IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [regext] Security Lock anyone? (Was: Preliminary agenda for Prague, and call for agenda items)

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 26 February 2019 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91D0124BF6 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:46:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U0VqvnaAFEAz for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:46:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A705212785F for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:46:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:37402) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1gygo9-000GnS-0P (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:46:21 +0000
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:46:20 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>
cc: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <2BE5D16A-F8A6-4609-9420-19BA1CE89185@nic.br>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1902261744450.19193@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <19F54F2956911544A32543B8A9BDE0759FBF8765@NICS-EXCH2.sbg.nic.at> <8175501f-3365-c8d1-7a76-a4584e76734e@centralnic.com> <C4A68CA3-1ADE-4959-A51E-A73F4A4914DC@sidn.nl> <395DD26B-B2D1-4144-87BD-8DBCD772A8A5@lansing.dk> <34c35e4c575a4e338215b919c102cdfc@cira.ca> <2BE5D16A-F8A6-4609-9420-19BA1CE89185@nic.br>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/QPijHkFuoltEn4Pmn2vZG0Thcig>
Subject: Re: [regext] Security Lock anyone? (Was: Preliminary agenda for Prague, and call for agenda items)
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:46:27 -0000

Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
>
> I imagine that DNS as a communication channel to assure registrant
> willingness to change something, similar to CDNS/CDNSKEY, could be quite
> useful. For instance, if the name servers that are delegated on the
> registry are now pointing to new name servers, and this response is
> signed by the current DS/DNSKEY on the delegation, changing the DNS
> servers for that domain is pretty safe.

There is RFC 7477 CSYNC, but I don't know of any implementations.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
safeguard the balance of nature and the environment

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email