Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 12 April 2021 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6CF3A1186 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:14:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 lRxbo8VQgHGG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from butterfly.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (butterfly.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.27]) (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 43B063A1184 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD75110217F; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:14:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (100-105-161-114.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.105.161.114]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2EA77102A2C; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:14:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.105.161.114 (trex/6.1.1); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:14:41 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Tangy-Power: 4599842217ae3484_1618265681451_905026802
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618265681451:2931881129
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618265681451
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E26CF888BB; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=9IyKi/ZFXfl8g+N9tG7oO8xOG9k=; b=Z9G/xgLYcX8 8tzIJOP73SPL2AZ0g6cDwjlQW4uh7Bz/gKRy60wzu8vIgwNwhmWYEECtc+Bt4f7P SRK/qWYLpIaRaD7DhHrFaLoEO/0eWUQEWpd5xtIKYiMMnwEo6gJ7Ft7HT9NZV0xG JgHkxi6oAbtCfq80PU31iwZvPORLJrdM=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 431B77E5FC; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 15:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 17:14:36 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a47
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DNSSEC architecture vs reality
Message-ID: <20210412221435.GV9612@localhost>
References: <YHMc54xe1Mnx2U2y@straasha.imrryr.org> <CABrd9SShpOnSpshnMZSag4ZVp6ic5tURFoH9RzT0WCXDHyxgkA@mail.gmail.com> <YHN5ObR0eqea8Mrc@straasha.imrryr.org> <CABrd9SRdw9baHD5-j9nz4Zv5JjfL35TgaTvS787orEyGxZdKzA@mail.gmail.com> <YHOAzeOj1JaGdmsO@straasha.imrryr.org> <5e91c054-5935-df07-e8ba-09cc78f6c950@network-heretics.com> <YHPSP8Kij2K4v7qQ@straasha.imrryr.org> <82c5fcc6-b419-6efb-b682-b5dbb32905e2@network-heretics.com> <585D8590-472B-4CBC-8292-5BE85521DD76@gmail.com> <a6545baf-b15e-3690-d7b5-be33c4078e02@mtcc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a6545baf-b15e-3690-d7b5-be33c4078e02@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7uGp3Ggg4mqcd3CsB3AITKxHwqQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:14:48 -0000

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 03:04:32PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 4/12/21 5:39 AM, Petite Abeille wrote:
> > As it stands — one has to get out of its way to find it.
> > 
> > dnsimple has good support for it out-of-the-box:
> > 
> > https://support.dnsimple.com/articles/dnssec/
> > 
> > https://dnssec-analyzer.verisignlabs.com/textprotocol.com
> > https://dnssec-analyzer.verisignlabs.com/textprotocol.net
> > 
> One of the interesting revelations is that:
> 
> 1) Google implemented DANE at one point in Chrome
> 
> 2) Google doesn't currently sign their zone
> 
> The implication being that it wasn't a very serious effort to see what would
> happen if they don't even sign their own domain.

(1) may have been because of (2), and I believe (2) was because of
internal technical and political issues.  I.e., I would not consider it
dispositive that Google seemed to like DANE then gave up on it, though
that and why they did certainly is germane.

Nico
--