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.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.