rfc4310bis 03 AD Feedback
James Gould <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <C787106F.3718F%[email protected]> |
All, One of the items for the AD review of rfc4310bis is below. I want to bring this up to the list for feedback, since this is text from the original RFC. >> An OPTIONAL <secDNS:maxSigLife> element that indicates a child's >> preference for the number of seconds after signature generation >> when the parent's signature on the DS information provided by the >> child will expire. A client SHOULD specify the same <secDNS: >> maxSigLife> value for all <secDNS:dsData> elements associated with >> a domain. If the <secDNS:maxSigLife> is not present, or if >> multiple <secDNS:maxSigLife> values are requested, the default >> signature expiration policy of the server operator (as determined >> using an out-of-band mechanism) applies. > > I am slightly surprised that the latter is not an error condition. > But if this what people have implemented, then Ok. So the question is around specifying different secDNS:maxSigLife values for the secDNS:dsData (DS Data Interface) or secDNS:keyData (Key Data Interface). The RFC recommends (SHOULD) that the client use the same secDNS:maxSigLife value, but does not mandate it. The question is whether the server signature expiration policy should apply when the client does specify multiple values for a domain and the server accepts it. It makes more sense to me that the server should return an error if passing a different secDNS:maxSigLife will result in the default being applied by the server. If an error is returned, I would propose returning 2306, since it would be up to the server policy to have a single signature expiration across all DS or keys of a domain. If it¹s not up to server policy, then the draft should use MUST instead of SHOULD for the client and the server should return an error like 2305 ³Object association prohibits operation² or 2004 ³Parameter value range error². I don¹t believe either 2305 or 2004 match the error exactly, but I guess I would lean towards 2004. Any opinions on which error code to use? Please reply to the list or to me privately related to your preference on this feedback. Thanks, -- JG ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services [email protected] Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you.