Re: [DNSOP] Multi Provider DNSSEC Models

Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur@cloudflare.com> Thu, 22 March 2018 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <olafur@cloudflare.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 61EDE12D86E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.com
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 h_eaYVz0gOKz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22d.google.com (mail-wr0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22d]) (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 4DC1012D86B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l8so8717928wrg.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ooWHaO8HZxHE2y1NYxMy+K3yHEjNfE/R4Rz7V7gqG1g=; b=W90+nHSRGHEMNLzKBnTSUgAHZauLDw3eQKnprFccabZFoKOfSPr2zCFHCY+cxyaK9F AEVmRwCs3Cjk3wjlL/t85ZQ4aJ6XRpf9XUvm7iEVx93E9oFGgLjxk5FgBYCBW+19x2/w GUXNlUhchY3MKhEEEQNFfezbdQXizZreZHh4E=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ooWHaO8HZxHE2y1NYxMy+K3yHEjNfE/R4Rz7V7gqG1g=; b=tk0E2DQj7f2+AqT0SxuDrF7eTgkZHXhbroFBW8g6HUlZcLYLgBvwr36QcqynuHGDyP pDn+r3c62NzrhD21n8tEoVAM0LzRLiW0niE4nQbt7Ubq3R3Dc04U8mdogOiGUsGH0PCH AKex64tzur9Av794G5CKqwYLw6f2frQpLjbIv5elbjDXpa2eAXMCJRnwJYCObSaCQDcS Ci+IU7m67EAQZq69gTrFKlSB671UgStZxb8p76I0lt2F8CE6hekuTTGbK1VP4phMadtg PSOykLa9piM6BKXLEq5DmP3b5FvS3+ofNC14q9wfZ72yGFRxNymEAfSuth0l2j/maDFn +qnA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GrI66thYuGetOoLoXtcnZX6TXTxiQgbgdIBd2DeSlEDaGkyQFy PfbkrHXxqplOgwZpVdAS91l9b0HHD0PAT28SuNzrCw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELu92C82TS3XwUrU9wtpBu3Is3Xs0XnK8gEBD2GILDfsNGdXluc2k2yawRr0GxqfDbeOlxT7MYiY5mpjquP8gs8=
X-Received: by 10.223.154.47 with SMTP id z44mr17056273wrb.239.1521725615694; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.169.41 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHPuVdXCWfDP7DwLe84CArfMeqE=b9yQqYJns92km6RWs8ntjg@mail.gmail.com>
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> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803221242040.2781@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAHPuVdXCWfDP7DwLe84CArfMeqE=b9yQqYJns92km6RWs8ntjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?w5NsYWZ1ciBHdcOwbXVuZHNzb24=?= <olafur@cloudflare.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:33:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CAN6NTqy2jomDoiZTvewgL7AFOp=hEXma5Z3s6Zz9TTQCkvZenw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>
Cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, "dnsop@ietf.org WG" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f4c20c4fa520568005a81"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/yoI3so0P30yKZplgV66ThBroEh0>
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 13:33:39 -0000

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Shumon Huque <shuque@gmail.com>; wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>; wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> That's correct. Both model 1 and 2 seem quite viable to me. Maybe Olafur
> can
> elaborate on why he feels only model 1 makes sense.
>
> One thing I would like to discuss is whether this document should recommend
> just one model to maximise the chances that multiple providers implement a
> common interoperable scheme that a zone owner can successfully deploy.
> Providers might be persuadable to implement both models, but anything more
> than two, I would guess, will not be practical.
>
> Shumon.
>
>
My preference is that the zone owner can say they are in full control of
the zone authority
Second reason is if provider B is signing the DNSKEY for the zone then it
can remove the key for operator A
which is not the intent of the zone owner.

Olafur