Re: [DNSOP] Multi Provider DNSSEC Models

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 22 March 2018 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 65D0A12D7FC for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 aBfQiKzHfznh for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) (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 E65E112D7F8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 05:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:39737) by ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1eyzfV-000yHf-d4 (Exim 4.89_2) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:50:09 +0000
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:50:08 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
cc: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <9724C1F6-C470-4B4F-AFB3-2085A1B47B26@ogud.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803221242040.2781@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CAHPuVdVi5C3nyVuG2aiLefN7eFPOx+GnOCxU40iio_Gn0oQ8qA@mail.gmail.com> <DFCE50F5-2385-4512-BF9F-1266C0DA4D6E@dotat.at> <CAHPuVdXy+oYgQEUoHoxN7W1BnuCoa+opHbQ9tbLZX2xDj2xoZg@mail.gmail.com> <9724C1F6-C470-4B4F-AFB3-2085A1B47B26@ogud.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/xBvBDbNEgdr8dnSjru4VgAJyTdo>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Multi Provider DNSSEC Models
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:50:13 -0000

Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>; wrote:
>
> I think only Model #1 makes sense, i.e Zone apex DNSKEY/CDNSKEY/CDS
> RRset's are signed by zone publisher but rest signed by operator on the
> fly.

>From the provider point of view, I think there are a couple of models:

(a) provider has KSK and ZSK; zone owner needs to be able to import other
provider public keys into this provider's DNSKEY RRset, and export signed
DNSKEY RRset.

(b) provider only has ZSK; zone owner needs to be able to export public
keys, and import signed DNSKEY RRsets.

Given this, I think a zone owner can implement either model 1 or
model 2 from the draft. Model 3 requires sharing private keys.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>;  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Biscay: Variable 3, becoming southwesterly 4 or 5, occasionally 6. Moderate or
rough. Occasional rain. Good occasionally poor.