Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-01.txt

Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> Wed, 20 February 2019 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <rwfranks@gmail.com>
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 0FD21131065 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:11:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.018, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 QAdLQ_Yr-to1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:11:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-f179.google.com (mail-it1-f179.google.com [209.85.166.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FA42128D0B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:11:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-f179.google.com with SMTP id l15so11565781iti.4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:11:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WVBv80aC9xNsnlcse9cgGfwZx+2G9rvp14pHqFUSa58=; b=QR0x5eL60dbo8I+W+trUtVDnaxwIn5d/INDoGCKCHFC11qaAQAqT2ESiGjGCQuAe4O gtRhEaNeN69MEUDPV5lDTtT/f57u4JV0qfR9CsL9Hw6b4HwC4wv+eetxlepza3f+KSbW F64S88qlyqZLY5bT9cbJMAaB02v1kQ97TjjY3W/G3IU8dqEFapLwqNW5jws4dgXt+1Oj 9K1EduflPQWN6p25mX2PGcAm2skUGKY95NwoAziSrIRJFyqYB+30FO0IztMOAFkXJl5p w/rLQV+grTBDT6/sXcd/xczmf0a+ra+sNA0su2J8j6ORK355ki+4eG4WZwqdgU7azOSi F/pg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaUwdMOx5NvWDQIOl+hE0hbNe9/pQh6xaaqwbqT3GB6aqJb8ljz +GzgRyXqdiqrP/qEh8cdaTRQC6Gz1tQarsLrx17zfg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbE3prDF+xefIP5xpJSQfyE6dI50O3nh4BaItHpdMTSuGbYEkOEPQ0UuEieFZoODZUjK8nZe598ccHkdt9QemU=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:f30b:: with SMTP id t11mr3451399ith.40.1550625080395; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 17:11:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155053239541.25848.12960190085730298684.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <969D8BA1-6ED3-47E8-AFFD-2BEE8EA3E66B@bangj.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902191219070.766@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <0DE33073-93B1-4CF5-B12D-B7266E21E8B2@timwattenberg.de>
In-Reply-To: <0DE33073-93B1-4CF5-B12D-B7266E21E8B2@timwattenberg.de>
From: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 01:10:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKW6Ri51B6zLeBuL7dgLd-GLcqFJCHHJ37Fe7hvK+M_ATs9jAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Wattenberg <mail@timwattenberg.de>
Cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000018ca4b0582490944"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/wzEd-ROOBeBjLvIpH8kpbZyANNY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-01.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 20 Feb 2019 01:11:23 -0000

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 21:27, Tim Wattenberg <mail@timwattenberg.de> wrote:

> 8<

> RRSIG, SIG, TKEY (32 bits with serial number arithmetic relative to now)
> >
> > TSIG (48 bits)
>
> thanks for bringing up this point again. I was aware of the way RRSIG
> presents time but thanks for pointing us to TSIG – I hadn’t considered this
> earlier.
>

TSIG is an aberration. Using a timescale of 8.9 million years to specify a
window of a few minutes around the current time was a monumental blunder.



> Given these possible representations, is there a preference over one of
> the two?
>

Unsigned 32 bit RRSIG time is good for travel until 7th February 2106.
The fact that 2100 will not be a leap year is likely to be a bigger issue
than wrap-around.