IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Trans] CT for DNSSEC

Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com> Thu, 16 March 2017 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <weihaw@google.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284AC120227 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.741
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.741 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 Ui4rnFPsffFH for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22e.google.com (mail-ot0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5E721296B8 for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id x37so63239267ota.2 for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pKfzFGc73+FDBPVqfB0+Kljwt/FBpW43w7JIm1K3UnE=; b=aBWqahm1dspHskx6WmdeOj4xBHV64y8lbVyZhZxQABWXILOAwL0ZViDCNSZ48PeWKN W2eum2erpq23W321K8O3J/b/LD/c63+AAAUiqoR+yCBdRIAv9habVKKnaXgDLZIqNN1h +Ej3ac/q8nBV7Xy1ZTCi1ihgWs5C6XXKjheVWAiVHsOoiJsc872LGipl6aILO3cnPmnI BnqrGK96bInG/0ypAUFIX1jm/fXQNG1nEzGSHQ4KGtTMhMVuzq7tjKYXcj6EtEYUNcDD zLvGxIwrwk4gPsBHbHaL9ObhUnafIM1kT3F+0YIEnuiouFT31J1+NG078aaq3K+mmMbC hjdA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pKfzFGc73+FDBPVqfB0+Kljwt/FBpW43w7JIm1K3UnE=; b=KnWe4WacPXwqjWGPoU58AnXq5oFdyrPRT+1Hu7WJZaxRaVr8PCLiHN7IAQyhGWlPE5 z9AiH9hyhy6yET3UtPwG+9XZUIIYekU5/pebJXiY5kAT9+SjUqz7HZ9E92FqaHXMEeR7 1mUD5HamXeSoHNhd1vIxL3FWwFnkQTtap7nt2fKM1RrLdDfCjG08Jb25kh1pHZunmVA3 f8msbEcE7utX1dxCRdK22Pn9NLPAn86SlIMOj+icc1+A6B4r6CPGdP5idyt4b2Juti0C 7nyIw7Abr7HdLqfOfjkaIwaK732f4+HgPkXLA5WRIxNN19e3ILyoqQYHyh8BQ3iHZJpp neRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0oMvkVY4QzNpc1j9bfyKlgYnD6saCRylNJeZWJTtf20MqAbkzaKCgxK8nbRIoIjCk8wEIR+wCVrgJC30v6
X-Received: by 10.157.11.229 with SMTP id 92mr4947740oth.85.1489684185705; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.41.226 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAFsWK0bCDZmg0csCfXAJ1=jqbOBc7sUUvSg-6ZKjxuAQKmQPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: trans@ietf.org, dane@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="001a1142ef02bd25cf054adc202a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/n097RUV58dVyFYBq2VKxA9Yb1_Y>
Subject: [Trans] CT for DNSSEC
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:09:50 -0000

Hi folks,

I saw there was significant interest
<http://blog.huque.com/2014/07/dnssec-key-transparency.html> in exploring
CT for DNSSEC back in 2014 of which a draft draft-zhang-trans-ct-dnssec
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-trans-ct-dnssec-03> was created.
It seems to have quieted down since.  I believe the motivation is still
there which is to prevent a parent zone from potentially misbehaving and
spoofing the child zone.  Is there still interest in this?  From the list
archives, I can't see what the issues were though I'm guessing one of them
was respecifying the DS resource record to use a SCT which might have
caused compatibility concerns.  (But please correct me if I'm wrong)  Other
than that, the draft seems pretty reasonable.  Were there other concerns?

thanks,
-Wei

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email