[DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-15: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk <email@example.com> Thu, 18 October 2018 17:59 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBFEE130DC0; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Benjamin Kaduk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "The IESG" <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Tim Wicinski <email@example.com>, Benno Overeinder <benno@NLnetLabs.nl>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:59:56 -0700
Subject: [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-15: (with COMMENT)
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:59:57 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-15: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing my Discuss points -- the text in the github version of this document helps a lot, and I'm happy with the direction we're going in for the more general case. [original ballot comments preserved below] Other than my Discuss points, I just have a number of essentially editorial nits. Abstract This document specifies a mechanism that will allow an end user and third parties to determine the trusted key state for the root key of the resolvers that handle that user's DNS queries. [...] This wording feels confusing to me; I think what it's trying to say is "the root key(s) that are in use by the resolver" but am having a hard time grouping these words to achieve that meaning. (Is "trust" really necessary to mention, here?) Section 1 RRSIG RRs contain a Key Tag field whose value is equal to the Key Tag of the DNSKEY RR that was used to generate the corresponding signature. nit: Is the RR used to generate the signature, or just the key? o Users may wish to ascertain whether their DNS resolution environment resolvers is ready for an upcoming root KSK rollover. nit: I think there's a singular/plural mismatch or similar here, maybe "environment's resolver"? o Researchers want to perform Internet-wide studies about the proportion of users who will be negatively impacted an upcoming root KSK rollover. nit: "by an upcoming" If a browser or operating system is configured with multiple resolvers, and those resolvers have different properties (for example, one performs DNSSEC validation and one does not), the sentinel test described in this document can still be used, but it nit: this usage of "but" feels a bit misplaced to me, as the thing being warned about is more that the test may produce indeterminate or inconsistent results. Or perhaps that the assumptions it makes may not necessarily hold in the specific environments being described (i.e., "these environments"). makes a number of assumptions about DNS resolution behaviour that may not necessarily hold in all environments. If these assumptions do not hold (such as, for example, requiring the stub resolver to query the next recursive resolver in the locally configured set upon receipt of a SERVFAIL response code) then this test may produce indeterminate or inconsistent results. In some cases where these assumptions do not hold, repeating the same test query set may generate different results. Section 1.1 Please use the RFC 8174 boilerplate. Section 3 I'll note without further comment that we had a long thread on ietf@ relevant to the term "slave resolver". Section 3.1 If the resolver is non-validating, and it has a single forwarder, then the resolver will presumably mirror the capabilities of the forwarder target resolver. Perhaps this is just me misreading the previous paragraph's introduction to what is clearly a more widely known term of art, but in "has a single forwarder" is the thing of which there is only one the "one or more other resolvers" that the "forwarder" is relaying queries to? It's just weird for the word "forwarder" mean a different protocol participant when used as a noun vs. adjective. Or perhaps this is meant to be possessive; the "forwarder's target resolver"? As noted in the directorate review, "use the CD bit" needs disambiguation. Section 4 nit: missing trailing 'r' in the section title Section 4.3 Maybe call out that these are the same general categories of query as in Section 3 but the key tag used is different for some queries? It's also a bit weird to use new notation for this section as opposed to consistent notation between the different types of test.
- [DNSOP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-... Benjamin Kaduk