> On 16 Oct. 2016, at 2:53 am, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016, Ralf Weber wrote:
>> Geoff Houston did some research here some years ago and just did an update
>> to his findings. You might want to look at:
> Do we know how many experiments failed because the resolver erroneously
> reported error for ECDSA signed domains?
>> From reading Geoffs text, it's not obvious to me that this error case is
> caught by his tests?
so I have three tests:
A: a validly-signed ECDSA P-256 domain
B: an invalidly-signed ECDSA P-256 domain
C: an unsigned control
now if the resolver does NOT recognise ECDSA we should see a fetch for A, B and
C (as they treat both A and B as if they were unsigned)
if the resolver recognises ECDSA we will see a fetch of A and C but not B
and if the resolver incorrectly returns SERVFAIL when it sees ECDSA (which I
presume is what DNSMASQ 2.71 is doing) then we should see only C and not A or B
The report generated uses these definitions to determine if a user is passing
their queries to ECDSA-aware resolvers
So thats the long answer to yes, this error is caught by these tests, and the
error is put into the “does not do ECDSA” bucket.
DNSOP mailing list