Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz> Thu, 09 February 2012 01:16 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 7581B21F85EA; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:16:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1328750161; bh=7ocxjCcF9Cj5OHMMpVq2oTEjM6j0ffQ17I5sOQ+7MrM=; h=Mime-Version:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:Date:To:From:Cc: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=UnD8rWsIQOvyEejf/VsgyV43hDoycO0VtheLEVPY2rI4GrzQSbvaQ5jx2uH9Ab+L7 isPZSn72Ok83p5vWTRkSPF5xVzi+2T48xBi6XgQN0zASY+5Qv1Y6T8jGZx2kKnyg0u 25P/HeHCLBNEzbzbxVJyDSKzD0/ywLLyuW6trR6I=
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 C6EE921F85EA for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:15:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.877
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, 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 kxAYrnjW5427 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:15:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stora.ogud.com (stora.ogud.com [66.92.146.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C0921F85E6 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:15:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Work-Laptop-2.local (nyttbox.md.ogud.com [10.20.30.4]) by stora.ogud.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q191FecU069407; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:15:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz)
Received: from [192.168.128.21] by Work-Laptop-2.local (PGP Universal service); Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:44 -0800
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Work-Laptop-2.local on Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:44 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a06240800cb58cc29d79a@[172.17.20.117]>
In-Reply-To: <CACU5sDnrz8ivLR6nMGvX0+gFvmU2k6V7HLrb8MYLtvAs2DODgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120207151820.GE9478@crankycanuck.ca> <4F31449C.9040604@nlnetlabs.nl> <a06240801cb570a945202@192.168.128.143> <CACU5sD=bUC9bC_OW4SeH2h6DPM+d3+-JkZyz=6u=dpmj+7rVjw@mail.gmail.com> <4F3232B6.3060505@nlnetlabs.nl> <CACU5sDk8zGPF-w5BpBG21tNW1s0mpCEUP=YBaoZXhmbHT-+u-A@mail.gmail.com> <20120208230511.2440F1D0601B@drugs.dv.isc.org> <CACU5sDnrz8ivLR6nMGvX0+gFvmU2k6V7HLrb8MYLtvAs2DODgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:15:35 -0800
To: Mohan Parthasarathy <suruti94@gmail.com>
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 10.20.30.4
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates
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
At 15:27 -0800 2/8/12, Mohan Parthasarathy wrote: >On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote: >> >> Step 1 of validation. >> Is there a potential covering trust anchor? >> Yes. Goto step 2. >> No. Mark as insecure. >> >> Step 2 .... >> >From RFC 4033: > >Insecure: The validating resolver has a trust anchor, a chain of > trust, and, at some delegation point, signed proof of the > non-existence of a DS record. This indicates that subsequent > branches in the tree are provably insecure. A validating resolver > may have a local policy to mark parts of the domain space as > insecure. > >So, I don't understand what you mean. What Mark wrote is consistent with that paragraph. Not complete, but consistent. Look at a path through the namespace: o = root | o = tld | o = example | o = www Let's say that "tld." is a cut point. Case 1 - if there are no trust anchors at all, then everything is "insecure." Case 2 - if there is a root trust anchor and there is provably no DS record for tld., then all names in the tld. domain (not just the zone) are provably insecure. Case 3 - (as in case 2 up to the BUT) if there is a root trust anchor and there is provably no DS record for tld., BUT there is a trust anchor for example.tld. and www is not a cut point. In this case you can validate sets owned by www.example.tld. "Insecure" is never an outcome. The possible outcomes are "bogus", "valid" (or whatever "good" is called), and a service failure if some record cannot be retrieved. Case 4 - trust anchors at root and tld.root and no cutpoints without a DS, then you'll never see insecure. (I hope I have this right.) And only "Bogus" is bad, no data is returned for Bogus and Service Failure. Data is returned for Insecure and Valid. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 2012...time to reuse those 1984 calendars! _______________________________________________ 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