On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:56 PM Wessels, Duane <dwess...@verisign.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:32 AM Petr Špaček <petr.spa...@nic..cz> wrote: > > > > I think we need to first answer question why existing technologies do > > not fit the purpose. > > > > This is a reasonable question. > > > > I noticed that the draft doesn't mention SIG(0) at all. > > I suppose this is happened because, as you say it isn't widely implemented > or used. > > > One of the main motivators of the draft is stated to be secure, wide > scale distribution of the root zone. To me, SIG(0) would have been an > obvious candidate solution for this problem. The zone owner can publish one > public key to the world, > > My reading of RFC 2931 contradicts this. For example: > > 2.3 Keying > > The private keys used in transaction security belong to the host > composing the DNS response message, not to the zone involved. > > In other words, SIG(0), like TSIG, is about asserting the security of an > individual transaction from a particular server, not the contents of zone > data. > Ah, right - I had forgotten that little detail - thanks for reminding me :) I guess that was the design goal then, although it didn't have to be that way. So, with SIG(0) as currently defined, we need a SIG(0) key per authoritative server name .. > > > > Possible issues with SIG(0): > > > > * Although it is an existing technology, it isn't widely implemented or > used. I just learned on DNS twitter that BIND only supports SIG(0) for > UPDATE for example, and not XFR. > > > > * If the goal is to support secure acquisition of the zone outside the > DNS protocol, then it can't do that. But neither is ZONEMD needed for that > - we can use an out of band signature using a variety of methods. > > Yes, this is the crux of it for me and the other authors as well I > believe. In my opinion, detached signatures/checksums are not good > enough. Our not-yet-released -02 draft has this new text: > > 1.1.2. Detached Signatures > > Sometimes, detached checksums and signatures can be found adjacent to > zone files. This is the case for the root and other zone files > published on the internic.net sites [InterNIC]. For example, the > files root.zone.md5 and root.zone.sig are in the same directory as > the root.zone file. Unfortunately, since the checksum and signature > are in separate files, they are only weakly associated with the zone > file. They remain associated only if the recipient is careful to > keep them together. Nothing in these files, other than their names > and timestamps, ties them to a specific revision of the root.zone > file. > Yes, that's a reasonable argument .. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
