Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-13.txt
Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Fri, 06 June 2014 01:37 UTC
Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB96B1A0380 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 18:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 3Ddyj0ovOvbF for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 18:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com (mail-wg0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 460671A037C for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 18:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id y10so2029604wgg.13 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=BhjQ1RwAt5fdXYSJCuG3Wv/gyks0Krh3cCxa9fUzRZI=; b=ZGtF9+iKOmoKYSAtdov15E+P8hr9clmhrkfRDx7sLPeDIkbNdJQgolu28mGr5mkSpq GTG3VugL1UyN8DicEBtpW6HpIwOxmcbPnmefqShV3WeBBlEhD42W6N4DiJ0je2QzvyP3 R6+LR45KnvsIojeAnWOCFHkhjQQYSXrX2lPXTdhUYX8ZoZ0wrvNzDhgqOj0/3eE0nacQ w1H1JljaI7ux2ZQ/AzIp4t+iCaXCTYW3SSp3T6AkGNw5ps0og7tHrYFW1oZHCoQPieTV E74StUXmBvfQGjKsTOI0VgibV+Y1TtraIbrJloVdOzZB3PjHBoMXtklojcxGKihVpBlk bc8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk36BIHQ/YVYHbjqOVaGPEz5LhYwHvCVC/3YCT2lp1Ltngp7V3rhzxhAdg6LlCkXPb0oVnP
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.186.8 with SMTP id fg8mr21141924wic.39.1402018627683; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.62.70 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 18:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_i+1UpqxNnH=+XaQ5rj-wyAEEybsKsBNtWmG1kVCdoEbEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5391111A.7000207@gmail.com> <CAHw9_i+1UpqxNnH=+XaQ5rj-wyAEEybsKsBNtWmG1kVCdoEbEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:37:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHw9_i+2siS=6E9bej4nyEz8RmrcfsLYKZ_NEqKWeaz=wxaqBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3339a45a1ab04fb20e657"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/lgAXdiMVu0By_ubWhVEy-EDOREE
Cc: "draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance.all@tools.ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-13.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 01:37:18 -0000
I replied 6 days ago, Olafur followed up 3 days ago. Maybe you have us kill-filled? :-) W On Thursday, June 5, 2014, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote: > Brian, can you please re-check? > > Olafur and I both replied -- I've just gotten off a plane and so cannot > easily resend, will do tomorrow if you didn't get our mails... > > W > > On Thursday, June 5, 2014, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com');>> wrote: > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd >> or AD before posting a new version of the draft. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-13.txt >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review Date: 2014-06-06 >> IETF LC End Date: 2014-05-26 >> IESG Telechat date: 2014-06-12 >> >> Summary: Almost ready >> -------- >> >> Comment: >> -------- >> >> These are my Last Call comments. I have seen no response. >> >> Minor issues: >> ------------- >> >> > 1. Introduction >> ... >> > Any manual process is susceptible to mistakes and / or errors. >> >> Also susceptible to social engineering or malicious leaks, I think. >> There's a fairly strong security argument for getting humans out >> of the process. >> >> > 3. CDS / CDNSKEY (Child DS / Child DNSKEY) Record Definitions >> ... >> > it is up to the consumer of the records to >> > translate that into the appropriate add/delete operations in the >> > provisioning systems >> >> Not clear here whether this is expected to be an automated or manual >> process. >> >> > If no CDS / CDNSKEY RRset is present in child, >> > this means that no change is needed. >> >> Not clear here how we ensure that update is performed exactly once. See >> below. >> >> > 4. Automating DS Maintenance With CDS / CDNSKEY records >> > >> > CDS / CDNSKEY resource records are intended to be "consumed" by >> > delegation trust maintainers. The use of CDS / CDNSKEY is optional. >> >> I think that could be OPTIONAL. >> >> > The child SHOULD publish both CDS and CDNSKEY resource records. >> >> Given the previous sentence, I think this needs to be >> >> If the child publishes either the CDS or the CDNSKEY resource record, it >> SHOULD publish both. >> >> > 4.1. CDS / CDNSKEY Processing Rules >> ... >> > If there are no CDS / CDNSKEY RRset in the child, this signals that >> > no change should be made to the current DS set. This means that, >> > once the child and parent are in sync, the Child DNS Operator MAY >> > remove all CDS and CDNSKEY resource records from the zone. >> >> Does that mean the the child MAY/SHOULD/MUST monitor what the >> parent is publishing in order to automate this process? If not, you >> are calling for a manual operation. (The text in section 5 >> is repetitious, by the way, but still doesn't clarify this.) >> >> > If any these conditions fail the CDS / CDNSKEY resource record MUST >> > be ignored. >> >> Silently? Should this be logged? Any DOS potential here? Should use of >> these RRs be rate-limited in both child and parent to avoid any DOS risk? >> >> > 6. Parent Side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption >> >> I don't think you specify what the parent should do if it receives >> both a CDS and a CDNSKEY and they are inconsistent (in violation >> of section 4). Yes, it's a corner case but Murphy's law always applies. >> >> > 9. Security Considerations >> ... >> > While it may be tempting, this SHOULD NOT be used for initial >> > enrollment of keys since there is no way to ensure that the initial >> > key is the correct one. If is used, strict rules for inclusion of >> > keys such as hold down times, challenge data inclusion or similar, >> > ought to be used, along with some kind of challenge mechanism. >> >> Shouldn't that "ought to" be MUST? Weak protection against a bogus >> initial key really seems like a "Crypto Won't Save You Either" poster >> child. >> >> Nits: >> ----- >> >> (from the shepherd's write-up) >> "The document references the document draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing, >> which had >> been approved for publication but never followed through on, and is shown >> to be expired." >> >> This is an informational reference and could probably be deleted without >> harm. >> >> "Additionally, the document references RFC2119 key word "NOT RECOMMENDED" >> without referencing it. " >> >> That is a well known bug in RFC 2119 itself. The citation can be fixed as >> per >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=499 >> >
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ie… Warren Kumari
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ie… Warren Kumari
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ie… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ie… Warren Kumari