IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-12.txt

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Wed, 02 October 2019 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.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 D8F7612002F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 14:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 MOvB9Vypury3 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BAB9120018 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 14:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.200.2.180] (sdzac10-108-1-nat.nje.twosigma.com [8.2.105.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCAD32A6F72 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:12:25 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1910021250120.11804@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2019 17:12:23 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-Id: <B640CD6C-863D-44E7-A085-BE44D2D3BCCC@dukhovni.org>
References: <156997343802.26389.15326556193059712475@ietfa.amsl.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1910021250120.11804@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rKDFANvuh_Zdqr0RY8wvnp2L6fg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-12.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, 02 Oct 2019 21:12:29 -0000

> On Oct 2, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
> 
> Re. EDE 5 indeterminate, RFC 4035 says:
> 
>      Indeterminate: An RRset for which the resolver is not able to
>      determine whether the RRset should be signed, as the resolver is
>      not able to obtain the necessary DNSSEC RRs.  This can occur when
>      the security-aware resolver is not able to contact security-aware
>      name servers for the relevant zones.
> 
> Is this not also covered by EDE 9 (DNSKEY missing) and EDE 10 (RRSIG
> missing)?

No it is not.  The indeterminate state happens when DS RRset lookups
servfail, for the zone or one of its ancestors, this could be a lookup
timeout or a validation issue.  So not identical with DNSKEY missing.

> [ I'm still not convinced "indeterminate" is a coherent validation state... ]

It happens when glue NS records are available, but DS RRsets are not.

-- 
	Viktor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email