Re: [dnsext] Issues in WGLC of dnssec-bis-updates

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 07 February 2012 22:22 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 611EE21F86C1; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:22:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1328653337; bh=S15RBRcB+2sQwCAIyabuYZUaOLfqnefAGRtc7tVBDoQ=; 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=mXkqS1SUCP/qXqXO6aaTRSC5YrwzzOLuldKZttE6HRLi0OSIJmjnlUgTTWHyvhrj+ /mSgnqSjLzFBZadENcPaBT2RTWfZYiCkf6dAe60F2hdKW/4rmB7u8IJYVOLejO+ubm O0oQhhtXkGFH8CiRQrvxu6Cg/ub5iQDreIG1yLQc=
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 BDC4121F86C2 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:22:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, 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 iC5On8BAH9uu for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:22:15 -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 2202721F86C1 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 14:22:15 -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 9D4CFC942D; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 22:22:01 +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 45D83216C6B; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 22:22:01 +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 47F671CF6C8B; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:21:59 +1100 (EST)
To: "W.C.A. Wijngaards" <wouter@nlnetlabs.nl>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <20120207151820.GE9478@crankycanuck.ca> <4F31449C.9040604@nlnetlabs.nl> <20120207162344.GH9478@mail.yitter.info> <4F315725.4010705@nlnetlabs.nl>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:53:57 BST." <4F315725.4010705@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:21:59 +1100
Message-Id: <20120207222159.47F671CF6C8B@drugs.dv.isc.org>
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>
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 <4F315725.4010705@nlnetlabs.nl>, "W.C.A. Wijngaards" writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 02/07/2012 05:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 04:34:52PM +0100, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:
> >>
> >> I feel the first (4033) is a better description.  I personally use a
> >> definition for this as: this portion of the tree does not have a trust
> >> anchor above it (higher up the hierarchy), and therefore is not secure,
> >> insecure, or bogus.  Note that with the root trust anchor the
> >> indeterminate state no longer occurs, since we know everything is
> >> covered by that trust anchor.
> > 
> > This is extremely interesting and helpful; thanks.  I wonder about
> > something, though.  What should we call the state you get when you
> > have a validating resolver that can only speak to upstream resolvers
> > that all respond NOTIMP (or similar) to the DO bit?  That case appears
> > to be covered by the 4035 definition and not the 4033 one.  Is this
> > "unvalidatable" rather than "indeterminate"?
> 
> This would make data that is not covered by a trust anchor indeterminate
> (like it was before, you have no anchor that covers it so can check no
> signatures).  Data covered by a trust anchor becomes bogus, because you
> cannot get the DNSSEC data for zone of the trust anchor, and its
> delegations need to tell you if the data covered by it is secure or
> insecure; these signatures are withheld, and this makes the result bogus.

The delegation is secure or insecure.  The data is secure, bogus
or indeterminate.  When you follow a insecure delegation the data
is no longer under the trust anchor, i.e. there is no chain from a
trust anchor to it.

> Best regards,
>    Wouter
-- 
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