[dns-operations] DNSSEC: state of it / italy

[John Dickinson]

On 22/07/2024 16:28, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:58:03AM +0100, John Dickinson wrote:
> 
>>> The TLD .it is signed with Algorithm 10 / RSASHA512.
>>> (https://dnsviz.net/d/it/Zp348A/dnssec/)
>>> RFC 8624 say, RSASHA512 is NOT RECOMMENDED. Does anybody know if .it
>>> will change it's algorithm some day?
>>
>> The table in RFC8624 is about implementation recommendations not which
>> algorithm you use for signing.
> 
> Well, I read the column headings as precisely about what to use for
> signing or verification, the word "implementation" in the first
> paragraph looks suboptimal, because the table contains operational
> practice advice, more so than software implementation support.
> 
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8624#section-3.1
> 
>     +--------+--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | Number | Mnemonics          | DNSSEC Signing  | DNSSEC Validation |
>     +--------+--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+
>     | 1      | RSAMD5             | MUST NOT        | MUST NOT          |
>     | 3      | DSA                | MUST NOT        | MUST NOT          |
>     | 5      | RSASHA1            | NOT RECOMMENDED | MUST              |
>     | 6      | DSA-NSEC3-SHA1     | MUST NOT        | MUST NOT          |
>     | 7      | RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 | NOT RECOMMENDED | MUST              |
>     | 8      | RSASHA256          | MUST            | MUST              |
>     | 10     | RSASHA512          | NOT RECOMMENDED | MUST              |
>     | 12     | ECC-GOST           | MUST NOT        | MAY               |
>     | 13     | ECDSAP256SHA256    | MUST            | MUST              |
>     | 14     | ECDSAP384SHA384    | MAY             | RECOMMENDED       |
>     | 15     | ED25519            | RECOMMENDED     | RECOMMENDED       |
>     | 16     | ED448              | MAY             | RECOMMENDED       |
>     +--------+--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+
> 

Hi Viktor,

Section 1.3 Document Audience is all about implementations.

If table was what to use for signing then wouldn't that imply you MUST 
sign with both 8 and 13, which wouldn't make much sense to me. On the 
other hand, saying that a signer MUST be capable of signing with both 8 
and 13 is fine.

> So while the TLDs in question should switch to 8 or 13, they're likely
> to see more risk in performing a rollover than in sticking with a
> deprecated algorithm. :-(
> 
Agreed.

regards
John

-- 
John Dickinson Sinodun Internet Technologies Ltd.