Subject: [dnsext] RFC 6605 (ECDSA in DNSSEC) -- Q & A

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:24:43 +0200 (MESZ)

DNSEXT folks, in particular prospective implementers,

I have had some off-list conversations on ECDSA for DNSSEC
and have been encouraged to make the material available and
somehow linked to the just published RFC 6605.

So now I start a new thread that should make it easier to be found
when looking for information related to that RFC.
I try to send my contribution as a .txt attachment.  If desired,
the Chairs could include this material into the WG wiki.

This is staged like a FAQ -- although strictly speaking,
the questions so far have not been asked "frequently".
Feel free to follow up with more questions and answers!

In the answers, I've tried to simplify very much to make
the material understandable for non-specialists; please don't
shoot me once you detect I have over-simplified some detail.   :-)

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:30:15 -0400

Colleagues,

> the Chairs could include this material into the WG wiki.

This is an interesting suggestion, but it strikes me it contains a
challenge to us: when the WG closes down, the wiki and all the other
tools pages go away.  

This once again suggests to me that we need to find a place to publish
this kind of informal material.  

Suggestions?

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:39:53 -0700

> this kind of informal material.  

Informational RFCs.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:17:59 +0200

>  DNSEXT folks, in particular prospective implementers,

=> I have two comments about this:
 - first in fact it is not for DNSSEC implementers but more for
  implementers of the crypto used in DNSSEC. Note it is not a concern,
  IMHO it is better to know much than less.

 - the incentive is very USA centric. Russia (cf GOST) and France
  at least support the use of ECC too (of course references are
  in national languages, so not in english :-).

Thanks

[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:20:13 -0700

Hi Alfred,
>somehow linked to the just published RFC 6605.

As a Friday 13th comment, if you want to make the material somehow 
linked to RFC 6605, you can file it as an errata.

>the Chairs could include this material into the WG wiki.

It's easier to post this as an I-D.  If people find it useful at some 
point, it shouldn't be that difficult to get it published as a RFC.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:32:36 +0200

[ Quoting <[email-masked]> in "Re: [dnsext] RFC 6605 (ECDSA in DNS..." ]
> point, it shouldn't be that difficult to get it published as a RFC.

This faq was very enlightening for me. If Alfred chooses to go the I-D route, 
I hereby volunteer myself as (a second) editor -- if needed/wanted.

 Regards,

-- 
    Miek Gieben

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:15:36 +0200 (MESZ)

SM,
thanks for your heads-up toward write-up in an I-D!  ...
> point, it shouldn't be that difficult to get it published as a RFC.

I'm considering ... but I need to focus my time available on
other work first, so other contributors are invited to step in.

Miek Gieben noted on this thread:
> This faq was very enlightening for me. If Alfred chooses to go
> the I-D route, I hereby volunteer myself as (a second) editor --
> if needed/wanted.

You are welcome, of course, to take the lead!

Maybe other implementers of DNSSEC software components have more
questions, answers, and/or comments.

There's a salt of grain, however, in SM's remark:
"shouldn't be that difficult to get it published as a RFC"
might not apply because there's still the ban for detailed URIs
in RFCs, and I assume that the references given in my posting
are a valuable part that would be missed in an RFC.

So I'll observe upcoming feedback for some time and return
to the topic of deciding on an I-D in May.

To Andrew Sullivan's remark:
> This once again suggests to me that we need to find a place
> to publish this kind of informal material.
>
> Suggestions?

I doubt the DNSEXT related IETF Tools pages will die with the WG;
like expired I-Ds, more likely some pages will be kept on the
graveyard of immortals at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/concluded/ ,
which links to the WG home pages with URIs as before (e.g., I just
discovered there are still full-fledged DNSIND and DNSSEC status
pages at  http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsind/
and       http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnssec/ );
but admittedly, maintenance might become a serious problem.

Maybe DNSOP folks could provide a more permanent home in the IETF
for DNS implementation related resources, so maybe the DNSOP wiki
might be a candidate.

Best regards,
  Alfred.