Subject: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2022 20:36:31 -0800

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           : Guidance for NSEC3 parameter settings
        Authors         : Wes Hardaker
                          Viktor Dukhovni
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-05.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2022-03-06

Abstract:
   NSEC3 is a DNSSEC mechanism providing proof of non-existence by
   promising there are no names that exist between two domainnames
   within a zone.  Unlike its counterpart NSEC, NSEC3 avoids directly
   disclosing the bounding domainname pairs.  This document provides
   guidance on setting NSEC3 parameters based on recent operational
   deployment experience.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance/

There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-05

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts

---

From: Peter van Dijk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 11:01:28 +0100

Wes, Viktor,

> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec3-guidance-05.txt

Thank you for your continued work on this.

This appears to be in excellent shape - you'd have my support in a
WGLC. I love that we managed to get to "iterations count to 0 MUST" in
this important document!

A few nits:

> Because hashing provides only moderate protection, as shown recently
in academic studies of NSEC3 protected zones [GPUNSEC3][ZONEENUM].

This sentence appears to be lacking a second half.

> Operators are encouraged to forget the salt entirely

"forgo" perhaps? Or, easier on the eyes, "not use the salt at all"?

> Note that this specification significantly decreases the requirements
originally specified in Section 10.3 of [RFC5155].  

Should this document say "Updates: RFC5155" ?

> man-it-the-middle attacks

man-in-the-middle

> Thus, validating resolver operators and software implementers SHOULD
set the point above which a zone is treated for certain values of NSEC3
iterations counts to the same as the point where a validating resolver
begins returning SERVFAIL.

Is "as insecure" missing after "treated"?

Kind regards,
-- 
Peter van Dijk
PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 08:50:23 -0800

> This sentence appears to be lacking a second half.

Changed to:

Recent in academic studies have shown that NSEC3 hashing provides only
provides moderate protection {{GPUNSEC3}}{{ZONEENUM}}.

> "forgo" perhaps? Or, easier on the eyes, "not use the salt at all"?

How about: Operators are encouraged to forgo using a salt entirely by using a

> Should this document say "Updates: RFC5155" ?

Probably a good point.  How about:

Note that this specification updates [RFC5155] by significantly
decreasing the requirements originally specified in Section 10.3 of
[RFC5155]. 

> > man-it-the-middle attacks

Actually changed to attacker-in-the-middle, but good catch!

> Is "as insecure" missing after "treated"?

Yep, good catch.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI