Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 08 February 2017 08:36 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 598D3129636 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 00:36:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 W5tnYuubNsxF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 00:36:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 2B6BA129623 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 00:36:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 864532806BA; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:36:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAAE2806B8; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:36:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA8CB3800C; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:35:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 71BD540335; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:35:55 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:35:55 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Message-ID: <20170208083555.sv6t7esbewfblu3r@nic.fr>
References: <D4C0D518-A3ED-4555-93DA-2EA12D82A662@fugue.com> <CAHw9_iK7Vt+ZNw8=E-b+w9gGhwB9fZNqHYp2pqKqT__RgcDttQ@mail.gmail.com> <5CA637EE-C0B6-4E5C-A446-A84431176D0C@fugue.com> <20170207205554.B6974633BE40@rock.dv.isc.org> <18F2EB0D-5BD0-4CC5-B02C-2E5EA0B8CC23@fugue.com> <20170207214846.B66EF633C6C5@rock.dv.isc.org> <FB835756-2C46-40A9-88ED-2F8ADF812BA6@fugue.com> <20170208052544.862956356F33@rock.dv.isc.org> <FFAFD844-824C-44EA-A4B1-1AD28B4FE95C@fugue.com> <20170208060208.8C8E1635864D@rock.dv.isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170208060208.8C8E1635864D@rock.dv.isc.org>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.0
X-Kernel: Linux 4.8.0-2-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161126 (1.7.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wI_8BezFIwzEBOe2zpwvyDUSvo8>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] ALT-TLD and (insecure) delgations.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 08 Feb 2017 08:36:29 -0000

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 05:02:08PM +1100,
 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote 
 a message of 30 lines which said:

> > If it has proof of non-existence for .alt cached, it doesn't need
> > to ask any further questions to deny the existence of any
> > subdomain of .alt.
> 
> Which assumes agggressive negative caching.

If by "aggressive negative caching", you mean
draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse, then I disagree with you: it is
*not* necessary (since the name is the same), you just need RFC 8020
support.

> I'm going to make a realistic assumption that it will take 10+ years
> for there to be meaningful (>50%) deployment of aggressive negative
> caching.

I would be quite happy to have RFC 8020 in BIND, if you don't mind :-)