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