[dns-wg] final? draft of NTIA response
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] final? draft of NTIA response
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] final? draft of NTIA response
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Fri Nov 7 13:19:43 CET 2008
this is a great piece of work ... and I CAN NOT support it. --bill On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 12:07:00PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote: > Colleagues, here is what I hope is the final draft of our response to > the NTIA. I trust we can reach consensus on this. There is very little > time to continue with update/review cycles, so I would appreciate if > any comments were confined to showstoppers. We might have reservations > or quibbles about some of the detail or phrasing. However unless these > materially affect the response, could I ask you to please keep these > to yourself? My worry here is that further tweaks lead to yet more > comments and tweaks, and this goes on and on and on. The current > langauge may not be perfect. However I hope it is something that we > can all agree is good enough. > > I would also ask WG members to say they support the text (assuming you > do of course). It would be better to have positive statements of > support instead of declaring that silence on this topic is consensus > for the WG. > > > # > # $Id: ntia-draft,v 1.7 2008/11/07 11:55:18 jim Exp $ > # > > The RIPE community (or DNS WG?) thanks the NTIA for its consultation > on proposals to sign the root and is pleased to offer the following > response to that consultation. We urge the adoption of a solution that > leads to the prompt introduction of a signed root zone. Our community > considers the introduction of a signed root zone to be an essential > enabling step towards widespread deployment of Secure DNS, DNSSEC. > > It is to be expected that a community as diverse as RIPE cannot have a > unified set of detailed answers to the NTIA questionnaire. However > several > members of the RIPE community will be individually responding to that > questionnaire. We present the following statement as the consensus > view of our community (or the DNS Working Group?) about the principles > that should form the basis of the introduction of a signed DNS root. > > 1. Secure DNS, DNSSEC, is about data authenticity and integrity and > not about control. > > 2. The introduction of DNSSEC to the root zone must be recognised as a > global initiative. > > 3. Addition of DNSSEC to the root zone must be done in a way that does > not compromise the security and stability of the Domain Name System. > > 4. When balancing the various concerns about signing the root zone, > the chosen approach must provide an appropriate level of trust and > confidence by offering a maximally secure technical solution. > > 5. Deployment of a signed root should be done in a timely but not > hasty manner. > > 6. To assist with a timely deployment, any procedural changes > introduced by DNSSEC should be aligned with the current process for > coordinating changes to and the distribution of the root zone. However > those procedural changes should provide sufficient flexibility to > allow for the roles and processes as well as the entities holding > those roles to be changed after suitable consultations have taken > place. > > 7. Policies and processes for signing the root zone should make it > easy for TLDs to supply keys and credentials so the delegations for > those TLDs can benefit from a common DNSSEC trust anchor, the signed > root. > > 8. There is no technical justification to create a new organisation to > oversee the process of signing of the root. > > 9. No data should be moved between organisations without appropriate > authenticity and integrity checking. > > 10. The public part of the key signing key must be distributed as > widely as possible. > > 11. The organisation that generates the root zone file must sign the > file and therefore hold the private part of the zone signing key. > > 12. Changes to the entities and roles in the signing process must not > necessarily require a change of keys. > >
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] final? draft of NTIA response
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] final? draft of NTIA response
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]