Re: [DNSOP] Multi Provider DNSSEC Models

Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com> Thu, 22 March 2018 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <shuque@gmail.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 1D36212D86B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ZvPUjIu2w2Bc for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x236.google.com (mail-it0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB4BE126CD8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x236.google.com with SMTP id k135-v6so11245299ite.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=e74/DXmMbLGyknxNFViiwrejg78Knhkh3Y4XTmTCVQo=; b=aT7y2pWs5QY6az39jfENDwSQSBvtskdONydWCcKQcusdcGsIfyp2GDM75oNkua/9HE awjpl8NO+wwJSxcHgIw0mkqQxHasGqAcj8A0AcqMPxr5P8luxJ7z44cDB4B+HLEXoCln DY7U7qCzYHSBNDBWzqaOtYBkdIfrTe3Shk6KIo1i0Awhtl9W0IiBFiyVjXsZR+lTs+Nw p8wwUL0VO4xWpdcBgu1dSAHJtfqsW4O6b1p4E963zZgBmsT2LrQ+AhIQXEng12mvGV9n jaVBPXf+fAujPVL/LfS9gh2C/A6Zcgxk6PT9L5uEdUQgsKv771FZYrquGGBdXxJCgImj YLJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e74/DXmMbLGyknxNFViiwrejg78Knhkh3Y4XTmTCVQo=; b=KU+ZqpNldsCCZMUH5CoVmL1zAwpQ3QjkDtCjGVDukOFOJdhc+zDSDBMDYy4pb2/2h+ pvkFNG4beOTphCx6Xs2RGUmYIwhIS8za4InzsYiRlLjTDlXPG6T6KpsAa+Jqz/RL14dw /zOAByBapbbgpJuVxXugc50EbMU2DKbe7CgEX5GMsbeU2eEignFlzWQjt+aWV/jTo6tl HALB/l5XrzL8uYqL1dp2yhAY+pJtsLHEEl7DcNqAooDYRfmx/KJ3Fh0oJvJmK5/ESsnz TxtUqnReym4DX5qNMXIkXd15mdyQXbh7xp4uxzVxxqkR5ISCULpRb+mE8WCgiR3w8t8Q zMWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FQJFBBB/0fh8tEdGEETIJLd3x7lQSWzf0RhjWJ5rOI7Pp0SOFt +foG/eIy0pviU6Z4+PBijQW4ZdJGaqHEx4fVFS4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsm9DbSg4zoNec+pjZ7ykIgWD58a7Wsk208zQMdI+FwtF9+ELGtOUuoouw2pgFCpYuzyvIVhsT0Fz/6kZzKQo0=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:cd45:: with SMTP id l66-v6mr9089223itg.151.1521723629820; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.203.9 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803221242040.2781@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CAHPuVdVi5C3nyVuG2aiLefN7eFPOx+GnOCxU40iio_Gn0oQ8qA@mail.gmail.com> <DFCE50F5-2385-4512-BF9F-1266C0DA4D6E@dotat.at> <CAHPuVdXy+oYgQEUoHoxN7W1BnuCoa+opHbQ9tbLZX2xDj2xoZg@mail.gmail.com> <9724C1F6-C470-4B4F-AFB3-2085A1B47B26@ogud.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803221242040.2781@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
From: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:00:29 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHPuVdXCWfDP7DwLe84CArfMeqE=b9yQqYJns92km6RWs8ntjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000066e1760567ffe4e2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/ptuARV9rVUF2Z9wjLYRdxzKxNnY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Multi Provider DNSSEC Models
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: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:00:32 -0000

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>; wrote:

> Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>; wrote:
> >
> > I think only Model #1 makes sense, i.e Zone apex DNSKEY/CDNSKEY/CDS
> > RRset's are signed by zone publisher but rest signed by operator on the
> > fly.
>
> From the provider point of view, I think there are a couple of models:
>
> (a) provider has KSK and ZSK; zone owner needs to be able to import other
> provider public keys into this provider's DNSKEY RRset, and export signed
> DNSKEY RRset.
>
> (b) provider only has ZSK; zone owner needs to be able to export public
> keys, and import signed DNSKEY RRsets.
>
> Given this, I think a zone owner can implement either model 1 or
> model 2 from the draft. Model 3 requires sharing private keys.
>

That's correct. Both model 1 and 2 seem quite viable to me. Maybe Olafur can
elaborate on why he feels only model 1 makes sense.

One thing I would like to discuss is whether this document should recommend
just one model to maximise the chances that multiple providers implement a
common interoperable scheme that a zone owner can successfully deploy.
Providers might be persuadable to implement both models, but anything more
than two, I would guess, will not be practical.

Shumon.