Re: [DNSOP] Updated NSEC5 protocol spec and paper

Tim Wicinski <> Thu, 09 March 2017 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B250129524 for <>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 13:23:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NhQmXUYmqwIR for <>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 13:23:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFFB2129410 for <>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 13:23:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 1so140152488qkl.3 for <>; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:23:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=C1fSGra/zRgHk1HfyPhnFr+qwSaho2hhGH+Lxg0JhCc=; b=QPX69RdoRQ1E26mZm8SMFI9oGA4R1JxCxB1AhroAjF3Jn4y63o3yWNqCDr68DCPKv2 vJjdLCVsSjIUwkX1q0Yr8HvXPTfAohKA9fJ/ANW7O9RFcke+abPOQWooSQCEtU+q6hqz 72SwhSoRnti0vKmcBZ/gJlvmHweyH0Yi09O7GPz8e5UwuY5o+dDakari7cpSQCMOzEmZ gSkl1dvk17pwiD6K1cd5xKMH5g4lXmShS10SJginSLOYDhdwq8Ugf+rWw3ef5sLmjGVV b+an4oQuLXh4vfWpT8bePOx8HQUghEpIqMyzUz+z8rQff68Zau2tQJY9fnUIfrOD5QbP MtPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=C1fSGra/zRgHk1HfyPhnFr+qwSaho2hhGH+Lxg0JhCc=; b=p52QLh7OHW38HcGlqqMqG1GjVL+fJaddo8yF/cqyV0VIn9/gwIu6H8cEjCG6vLA0mG yfkKyYokYJIgYFwodleQDrDU7o0+5gYUWabLyIoTdeykHID8C9lCKrUDBmGwq7gYrvif AiNi7/Eoqirvd0m5q9wjnZx4O3VyI0drAaKJlSlD1x1Oi9hTxpgIYoPB6QHwimno+4XT 7cE+LJVKxrkabet86ZpV/hj3JwwpdxmjsU8xeXjxyTAnuHCrD8zm3uDm5cfbfcatc93L tz0EL6Wdiz0+FtmjaWfyGTbR12Ei28B6dYAFpt8oMH2bDf2TNDKL1+c4sioTSLjqakGS leQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ktEZFZEBFcIlq1QPXJWW/nYu6jiEUYkSRZNjH/Dk2qcxM24RQ6uGBfTa4KRLBuKA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id o35mr16715583qto.226.1489094595583; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:23:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 143sm5045954qki.59.2017. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Mar 2017 13:23:14 -0800 (PST)
References: <> <>
From: Tim Wicinski <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 16:23:12 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Updated NSEC5 protocol spec and paper
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:23:18 -0000

I believe one of the authors of the paper works for a DNS Vendor, so it 
would be interesting gauge deployment.


On 3/9/17 12:31 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2017, at 7:29, Shumon Huque wrote:
>> We've requested an agenda slot at the DNSOP working group meeting at
>> IETF98 to talk about the NSEC5 protocol. Our chairs have requested that
>> we send out a note to the group ahead of time, so here it is.
>> This protocol has not to our knowledge been presented at dnsop before,
>> but has been discussed previously at other IETF venues, such as SAAG.
> The protocol described in draft-vcelak-nsec5 has improved since it was
> first presented, but it is still unclear why we should adopt it as part
> of DNSSEC. The benefits listed in the draft are real, but they come at a
> very steep cost for zone administrators who might use NSEC5.
> Is there a community of zone admins who want this so much that they
> won't start signing until it exists?
> Short of that, is there a community of zone admins who are using
> NSEC/NSEC3 white lies who find this to be a significant improvement?
> If not, adopting this seems like a bad idea. No one can operationally
> sign with NSEC5 until nearly all validators have it installed. In the
> meantime, a zone admin who cares about zone enumeration and wants to
> sign will use white lies, and those who don't care about zone
> enumeration won't pay any attention to this.
> Even though this document has some really nice design decisions in it,
> should it be adopted in DNSSEC unless it is likely to be deployed?
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list