IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Re: The conservative approach and the liberal approach for DNSSEC algorithm rollover

Libor Peltan <libor.peltan@nic.cz> Tue, 12 May 2026 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <libor.peltan@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875FBED22E15 for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2026 07:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1778596294; bh=IpE2MUP8N9S1TMXftS0jE0VfoSdo/FVlX9+aGe+SVrY=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=eVveYssHdOpJadVcfCEEZpbbaB7d8S5Np4Jv1n5SFGhNIHArgtBiK32+dxK4tIYTT 1c8HL4yxjC1awAuQp8ibwh7ElMWhenB1LzpAfMeGjxlgBpvm3rDUmv35wOiNCIeVAn 95k9w7AaT1B5sGNwm5EhC3vvrgsupjbp3S6FTUB8=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WZTFMk7bkNvj for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2026 07:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20BECED22D98 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2026 07:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPV6:2001:1488:fffe:6:9b2e:1ea9:1438:24f4] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:9b2e:1ea9:1438:24f4]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C9371C0353; Tue, 12 May 2026 16:31:23 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1778596283; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=36nNHoGXhmbqHFmYhHKVFMqmFuEsHxXcinoDeJP9gG0=; b=DtrUH8i0UEPFXVj++K+aVZ4ioH3kSaMSHxQGgUIpPkP7GqYYevA4QbQdc9nGfrMDQkOmeo TblHSqIW+LLE7mEDTBc3TbgcqDKut/1er0fwT8/GmV2ASTVp3eiuuPXcGhvZOGSiLNfUPx vZp6t2fv4Z05tQtCpq/ngiImi5CBh9M=
Authentication-Results: mail.nic.cz; auth=pass smtp.auth=libor.peltan@nic.cz smtp.mailfrom=libor.peltan@nic.cz
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------PibtNqSR4cpV0mC5uz1UnLFv"
Message-ID: <5f9c95b0-6667-4e1a-8057-7940373b061b@nic.cz>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 16:31:22 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Cathy Zhang <scooct@163.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
References: <57c4f22.390be.19e1b8328d2.Coremail.scooct@163.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Libor Peltan <libor.peltan@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <57c4f22.390be.19e1b8328d2.Coremail.scooct@163.com>
X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=multimap; Matched map: WHITELISTED_IP
X-Rspamd-Server: mail
X-Rspamd-Action: no action
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.10 / 16.00]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; WHITELISTED_IP(0.00)[2001:1488:fffe:6:9b2e:1ea9:1438:24f4]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25192, ipnet:2001:1488::/32, country:CZ]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[nic.cz:s=default]; FREEMAIL_ENVRCPT(0.00)[163.com]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FUZZY_RATELIMITED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; LOCAL_OUTBOUND(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[163.com,ietf.org]
X-Spamd-Bar: /
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7C9371C0353
Message-ID-Hash: 4YH2KNH3OYBZC7KJNRI2KRDDSSLEF6DS
X-Message-ID-Hash: 4YH2KNH3OYBZC7KJNRI2KRDDSSLEF6DS
X-MailFrom: libor.peltan@nic.cz
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: The conservative approach and the liberal approach for DNSSEC algorithm rollover
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/x1eaqR0W-FE7O-gO7KS4uS2rUTs>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Cathy,

it is slightly puzzling me that one RFC (6781) encourages "loose 
interpretation" (in fact, violation) of another RFC (4035).

I'd stick with what is called the "conservative approach" , until 
draft-huque-dnsop-multi-alg-rules makes it to RFC (I wish!).

Libor

On 12. 05. 26 11:27, Cathy Zhang wrote:
> Hi all,
> RFC 6781 defines two modes for algorithm rollover: the conservative approach and the liberal approach.
> And the relevant description is given on page 29 of RFC 6781 as follows:
>     However, there are implementations of validators known to follow the
>     more conservative approach.  Performing a Double-Signature KSK
>     algorithm rollover will temporarily make your zone appear as Bogus by
>     such validators during the rollover.  Therefore, the rollover
>     described in this section will explain the stages of deployment and
>     will assume that the conservative approach is used.
> Is this distinction still necessary today, or is it possible to adopt the same approach as for ZSK/KSK rollover?
> BR,
> Cathy
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list --dnsop@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email todnsop-leave@ietf.org

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status