Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-01.txt

2017-05-25 Thread Michael StJohns
I appreciate your comments, but they are pretty much inapplicable to the document. I'd suggest if this approach is important to you that you draft an ID and gather comments on that document. If you want to recommend changes to 5011 - same comment. What we're discussing now is guidance for the

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-01.txt

2017-05-25 Thread Mark Andrews
These questions are why I don't like RFC5011. There is lots of missing metadata about DNSKEYs that exists in CERTs. We could supply this metadata in TBD records at the apex of the zone which are like extended DS records (I will call these records VU records). Things like "valid until" where val

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-01.txt

2017-05-25 Thread Wes Hardaker
Bob Harold writes: > I might be wrong, but it would seem to me that the doc covers two situations: > 1. How long to wait after publishing a key before signing exclusively with > that key. Thank you. That is exactly the intent of the document. > 2. How long after you stop signing with a key

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-01.txt

2017-05-25 Thread Michael StJohns
Hi Paul - I appreciate that both you and Wes have new skills related to mind reading about my intents, but you're probably reading the wrong mind. I have stated the question a publisher needed to answer fairly succinctly in the past: "How long must a publisher wait until it is reasonably ce

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-01.txt

2017-05-25 Thread Bob Harold
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Most people reading an RFC about the DNS probably expect it to be about > the public DNS we know. That public DNS currently has one KSK, and there > are no plans to change that (although there might be in the future). Given > that, and given

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations-01.txt

2017-05-25 Thread Paul Hoffman
Most people reading an RFC about the DNS probably expect it to be about the public DNS we know. That public DNS currently has one KSK, and there are no plans to change that (although there might be in the future). Given that, and given Mike's comments on the doc, I propose the following. Chan

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements

2017-05-25 Thread John Kristoff
On Tue, 23 May 2017 12:22:34 + Sara Dickinson wrote: > I’ve reviewed this draft and as stated previously support adoption as > a companion document to RFC7766. Thank you for your review. > Section 2.2: I think the argument around DNSSEC can be bolstered by > the fact that recent root ZSK an