IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: Configured Trust Anchor vs. DS record

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 14 November 2017 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 8036A124D6C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:51:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 LDqdGNkbUC-H for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 B6D2412008A for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ybh7W04J2z3H5; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:51:19 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1510649479; bh=IrBo5ZftbSjEp7Vtq+q3TR9ZvAj3y7YY/ADLVyxnv5Q=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Dk362c3jPUp9Obkjjzx/NI1SPjIH4OeevnKSsXah6YLE2odt3Y8MKsMbbe9K6y9B7 D+eXE46KoNLGY14PFdXJqxle61PXwdMutF9J51Jqp4IyaZa3I5BqLwqRZ9pmT5YfQe Dd1Tz8LOrM3dnCsgYQP7l1V5EvmTkd63F1e0v/IU=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pB4bN6MGZw8A; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:51:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:51:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A338562D29; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:51:15 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca A338562D29
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7788D40D35AF; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:51:15 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:51:15 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5A0A6F4E.8050202@redbarn.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1711140348490.16397@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <5C194845-AB79-47DE-B936-97560D071C5D@icann.org> <b21647d7-a710-e5f7-048f-d90eccc79c0f@nic.cz> <20171109174804.GA63012@isc.org> <3440AE65-DE72-4AAE-8A93-2D698CEF79C4@icann.org> <463C4A1E-D189-4A0D-9814-D215F930B0D4@nohats.ca> <5A0A6F4E.8050202@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/v3nHssXU21QAMACyyAirS2y01JM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: Configured Trust Anchor vs. DS record
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, 14 Nov 2017 08:51:23 -0000

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Paul Vixie wrote:

> whether DNS can adapt remains to be seen. but declaring working and 
> desired configurations such as split-DNS to be undesireable, or breaking 
> them, or failing to support them, are head-in-sand moves. the internet 
> historically responds to head-in-sand moves by moving on in its own way.

For the record, while I don't like split-dns, I do actively support it,
even with DNSSEC, for instance in:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-split-dns

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email