IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-04.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 10 January 2017 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 2875B129D31 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:50:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 druQWVkLuKD6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 D847F129410 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:50:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3tydLp22CBz1Kh; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:50:42 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1484067042; bh=8Inrx2/+3SqnruEJXA55Eeu3e2AsElrI+v5eNC1Ttiw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=DrRbyV3Vq2o8ZErzASYgcOVf4zEGSeQsr2wmV0mdlxxYZ7c1RXR0qxeBKp5iQZks2 aL+nHMO444/ShG85LJCoLUobi5cpghVuUxIGGu3BVoD93w7250uvHYzpJ/qyBYQ/8o VkxyJOk8U9ofu1fqVdIDz0URn0ha2piOSfOfTu5M=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IPbC94jT3KL6; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:50:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:50:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8C7D2717D6C; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:50:37 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca 8C7D2717D6C
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7541544836EF; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:50:37 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:50:37 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Matthijs Mekking <matthijs@pletterpet.nl>
In-Reply-To: <11dd4e3d-3620-a478-cee5-6be4f9b9a141@pletterpet.nl>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1701101141250.4762@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <147792810754.32434.7815626160706350019.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <f3c5f93a-c1ae-8cff-2782-6352669f4920@pletterpet.nl> <11dd4e3d-3620-a478-cee5-6be4f9b9a141@pletterpet.nl>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/yzR0_U8DOVrOYint3gmfd3bfquo>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-04.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:50:48 -0000

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Matthijs Mekking wrote:

> I see that IESG has approved this document, but I am still wondering this:
>
> On 01-12-16 13:20, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>>  Hi,
>>
>>  I read this again. I still wonder if in the case of DNSSEC Delete
>>  Algorithm it wouldn't be easier to say: In case the DNSSEC algorithm is
>>  0, the Digest/Public Key MUST be ignored.
>>
>>  This way, you don't have to change the CDS/CDNSKEY format defined in RFC
>>  7344, most likely causing less problems with deployed software.

I personally think the simplification of using all zero's is good. If
someone accidentally changes the wrong number in the DS record when
changing parameters, it will prevent a mistaken delete request. While,
the zone might still fail, at least it won't be forced to go through a
period of insecure while the parental DS gets repopulated.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email