IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> Fri, 22 June 2018 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <each@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 838F2130EC0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 ee-gdcqaMdqm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:49:27 -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 7282B130EAF for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B58EB3AB045; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 18:49:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix, from userid 10292) id 9DCAF216C1C; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 18:49:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 18:49:25 +0000
From: Evan Hunt <each@isc.org>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: "Wellington, Brian" <bwelling=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180622184925.GB83312@isc.org>
References: <6C8533C2-6510-4A0E-A7EA-50EB83E43A7D@isc.org> <CD6DB8C1-108A-433E-8CD9-34F549844D10@isc.org> <D770751E-437F-48AA-8B1B-19A9F3A966CE@akamai.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806200953070.916@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806200953070.916@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/x6leOZCEIvdOryo8CL0S6BBTuAE>
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: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 18:49:30 -0000

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:05:54AM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> I think the problem is it isn't a complete implementation: you can't use
> SIG(0) in all the places you can use TSIG. The TKEY support seems to be
> specific to Kerberos, whereas broader support would make it a neat way to
> use slow SIG(0) to establish fast TSIG session keys.

This matches my own intuition. "A clear idea of what to do about it" has
been slow in coming, but I think you're right.

-- 
Evan Hunt -- each@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email