NTIA request for feedback on DNSSEC deployment at the root zone

[Tim Polk]

Folks,

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration  
published a "Notice of Inquiry" entitled
"Enhancing the Security and Stability of the Internet's Domain  Name  
and Addressing System" in today's
Federal Register:

> SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) notes the increase in
> interest among government, technology experts and industry
> representatives regarding the deployment of Domain Name and Addressing
> System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) at the root zone level. The
> Department remains committed to preserving the security and stability
> of the DNS and is exploring the implementation of DNSSEC in the DNS
> hierarchy, including at the authoritative root zone level.  
> Accordingly,
> the Department is issuing this notice to invite comments regarding
> DNSSEC implementation at the root zone.

If you have an opinion on whether DNSSEC should or should not be  
deployed in the root zone, I urge you to make
that position known by submitting comments.   Comments are due on  
November 24, 2008.   Contact details are
included in the NOI.

The "html" version of the NOI is available at
          http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?
WAISdocID=559077321003+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

The PDF version is available at
          http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?
WAISdocID=559077321003+0+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

There are links to a number of process flow diagrams that may  
interest you.  (The Federal Register cannot include graphic
content.) Note that you will need to tweak the provided links  
regardless of which version you select; there are formatting
and linewrap issues that prevent following the links automatically.

Thanks,

Tim Polk
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Olaf Kolkman]

>
> There are links to a number of process flow diagrams that may  
> interest you.

For easy accessibility of those links see:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/DNSSEC.html


--Olaf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Tim Polk]

Olaf,

Thanks!  That will make everyone's lives much easier.

Tim

On Oct 9, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:

>>
>> There are links to a number of process flow diagrams that may  
>> interest you.
>
> For easy accessibility of those links see:
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/DNSSEC.html
>
>
> --Olaf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Brian E Carpenter-2]

On 2008-10-10 03:50, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>>
>> There are links to a number of process flow diagrams that may interest
>> you.
>
> For easy accessibility of those links see:
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/DNSSEC.html

I don't think we should endorse in any way the implication that
the NTIA or any other part of the US (or any other) government
gets to decide about this. So I suggest that any formal reponse
from the IAB or IESG should be very clear that this is a decision
for the community to take and implement.

That being said, it's obviously a very desirable thing to do,
and government encouragement seems welcome. I can't comment
on which of the detailed proposals is technically best.

   Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Thierry Moreau]

Brian E Carpenter wrote, to multiple mailing lists of which
ietf@... is the only relevant as far as I am individually concerned:

> On 2008-10-10 03:50, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
>>>There are links to a number of process flow diagrams that may interest
>>>you.
>>
>>For easy accessibility of those links see:
>>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/DNSSEC.html
>
>
> I don't think we should endorse in any way the implication that
> the NTIA or any other part of the US (or any other) government
> gets to decide about this. So I suggest that any formal reponse
> from the IAB or IESG should be very clear that this is a decision
> for the community to take and implement.
>

Wow, that's a late wake up call! The legaleese that binds ICANN to the
US government has been around since ICANN inception. It's this very
legaleese that makes the US government the ultimate "permission" gate
needed for DNSSEC root deployment.

> That being said, it's obviously a very desirable thing to do,
> and government encouragement seems welcome. I can't comment
> on which of the detailed proposals is technically best.
>

This inability makes sense to me, because the IETF (if I'm correct, your
contributions are mainly supportive of the IETF-IESG "progress" - i.e.
effectiveness, influence, assertions of legitimacy and
representativeness, and why not, power) didn't challenge the ICANN-US
governemnt-Verising position in DNS operational issues. In other words,
the IETF has not been concerned (beyond relatively minor activity in
dnsop wg) with the ICANN mission, which is multi-faceted.

Like it or not, civil servants somewhere in an office called NTIA are
faced with the task of deciding about these (boring but required) DNSSEC
KSK scenarios. Indeed, this activity looks like the last "permission"
before actual implementation progress towards deployment - hopefully it
is. At its face value, the NTIA call for comments plainly delineates the
scope of the issues, their relevance, available options, and the like.
If you challenge *now* their legitimacy to so fulfill their "historic
role", I don't see whoose  "progress" it is.

I would add, as a careful observer of NTIA involvement in ICANN /
Internet governance, that processes followed by civil servants paid by
the US federal government seem quite transparent, open, and accountable,
thanks to things like 1) every output documents in the public domain, 2)
subject to FOIA inquiries (Freedom of Information Act), 3) parliamentary
oversight through reports to the "the House" and hearings, 4) the NOI
process (Notice of Inquiry) that is being used in the current instance.
(Each of these have specific instances where Internet governance aspects
were the central subject matter.) In my view, this overall procedural
landscape compares fairly well to e.g. the un-timeliness of release of
IAB meeting minutes (pun intended to Olaf). Thus, in the above "like it
or not," the arrangement is not as distateful as it looks like at first
glance.

In other tribunes, I may be very critical of what NTIA does or does not.
But this is somehow unrelated to the processes that are followed.

Regards,

--

- Thierry Moreau

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:39:37AM -0500,
 Thierry Moreau <thierry.moreau@...> wrote
 a message of 75 lines which said:

> In other words, the IETF has not been concerned (beyond relatively
> minor activity in dnsop wg) with the ICANN mission, which is
> multi-faceted.

Do not forget the IANA activity of protocols registry managementn
which certainly is important for the IETF. The IANA does not have only
a politician role (delaying TLD requests).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Steven M. Bellovin]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 10:03:32 -0400
Tim Polk <tim.polk@...> wrote:

>
> Folks,
>
> The National Telecommunications and Information Administration  
> published a "Notice of Inquiry" entitled
> "Enhancing the Security and Stability of the Internet's Domain  Name  
> and Addressing System" in today's
> Federal Register:
>
Note that comments posted to the IETF list aren't seen (at least not
officially) by NTIA.  Follow the procedure in the Federal Register
notice for official comments (and note that they will become part of
the public record).


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Brian E Carpenter-2]

On 2008-10-10 18:39, Thierry Moreau wrote:

>
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote, to multiple mailing lists of which
> ietf@... is the only relevant as far as I am individually concerned:
>
>> On 2008-10-10 03:50, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>>
>>>> There are links to a number of process flow diagrams that may interest
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> For easy accessibility of those links see:
>>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/DNSSEC.html
>>
>>
>> I don't think we should endorse in any way the implication that
>> the NTIA or any other part of the US (or any other) government
>> gets to decide about this. So I suggest that any formal reponse
>> from the IAB or IESG should be very clear that this is a decision
>> for the community to take and implement.
>>
>
> Wow, that's a late wake up call! The legaleese that binds ICANN to the
> US government has been around since ICANN inception.

Many people objected to it strongly from the start, and said so. This
is hardly a new point.

> ...It's this very
> legaleese that makes the US government the ultimate "permission" gate
> needed for DNSSEC root deployment.

If ICANN had been set up in another country, as many people proposed
at the time, this argument would certainly have failed.

>
>> That being said, it's obviously a very desirable thing to do,
>> and government encouragement seems welcome. I can't comment
>> on which of the detailed proposals is technically best.
>>
>
> This inability makes sense to me, because the IETF (if I'm correct, your
> contributions are mainly supportive of the IETF-IESG "progress" - i.e.
> effectiveness, influence, assertions of legitimacy and
> representativeness, and why not, power) didn't challenge the ICANN-US
> governemnt-Verising position in DNS operational issues.

That's true; the IETF is not in the business of operating the Internet.
But that doesn't preclude the IETF, or its participants, having
a *technical* opinion about the mechanics of signing the root. My
message was asking that we don't endorse the "political" situation
while making technical comments.

> ...In other words,
> the IETF has not been concerned (beyond relatively minor activity in
> dnsop wg) with the ICANN mission, which is multi-faceted.

See Stephane's response. Also, the IAB has communicated with NTIA
on various occasions about ICANN's mission.

>
> Like it or not, civil servants somewhere in an office called NTIA are
> faced with the task of deciding about these (boring but required) DNSSEC
> KSK scenarios.

Actually they have another option, which is to leave ICANN alone
to take the technical decisions for technical reasons, including
getting advice from the IETF if they want.

   Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Thierry Moreau]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>
>>Like it or not, civil servants somewhere in an office called NTIA are
>>faced with the task of deciding about these (boring but required) DNSSEC
>>KSK scenarios.
>
>
> Actually they have another option, which is to leave ICANN alone
> to take the technical decisions for technical reasons, including
> getting advice from the IETF if they want.
>

Someone may naively believe the NTIA staff *has the option* to let ICANN
alone on DNSSEC deployment decisions. But that's not true, because the
US "administration" established, and now abides, by the "US Principles
on the Internat's Domain Name and Addressing System." That's reference
19 in the Notice of Inquiry. Any submission *aiming* at changing those
principles will be quietly ignored by NTIA, a waste of energy from the
part of the submitter, and out of scope.

But I see your point if you suggest that technical comments should be
accompanied by a disclaimer against any implied admission
(acknowledgement) of legitimacy for the US governement to maintain
oversight of ICANN and/or IANA.

Regards,

--

- Thierry Moreau

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf