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

Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz> Tue, 22 February 2022 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>
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 5DA8F3A0E15 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 03:29:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.613
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.714, 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 BLWyaUQ6l0e6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 03:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (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 BECB73A0E27 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 03:29:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPV6:2a02:768:2d1c:226::a2e] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:768:2d1c:226::a2e]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17B861409FE; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:29:22 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------cigeJWOktfRuItFsaV2fWAdu"
Message-ID: <95a4103b-dd26-17ba-d4dd-ac82b2bd510f@nic.cz>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:29:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
References: <163777315136.16773.10633006296842101587@ietfa.amsl.com> <4e4527b6-b0b3-33f3-3849-8a593fe29a1d@nic.cz> <ybly22j7m5m.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
From: Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+ietf@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <ybly22j7m5m.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/pMwfoqJvdnZ8idev9WKhbFZVIvg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-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: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:29:31 -0000

On 09/02/2022 22.41, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> So I've re-arranged things a bit to hopefully address the flow better.
> Let em know if you think further improvements are warranted.

I'd still probably suggest at least a minimalist change like:
-Note that a validating resolver MUST still validate the signature
+Note that a validating resolver returning an insecure response MUST 
still validate the signature

But to me it's certainly not a big deal.  (Though not changing this 
would mean that formally I wouldn't be exactly following the RFC.)

--Vladimir