11:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 75-104-68-20.mobility.exede.net [75.104.68.20] (may be forged) claimed to be [10.32.60.77]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 14:11:49 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.11r5462)
Message-ID: <D19F6299-922A-4DCE-8E95-85CA72E63129@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <0B0775D9-B5E6-4778-A199-FE4D09A0BE17@apnic.net>
References: <039408B0-89EE-4038-B9C9-CBCC35EC24EC@isc.org> <64816369-700A-4413-B1F0-160FB145EE6C@gmail.com> <BF3E4F4D-027C-4A2B-8026-14AF3FBA4603@isc.org> <2F103A8E-72F6-4159-900D-B7006D0AC647@gmail.com> <6D617FAC-D981-4AE1-8943-4F0D12C46397@vpnc.org> <0B0775D9-B5E6-4778-A199-FE4D09A0BE17@apnic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/p9y7BrJnOpkBnR8qV_FEG1CPiMY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-10 and AD
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 21:12:12 -0000

On 3 Apr 2018, at 13:45, Geoff Huston wrote:

> Is the wording “that the resolver has to do DNSSEC validation on 
> what it gets back from the authoritative server *regardless* of 
> whether the originating client requests it?” a clarification that 
> updates the validation behaviours as specified in RFC4035 and RFC6840 
> as to when a security aware resolver performs validation? Or merely a 
> clarification of the precondition in the context of the sentinel 
> behaviour but of no wider import?

The latter. Otherwise, someone reading the document might not understand 
that the response must be validated no matter what.

--Paul Hoffman