Re: [dns-privacy] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03.txt> (DNS Privacy Considerations) to Informational RFC

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 09 January 2020 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB45212001A; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 08:49:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=elandsys.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 WZuW_6tVn7rX; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 08:49:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28B5120019; Thu, 9 Jan 2020 08:49:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.131.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 009GnKsQ012476 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Jan 2020 08:49:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1578588573; x=1578674973; i=@elandsys.com; bh=HdRIOq5cuR6oTN8NGmkjHx+mAA4sES45k6x83jiRkZg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Kl1Ck1hpAko0/S5Gd8zzrPjBTENegoQo4iq4koF1XtoDQemVB6bEBHjxrMQGSiJ7o WcGsx1pxTuE4lwRaYTGuUecYPrzlcsrSJdlayNzZKuKMDQ23oWFvPDDnZsiMsVUiUZ JXAc/ls586JlsS4r0V0pI/tWBhmEtW+mkn525/i4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200109075934.0c07fc10@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 08:48:40 -0800
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, dns-privacy@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis@ietf.org, dprive-chairs@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20200109154445.GD28511@nic.fr>
References: <157412591286.14148.8912544206473080519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200101181705.081679d0@elandnews.com> <20200109154445.GD28511@nic.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/AXwSp8f4qRUU95ujAqOLd4xAYkc>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03.txt> (DNS Privacy Considerations) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 16:49:36 -0000

Hi Stephane, Brian,
At 07:44 AM 09-01-2020, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>doh, dnssd and dprive (plus dnsop)?

Yes.

>People (mostly at the IETF) interested by DNS privacy. When preparing
>RFC 7626, we saw that many IETF participants had fuzzy (and sometimes
>wrong) ideas about the DNS so this introduction seems a good idea.

Ok.

>I'm confused. Is it a real question? Anyway, it proves that a tutorial
>on the DNS is useful :-) So, "data" is the content of the Answer,
>Additional and Authority sections in the answer. RFC 7626, section
>2.1.

It was an actual question.  Thank you for clarifying that it only 
refers to the Answer and other sections.  I also asked about the 
meaning of "is public".  Would it be possible for the working group 
to provide feedback about that?

>No. (If you say Yes, please quote the relevant RFC.) DNS is a
>protocol, the way a machine provisions its resolver(s) is out of scope.

The Abstract of the draft states that it describes the privacy issues 
associated with the use of the DNS by Internet users.  Section 1 of 
the draft states the use of RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 has many privacy 
implications.  If I understood the above, the draft is only about 
what is in RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 and everything else is out of 
scope.  Is that correct?

>That's a very serious misrepresentation of DoH. Counter-example:
>Google Chrome did DNS resolution with UDP, a long time ago.

I mentioned web browser and not Google Chrome.  I tested a web 
browser which is not Google Chrome.  The DNS queries were sent to the 
local resolver.  I did another test with Firefox.  The DNS queries 
were also sent to the local resolver.

>Again, it seems you don't know the difference between a protocol and
>an implementation.

Ok.

Could the Working Group please see the questions [1] about Section 
3.2 and Section 5?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/lS2BdqksRMwKYgg8McnEHEDwhlc