Subject: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-11.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 16:08:10 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.

        Title           : A Root Key Trust Anchor Sentinel for DNSSEC
        Authors         : Geoff Huston
                          Joao Silva Damas
                          Warren Kumari
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-11.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2018-04-04

Abstract:
   The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) were developed to provide origin
   authentication and integrity protection for DNS data by using digital
   signatures.  These digital signatures can be verified by building a
   chain of trust starting from a trust anchor and proceeding down to a
   particular node in the DNS.  This document specifies a mechanism that
   will allow an end user and third parties to determine the trusted key
   state for the root key of the resolvers that handle that user's DNS
   queries.  Note that this method is only applicable for determing
   which keys are in the trust store for the root key.

   There is an example / toy implementation of this at http://www.ksk-
   test.net .

   [ This document is being collaborated on in Github at:
   https://github.com/APNIC-Labs/draft-kskroll-sentinel.  The most
   recent version of the document, open issues, etc should all be
   available here.  The authors (gratefully) accept pull requests.  Text
   in square brackets will be removed before publication. ]

   [ NOTE: This version uses the labels "root-key-sentinel-is-ta-", and
   "root-key-sentinel-not-ta-".; older versions of this document used
   "kskroll-sentinel-is-ta-<key-tag>", "kskroll-sentinel-not-ta-<key-
   tag>", and before that, "_is-ta-<key-tag>", "_not-ta-<key-tag>".
   Also note that the format of the tag-index is now zero-filled
   decimal.  Apolgies to those who have began implmenting.]

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-11
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-11

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-11

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:45:18 +1000

With the submission of the -11 version of this draft the authors are of the view that all WG comments have been discussed, and we think we are now ready for a WG Last Call on this document.

Could the chairs kindly consider this request and proceed if they feel it is appropriate?

thanks,

   Geoff

> On 5 Apr 2018, at 9:08 am, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
>

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:44:58 +0200

Dear kskroll sentinel authors, working group,

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:45:18AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
> With the submission of the -11 version of this draft the authors are
> of the view that all WG comments have been discussed, and we think we
> are now ready for a WG Last Call on this document.

I believe that a crucial step in the advancement of any document in
DNSOP, including this one, is to demonstrate the specification is fully
understood by ensuring multiple implementations exist.

a) I recommend adding a RFC 7942 section to the document. Optionally
this section can be removed upon publication.

b) Implementations should document their compliance with this
specification at https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dnsop/wiki/draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

For each normative term there should be an appropiate interop /
compliance test.

For instance section 3.1 in essence is a test description. The last
paragraph of Section 3.2 also contains what hints to a specific test
scenario.

c) 2119 was updated by 8174, i see must/should in lower case and wonder
whether there were normative intentions. Reviewing the lower cases 2119
terms may yield additional test cases.

My personal view is that if no implemenation reports are readily
available, it may be too early for WGLC.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 07:25:30 -0400

On 5 Apr 2018, at 5:44, Job Snijders wrote:

> specification at 
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dnsop/wiki/draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel
>

In addition, the draft still has Section 2 at the front of the document 
instead in an appendix, but it also says that it will be an appendix 
when published. If the authors expect implementers to be able to 
implement with that section as an appendix, it should be moved there 
now, not later; otherwise, take out the text that says it will be an 
appendix.

--Paul Hoffman