IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] Mozilla's DoH resolver policy

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 16 April 2019 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: add@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B9B12010C for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.679
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iQJGyw-znVTH for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBB50120308 for <add@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x3GIPabw018967 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:25:38 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1555439138; bh=yVH6+3UKTlQ+uY48kAZ2ENxl+oAaeU9OvDr1ooGT/L8=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=keePlNVRJ1BXkiiGDkoWEhO7/xDXIqu1SUrYl0beyXSQPB/8Yhdxf4/nylU3WnlfN zbL+6l60QEa262lV1oYcBp6SYylh6LwB/QjHi1sUJ5XwUKiCV7qBbhM2F05YP/F1wy 1JWDqSbfwMkU63EFRDBtN4EtWrw8g/En/ek0Eycs=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>, "add@ietf.org" <add@ietf.org>
References: <297C80CE-F017-4F4A-80E2-79941E8B9E02@icann.org> <b64761dc-dfab-e4e1-4bfb-82d607efa590@riseup.net> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1904101324530.9940@bofh.nohats.ca> <64aeff58-6d68-4c4f-b991-2b2f62d193a0@www.fastmail.com> <90A5C5C4-373C-4B39-80C2-C115CD23CB4D@fl1ger.de> <994839978.18707.1554973716877@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <af5f5c76-0095-65a0-39d1-d29d4bb0e906@mozilla.com> <ybl36mn8b54.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <f9d0cd98-db0c-7f42-d351-d9a5002c4765@mozilla.com> <21C5261E-9DE0-4CFD-A949-6E91DD0C2552@cable.comcast.com> <9FDAE487-6E98-4332-BB57-A626A02A6402@cable.comcast.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <2d1d4351-a19f-9f6c-dc03-7827bcddae95@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:25:31 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9FDAE487-6E98-4332-BB57-A626A02A6402@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/eLehY1_ofYrg31kgP-PfA8_Q1fU>
Subject: Re: [Add] Mozilla's DoH resolver policy
X-BeenThere: add@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications Doing DNS <add.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/add/>
List-Post: <mailto:add@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/add>, <mailto:add-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:25:45 -0000

On 4/16/19 10:08 AM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
> But if TRR-to-auth recursion is not available via DoT, I wonder what the recommended mechanism is for providing a more privacy-protective network-geographic hint to an authoritative server, in order for example for a CDN to dynamically respond with a localized response. Maybe something new needs to be standardized? What options do folks suggest?


I realize that the kind of change I'm pointing to here would represent a 
significant shift in deployment models, but perhaps some out-of-the-box 
thinking would be useful. The results reported in 
<https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog37/presentations/matt.levine.pdf> 
are very encouraging.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email