Hi all, I feel comfortable with this response on behalf of the RIPE DNS working group. Well done. Antoin Verschuren Technical Policy Advisor SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525500 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/
-----Original Message----- From: dns-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:dns-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 1:07 PM To: dns-wg@ripe.net Subject: [dns-wg] final? draft of NTIA response
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.