Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6840 (4191)

On Dec 3, 2014, at 12:51 AM, Jelte Jansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I see a few pros and cons; yes the proposed text is correct and better
> than the original. However, this is not the only place that 'signing the
> zone' is used, and used with the meaning 'signing each authoritative
> RRset within the zone' in the set of RFC4033-4035 (and possibly outside
> of those as well).
> 
> But I have had people ask me what 'signing the zone' actually means,
> usually in the context of KSK vs ZSK (and hence, is the DNSKEY set part
> of 'the zone'), not necesarily in the context of algorithm downgrade
> protection.
> 
> Then again, RFC4033 actually defines a 'signed zone' as 'A zone whose
> RRsets are signed and ...'. So while signing full zones in AXFRs might
> add confusion here, I do think it is stated correctly as it is.

Just to drive the point home a bit further, since you brought up the definition in RFC 4033:

   Signed Zone: A zone whose RRsets are signed and that contains
      properly constructed DNSKEY, Resource Record Signature (RRSIG),
      Next Secure (NSEC), and (optionally) DS records.

A developer asked me a few years ago "does that mean that all the RRsets are signed? What if just the A records are signed?" That's a valid question given the definition. It is only by reading the rest of the document do you get the feeling (but never the actual statement) that it means *all* of the RRsets in the zone.

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