Subject: Re: Q18: TTL values for RRSIG vs. RFC2181

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:03:58 -0500

At 13:56 2003-10-31, Scott Rose wrote:
>Q-18:  Chance for conflict with RFC 2181 and RRSIG RRs.  Should RRSIG RRs be
>allowed to have TTL values different from each other, if the RR sets they
>cover have different TTL values?

</chair>
IMHO it is more important that the RRSIG be cached for the same time
as the RRset it is covering, than having purity among the TTL's
of all the RRSIG's for one name.

>Background
>RFC2181 section 5.2:
>
>    "Consequently the use of differing TTLs in an RRSet is hereby
>    deprecated, the TTLs of all RRs in an RRSet must be the same."
>
>dnssec records 5 section 3
>   "The TTL value of an RRSIG RR SHOULD match the TTL value of the RRset
>   it covers."

How about:
The TTL value of an RRSIG RR SHOULD match the TTL value of the RRset
it covers.  Note this may lead to an apparent violation of RFC2181
section 5.2, but the RRSIG is a meta type and each RRSIG is related to
a RRset and it is important that the RRSIG be cached for the same time as
the RRset covered.

         Olafur

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:27:38 +0000

> of all the RRSIG's for one name.

<hat=just-another-bozo-on-this-bus>

I agree.  RRSIG RRs are bags hanging on the side of the covered RRset,
and for practical purposes RRSIG RRs just don't form normal RRsets.

</hat>

> a RRset and it is important that the RRSIG be cached for the same time as

<hat=editor>

I don't like "meta type" ('cause then we'd have to explain what it
means, which would almost certainly be harder than just saying
whatever it is that we do mean in the first place...), but I think
that the editors can handle the wordsmithing unless the WG feels a
strong need to constrain us to specific text.

The question before the WG is whether we've understood the content
issue correctly.

</hat>

---

From: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:47:54 +0100

[On 31 Oct, @21:27, Rob wrote in "Re: Q18:  TTL values for RRSIG ..."]
> The question before the WG is whether we've understood the content

I feel that making this exception for the SIG's TTL is the right thing
to do.

grtz Miek