Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?)

Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org> Tue, 19 June 2018 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ondrej@isc.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 07F34130E51 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 jj_ljFIxs8Jw for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 2A3D1130E22 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 808633AB007 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:33:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 723C016008E; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:33:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64B9C16008D; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:33:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id o-V0HDVq2JPh; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:33:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [100.65.106.228] (ip-37-188-156-203.eurotel.cz [37.188.156.203]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16F7E160053; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:33:37 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Ond=C5=99ej_Sur=C3=BD?= <ondrej@isc.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15F79)
In-Reply-To: <CD6DB8C1-108A-433E-8CD9-34F549844D10@isc.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 23:33:32 +0200
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D7C0BCA9-A5E1-4168-9601-209DF8B2902A@isc.org>
References: <6C8533C2-6510-4A0E-A7EA-50EB83E43A7D@isc.org> <CD6DB8C1-108A-433E-8CD9-34F549844D10@isc.org>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wuzWTcrTWm66Cc3mLYcVbZTOGT4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?)
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 19 Jun 2018 21:33:41 -0000

But if nobody uses that and nobody else implements this, it sort of beats the usefulness of the feature.

Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý — ISC

> On 19 Jun 2018, at 23:20, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> 
> SIG(0) is much superior for machines updating their own data  to TSIG as you don’t need a secondary storage for the TSIG key.   You can replace a master server without having to worry about transferring TSIG secrets off a dead machine. You just copy the zone from a slave and go.
> 
> There are other scenarios where it is also superior like automaton delegating  In the reverse tree.
> 
> No I don’t think it should go. 
> 
> It should be widely implemented so it can be used. There is a lot of self fulfilling prophecy in the DNS of people will never is this so we won’t implement it. 
> 
> -- 
> Mark Andrews
> 
>> On 20 Jun 2018, at 06:48, Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> as far as I could find on the Internet there are only SIG(0) implementation in handful DNS implementations - BIND, PHP Net_DNS2 PHP library, Net::DNS(::Sec) Perl library, trust_dns written in Rust and perhaps others I haven’t found; no mentions of real deployment was found over the Internet (but you can blame Google for that)...
>> 
>> Do people think the SIG(0) is something that we should keep in DNS and it will be used in the future or it is a good candidate for throwing off the boat?
>> 
>> Ondrej
>> --
>> Ondřej Surý
>> ondrej@isc.org
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>