Re: [dnsext] What is indeterminate
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 07 February 2012 23:31 UTC
Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC9821F87B7; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:31:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1328657486; bh=Yyt40SNQiqcxN0zfC1A8OMsDO5v46W6JemDLPYSa+I4=; h=To:From:References:In-reply-to:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=XCqQ7BryzL1snaBIhiNqWGESZhc4c59OvlEbAr96imhGlewrkNeLh4TB5ZouxUOyM 5FLnGAvlUITE5umoiMY1g9up98xTzIC4j3GOEypdUHvWLDtoogZ0kUAOzfg9TCpoqj BvKUGc4SFsZhPYj2yUSIuWsX4brZbjjeCGbhGgBM=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5075821F87A7 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:31:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g416ZjJoGIqz for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3FF021F87B7 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1CC7C942B; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:31:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:b866:ffc:24d5:68f1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 576A8216C6A; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:31:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A38B1CF75E6; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:31:08 +1100 (EST)
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20120207151820.GE9478@crankycanuck.ca> <E59CC699-741A-4815-B4CD-D0781420072E@vpnc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:08:56 CDT." <E59CC699-741A-4815-B4CD-D0781420072E@vpnc.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:31:08 +1100
Message-Id: <20120207233108.1A38B1CF75E6@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: DNSEXT Working Group <dnsext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] What is indeterminate
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
In message <E59CC699-741A-4815-B4CD-D0781420072E@vpnc.org>, Paul Hoffman writes : > On Feb 7, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > > ISSUE 1: Indeterminacy of Indeterminate > > > > In http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext/current/msg12176.html, > > Mohan Parthasarathy argues that RFC 4033 and RFC 4035 have > > inconsistent definitions of "Indeterminate". RFC 4033 says this is > > what Indeterminate means, in section 5: > > > > Indeterminate: There is no trust anchor that would indicate that a > > specific portion of the tree is secure. This is the default > > operation mode. > > > > RFC 4035 has this definition in section 4.3: > > > > Indeterminate: An RRset for which the resolver is not able to > > determine whether the RRset should be signed, as the resolver is > > not able to obtain the necessary DNSSEC RRs. This can occur when > > the security-aware resolver is not able to contact security-aware > > name servers for the relevant zones. > > > > These two do seem to be inconsistent. In particular, the latter > > apparently can happen when a security-aware resolver with an > > appropriate trust anchor can't find an upstream that can handle the DO > > bit. Does anyone have an opinion on what to do about this? We will > > need to come to some very strong agreement quickly, or it will not be > > addressed in this document. > > > > DEFAULT ACTION: none. Without proposed text that finds strong > > support, this issue will be left out of the document. > > A request to the folks who have done DNSSEC much longer than I have: please d > o resolve this somehow. It affected the development of DANE, and will probabl > y nail others later. This really is a "how many angels can you fit on a pin head" argument. You can prove a answer is secure with respect to the trust anchors you have. You can determine that you can't validate as secure with the trust anchors you have. Everything else is indeterminate/insecure as far as the application is concerned. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates W.C.A. Wijngaards
- [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates W.C.A. Wijngaards
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates W.C.A. Wijngaards
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Edward Lewis
- [dnsext] What is indeterminate Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] What is indeterminate Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] What is indeterminate Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates W.C.A. Wijngaards
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates bmanning
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Eric Brunner-Williams
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Edward Lewis
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Mohan Parthasarathy
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates W.C.A. Wijngaards
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Samuel Weiler
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Paul Hoffman
- Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates Wes Hardaker