Thanks for the review, Brian, and thank you Warren and Olafur for answers. I do agree with the remaining issues as listed by Brian below; can I expect a new draft revision to address these?
Jari On 06 Jun 2014, at 05:12, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-13.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2014-06-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2014-05-26 > IESG Telechat date: 2014-06-12 > > Summary: Almost ready > -------- > > Comment: > -------- > > These are my Last Call comments on version -13. The authors responded > with helpful explanations, and I understand that they plan some > corresponding changes before publication. > > Minor issues: > ------------- > >> 1. Introduction > ... >> Any manual process is susceptible to mistakes and / or errors. > > Also susceptible to social engineering or malicious leaks, I think. > There's a fairly strong security argument for getting humans out > of the process. > >> 3. CDS / CDNSKEY (Child DS / Child DNSKEY) Record Definitions > ... >> it is up to the consumer of the records to >> translate that into the appropriate add/delete operations in the >> provisioning systems > > Not clear here whether this is expected to be an automated or manual process. > >> If no CDS / CDNSKEY RRset is present in child, >> this means that no change is needed. > > Not clear here how we ensure that update is performed exactly once. See below. > >> 4. Automating DS Maintenance With CDS / CDNSKEY records >> >> CDS / CDNSKEY resource records are intended to be "consumed" by >> delegation trust maintainers. The use of CDS / CDNSKEY is optional. > > I think that could be OPTIONAL. > >> The child SHOULD publish both CDS and CDNSKEY resource records. > > Given the previous sentence, I think this needs to be > > If the child publishes either the CDS or the CDNSKEY resource record, it > SHOULD publish both. > >> 4.1. CDS / CDNSKEY Processing Rules > ... >> If there are no CDS / CDNSKEY RRset in the child, this signals that >> no change should be made to the current DS set. This means that, >> once the child and parent are in sync, the Child DNS Operator MAY >> remove all CDS and CDNSKEY resource records from the zone. > > Does that mean the the child MAY/SHOULD/MUST monitor what the > parent is publishing in order to automate this process? If not, you > are calling for a manual operation. (The text in section 5 > is repetitious, by the way, but still doesn't clarify this.) > >> If any these conditions fail the CDS / CDNSKEY resource record MUST >> be ignored. > > Silently? Should this be logged? Any DOS potential here? Should use of > these RRs be rate-limited in both child and parent to avoid any DOS risk? > >> 6. Parent Side CDS / CDNSKEY Consumption > > I don't think you specify what the parent should do if it receives > both a CDS and a CDNSKEY and they are inconsistent (in violation > of section 4). Yes, it's a corner case but Murphy's law always applies. > >> 9. Security Considerations > ... >> While it may be tempting, this SHOULD NOT be used for initial >> enrollment of keys since there is no way to ensure that the initial >> key is the correct one. If is used, strict rules for inclusion of >> keys such as hold down times, challenge data inclusion or similar, >> ought to be used, along with some kind of challenge mechanism. > > Shouldn't that "ought to" be MUST? Weak protection against a bogus > initial key really seems like a "Crypto Won't Save You Either" poster > child. > > Nits: > ----- > > (from the shepherd's write-up) > "The document references the document draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing, > which had > been approved for publication but never followed through on, and is shown to > be expired." > > This is an informational reference and could probably be deleted without harm. > > "Additionally, the document references RFC2119 key word "NOT RECOMMENDED" > without referencing it. " > > That is a well known bug in RFC 2119 itself. The citation can be fixed as per > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=499 > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
