Re: [dnsext] Related to section 5.1 of dnssec-bis-updates (-14)

Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> Fri, 13 January 2012 15:44 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 D25BD21F860B; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:44:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1326469490; bh=Dd6oycPinqE9tSNDK2c+zjIzpTYWIfD0x5ht3F3Zfi4=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=e7MGRsvYXBodwpAmPT+JM5O1JF0VHoYLbuDXg8xewXhDmVua1M6kX7mrHNAPfFygZ g0hvmqXTy+2iNREnAW1LLdPCpE3Z066I1WicdEhmwEtmzitccRqLDPSkYPNlAHTjsd FP3GiRvY4LxLBFWknUIkLzDDJI497vHlntFdryDM=
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 C251621F860B for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:44:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 m4OXh2YXR1rw for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:44:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D5021F859B for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:44:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (nyttbox.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.4]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0DFilfw053027 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:44:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ogud@ogud.com)
Message-ID: <4F10516E.205@ogud.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:44:46 -0500
From: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext@ietf.org
References: <20111012144101.205a61dff9fc1684c258b274662bb912.3f5e55ecf1.wbe@email00.se cureserver.net> <a06240801cabc9d0de24d@[192.168.129.103]> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201122318080.86374@fledge.watson.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201122318080.86374@fledge.watson.org>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 10.20.30.4
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Related to section 5.1 of dnssec-bis-updates (-14)
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

WG,

Please help our editor to close this issue by either sending +1 to
the resolution below or explain why not.

Chairs would like to see this issue closed in the next few days.

	Olafur


On 12/01/2012 23:20, Samuel Weiler wrote:
> I don't recall seeing much discussion of the below. As doc editor, I
> would like to hear an extra voice or three chime in before I fix this.
>
> As I understand Ed's message, the (signer) name in an RRSIG does need to
> be downcased. The next name in a NSEC RR does NOT need to be downcased.
> Is that right?
>
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
>> In this section of the still-a-draft update to the DNSSEC definition
>> of RFC 4033-4035 an issue has arisen that needs to be addressed.
>>
>> # http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-bis-updates-14
>> #
>> #5.1.  Errors in Canonical Form Type Code List
>> #
>> #   When canonicalizing DNS names, DNS names in the RDATA section of NSEC
>> #   and RRSIG resource records are not downcased.
>> #
>> #   [RFC4034] Section 6.2 item 3 has a list of resource record types for
>> #   which DNS names in the RDATA are downcased for purposes of DNSSEC
>> #   canonical form (for both ordering and signing).  That list
>> #   erroneously contains NSEC and RRSIG.  According to [RFC3755], DNS
>> #   names in the RDATA of NSEC and RRSIG should not be downcased.
>> #
>> #   The same section also erroneously lists HINFO, and twice at that.
>> #   Since HINFO records contain no domain names, they are not subject to
>> #   downcasing.
>>
>> For the purposes of this email a "major implementation" refers to a
>> widely distributed general purpose implementation of DNS.  It's become
>> apparent
>> that two major implementations of validators have differed on
>> downcaseing the RRSIG.
>>
>> We've been trying to determine why this problem hasn't surfaced in a
>> real-world outage.  It seems that all major implementations of signers
>> down case
>> the RRSIG before signing.
>>
>> Treat this as a suggestion.  Unexcuse RRSIG from the list of names
>> that avoid downcasing.  (NSEC is not a problem.)  Any thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>> Edward Lewis
>> NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at
>> +1-571-434-5468
>>
>> Vote for the word of the day:
>> "Papa"razzi - father that constantly takes photos of the baby
>> Corpureaucracy - The institution of corporate "red tape"
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext