[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost draft-ietf-dnsop-must-not-sha1

2025-01-06 Thread Tim Wicinski
All Welcome back from holidays, those who have returned. Discussions with the working group and authors and we feel these documents are ready to move forward. The two deprecation documents are short. The focus of 8624-bis is to move the canonical list of DNSSEC algorithms to an IANA registry. Th

[DNSOP] Re: Flag for Wildcard Responses

2025-01-06 Thread Edward Lewis
On Jan 6, 2025, at 17:06, Shane Kerr wrote: > > Alex, > > On 06/01/2025 22.02, Brotman, Alex wrote: >> Looking at something relating to the day job, and I'm curious if there's any >> method declared in the IETF world where the query side of the interaction >> can understand that the response w

[DNSOP] Re: Flag for Wildcard Responses

2025-01-06 Thread Shane Kerr
Alex, On 06/01/2025 22.02, Brotman, Alex wrote: Looking at something relating to the day job, and I'm curious if there's any method declared in the IETF world where the query side of the interaction can understand that the response was fulfilled by a wildcard record. I've asked a few folks,

[DNSOP] Re: Flag for Wildcard Responses

2025-01-06 Thread Brotman, Alex
These are zones I do not control. I assume the recursive I'm using (which does support DNSSEC) is of no help here. I'd be happier if everyone would sign, for a bunch of reasons. I'm sure many would be. -- Alex Brotman Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy Comcast > -Original Mes

[DNSOP] Re: Flag for Wildcard Responses

2025-01-06 Thread Mark Andrews
Sign the zone. Wildcard responses are visible in the DNSSEC records. The RRSIG label count is different and there will be NSEC/NSEC3 records that show whether the wild card response is valid or not. -- Mark Andrews > On 7 Jan 2025, at 08:04, Brotman, Alex > wrote: > > Looking at something

[DNSOP] Re: Flag for Wildcard Responses

2025-01-06 Thread Ben Schwartz
DNSSEC* makes this clear. Otherwise, I don't believe it is revealed. --Ben Schwartz *When using classic offline signing. From: Brotman, Alex Sent: Monday, January 6, 2025 4:02 PM To: dnsop@ietf.org Subject: [DNSOP] Flag for Wildcard Responses Looking at someth

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-03.txt

2025-01-06 Thread internet-drafts
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8624-bis-03.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF. Title: DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendation Update Process Authors: Wes Hardaker Warren Kumari Name:draft-ietf-dns

[DNSOP] Flag for Wildcard Responses

2025-01-06 Thread Brotman, Alex
Looking at something relating to the day job, and I'm curious if there's any method declared in the IETF world where the query side of the interaction can understand that the response was fulfilled by a wildcard record. I've asked a few folks, and I haven't gotten anything that suggests as thou

[DNSOP] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-05

2025-01-06 Thread Shumon Huque
On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 9:19 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 09:55:15AM -0500, > Shumon Huque wrote > a message of 211 lines which said: > > > In my view, this is not an erratum, which would imply there was an > > error in RFC4035. That RFC was focussed on the originally

[DNSOP] Feedback from implementers about new EDE (Was: I-D Action: draft-bortzmeyer-more-edes-02.txt

2025-01-06 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 06:10:38AM -0800, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote a message of 19 lines which said: > Internet-Draft draft-bortzmeyer-more-edes-02.txt is now available. > >Title: Addition of Extended DNS Errors codes Happy New Year and this new version includes the issues on var

[DNSOP] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-compact-denial-of-existence-05

2025-01-06 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 09:55:15AM -0500, Shumon Huque wrote a message of 211 lines which said: > In my view, this is not an erratum, which would imply there was an > error in RFC4035. That RFC was focussed on the originally envisioned > mode of DNSSEC, using pre-computed signatures, and did n