[Opendnssec-develop] Re: Our little get-together. Re: Progressing OpenDNSSEC.
olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Sat Nov 15 15:51:51 UTC 2008
>> Here are a few notes from our little get-together in Dubai. I've
>> Matthijs to the CC. Is there a mailinglist for this project.
> Hi Olaf, now there is indeed a mailinglist for this project.
>> - During the meeting I referred to the 'vapor ware' that we call
>> Masterdont. The core of this idea is that we have a kernel that is
>> aware of all possible interactions with, properties off, and
>> of the environments with zone.
>> In that context I think it is important to make the zone I/O
>> intelligence and the KASP language extendible so that KASP is to
>> become a subset of a zone-policy language that not only describes the
>> signing and key properties of zones but can also describe TTL,
>> Nameserver, and content properties for zones.
> KASP was specifically designed with DNSSEC in mind, and deals with the
> various timings, state and properties of keys. I think what you are
> referring to is the ability to contain KASP in NSCP. I think that
> configuration items should go into NSCP, and that various state
> of keys should remain in KASP.
That is not exactly what I refer to.
A zone can have many properties, such as the policy it is signed with,
which keys are used to implement that policy, which nameservers it is
served on, which clients are allowed to query it, its SOA timing
prarameters, etc, etc. Some of these properties are expressed in the
language that KASP will use for its configuration, others will be used
If you are starting on a framework to maintain a subset of properties
for zones, which I think KASP is, then you better make sure you can
add the other pieces too. Make it extendable: while not solving all of
ones problems at once make sure you can in the future build upon the
foundations you are setting.
>> I have asked Matthijs to set up requirements for this (based on KASP
>> and NSCP) and come up with an architecuture of what I refer to as the
>> "Masterdont kernel". Although work on phase 1 of the project is to
>> large extend orthogonal to this idea there are a few hooks,
>> - Colleagues from SURFNET are interested in working along and even
>> providing resources in the form of a programmer. I am not sure if
>> there is need for adding resources to phase 1 of the project (and if
>> we do if there is efficiency gain). But I think they should be privy
>> to the requirements document.
> I think that we have covered most (all) bases with the current team. I
> have no problem adding development resources if there is a yet
> unidentified part of this project. However, I'm not convinced we more
> resources. However, since SURFNET host a large amount of zones, I
> can see
> value in inviting them to test the software.
I think that might be rather late. Why not use them as a sounding
board for assessing if your current set of requirements and your
vision would work for them?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Opendnssec-develop