[cabfpub] Fwd: Fwd: Draft CAA motion (3)
gerv at mozilla.org
Wed Jan 25 10:34:37 MST 2017
Forwarding with permission.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Fwd: [cabfpub] Draft CAA motion (3)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:44:55 -0800
From: Simone Carletti <simone at carletti.name>
To: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
As I'm not a member, hence I'm forwarding this note to you for
Caching a negative response may lead to several cache invalidation
problems. It's common to cache a negative response (e.g. NXDOMAIN), but
the length of the case should be *reasonably* limited.
The typical scenario to avoid is the case when the user (or resolver)
queries the record (e.g. for debugging or testing), then adds it (as it
was not present). In that case, if the negative cache is too long, that
would cause caching invalidation issues.
I can see a similar scenario for certs, especially during testing phases
(e.g. security testings, setups, etc).
I suggest to take a look at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2308
and specifically section 3 that provides some instructions for determining
a possible appropriate TTL for negative caching based on SOA and TTL.
> Like normal answers negative answers have a time to live (TTL). As
> there is no record in the answer section to which this TTL can be
> applied, the TTL must be carried by another method. This is done by
> including the SOA record from the zone in the authority section of
> the reply. When the authoritative server creates this record its TTL
> is taken from the minimum of the SOA.MINIMUM field and SOA's TTL.
> This TTL decrements in a similar manner to a normal cached answer and
> upon reaching zero (0) indicates the cached negative answer MUST NOT
> be used again.
Long story short, negative caching TTL is generally determined by the
last value of the SOA record. That would also allow the domain owner to
be in control of the cache.
Example (emphasis is mine):
➜ ~ dig missing.simonecarletti.com <http://missing.simonecarletti.com> SOA
; <<>> DiG 9.11.0-P1 <<>> missing.simonecarletti.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: *NXDOMAIN*, id: 19517
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 512
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
<http://admin.dnsimple.com>. 2013062714 86400 7200 604800 *300*
;; Query time: 120 msec
;; SERVER: 126.96.36.199#53(188.8.131.52)
;; WHEN: Thu Jan 19 11:43:14 PST 2017
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 110
The SOA negative TTL is 300. Therefore the negative lookup is cached for
up to 300 seconds.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Gervase Markham via Public* <public at cabforum.org
<mailto:public at cabforum.org>>
Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Draft CAA motion (3)
To: Steve Medin <Steve_Medin at symantec.com
<mailto:Steve_Medin at symantec.com>>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion
List <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>>, Doug Beattie
<doug.beattie at globalsign.com <mailto:doug.beattie at globalsign.com>>
Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org <mailto:gerv at mozilla.org>>
On 19/01/17 16:11, Steve Medin wrote:
> Gerv, in the event that a domain does not have CAA, would you be
> willing to allow CAs to cache that result for longer than one hour?
> You presently offer TTL or 1 hour, whichever is greater, when CAA is
> present. Might a day be reasonable, since the domain owner has not
> yet opted in to CAA?
I'd certainly be open to that, unless someone else has a good reason why
that's a bad idea.
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org <mailto:Public at cabforum.org>
Passionate programmer and dive instructor
More information about the Public