Subject: Re: Delegation signer-12

From: Ólafur Guðmundsson<[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 20:53:45 -0500

At 21:07 2002-12-20, Edward Lewis wrote:
>I was staring at the new words on the handling of the DS RR in section 
>2.2.1.2 when I noticed this problem with the text:
>
># 2.2.2 Signer's Name (replaces RFC3008 section 2.7)
>#
>#   The signer's name field of a SIG RR MUST contain the name of the zone
>#   to which the data and signature belong.  The combination of signer's
>
>This is a very bad idea.
>
>The signer's name had better remain as it is defined.  So much for my rule 
>of thumb reaction.  Here are a laundry list of reasons why I have a 
>problem with this section and idea:
>
>1) The section has nothing to do with the DS RR definition.
>
>2) There is no rationale presented for changing the syntactic definition 
>of the SIG RR.
>
>3) Reading between the lines, the author of the document seems to be either:
>
>3a) trying to clean up something in 3008

The title of the section says it is updating 3008, I thought that
updating 3008 to reflect the DS was needed.
If 3008 is not updated then the DS must be signed by the child KEY.

>or
>3b) is trying to usurp the signer name to mean the authority name
>
>If it is 3a - this is the wrong document.
>If it is 3b - why do folks try to usurp fields for new purposes 
>needlessly.  It's easy enough to discover the authority via SOA records in 
>responses.

Some document must do this clarification, if not DS a small update to
3008.
The sections that I'm less sure about if they belong are the
2.2.3 subsections that update RFC3090
comments.

         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: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:50:02 -0800

Well, you're right that 3008 does already redefine the SIG RR's 
signer name field and thus the change here is appropriate.

Regardless, the change in section 2.7 of RFC 3008 was a mistake.  But 
that's not to be argued here.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer