IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Add] Mozilla's DoH resolver policy

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Thu, 11 April 2019 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 50E86120299 for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 02:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=portfast.net
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 aJSNFUuP1iTw for <add@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 02:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.portfast.net (mail.portfast.net [IPv6:2a03:9800:20:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 394641202B3 for <add@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 02:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=portfast.net; s=dkim; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=LUPm3/+6UOXH8Hw9Fc4ZM4ACgDss73CsmuKhRiKcmZg=; b=oClT40dT0bwU6i2rHah9tXHOUZ WV6Pwr27WZ+gdGd+DfpBu4G0srOBRXqxpsjauFg/zBL4yum/HckV/x1dlW3r1NQHO+sHJlca4WRKZ Jr1SZpAloXDhZqzGWLLknOxgENrSz+R5e5SVSA5ImxBSYRJs35ID4df6NpfGS6D9WUhs=;
Received: from [88.212.170.147] (port=52946 helo=Rays-MacBook-Pro.local) by mail.portfast.net ([188.246.200.9]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1hEW6C-0000QM-WB (Exim 4.89) for add@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:34:25 +0000
To: 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> <CACQYfiJa1i2LVgQDcHi_OknmDDKZiaw=++Y6imn34LcPULP3bQ@mail.gmail.com> <E0CA1520-74D4-4A41-9B44-10946FAB4534@fl1ger.de> <CACQYfiKeh=FgmB9RN=eJ-2tq4jyTg55fep4au9SeGe3U5VkMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <34d202a0-cfe2-d35f-edf2-f0943408a858@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:34:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACQYfiKeh=FgmB9RN=eJ-2tq4jyTg55fep4au9SeGe3U5VkMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/add/f2n3O_LnwZ91i3NWaAVPAiRVV74>
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 09:34:31 -0000


On 11/04/2019 10:26, Valentin Gosu wrote:

> Sorry for the confusion, I meant SERVFAIL.
> 
>      > See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug..cgi?id=1525854
>     <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1525854>
>     The problem is to decide between SERVFAIL error caused by network
>     events
>     or a SERVFAIL by DNSSEC. That is a problem, but if your network or your
>     resolvers network is bad why would you fallback to an insecure
>     mechanism
>     anyway?
> 
> To prevent disruptions to the user's browsing.

But that's the entire point of DNSSEC!   If the domain fails to 
validate, you *don't go there*

Ray

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email