Re: [dns-privacy] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Mon, 03 May 2021 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 B06843A0B21; Mon, 3 May 2021 12:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 Sr7ENo9P46_N; Mon, 3 May 2021 12:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 9BEDE3A0B20; Mon, 3 May 2021 12:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id z14so5054331ioc.12; Mon, 03 May 2021 12:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=89ObGhmC9Jvwof6slQmEW4UC3fSbmA1UuNL9+XdHqYA=; b=Pq3wFx07lc9iY7fqmeonCnGKKkr/Fsk1BSnxVym7cLnqlJxF79FlesRNExdVrhR60U SbxdVYZut94keMxuY4lqKjXE+DF5gQJNPacFdxaxtCBxO2Ag0uZBrAPeyIkDA0JE9cyr kpfd/h/IuiYoPIJVXsFhg69nAeILx8DPqyFc8Ljbe45z5hbaqPzfmUDjmVSrr97wCXSj JXK+EEp0OSKQz5FWSx9WNZ1fYh8YdLzhjifozULX/FUXli9RN8huD3z2URbJmrcqp9d7 4QhV2BV8OlK98E0iOB3zPpEhSmC5r3SaJ+8mdPZatlpaqJWr6qA860e/o7qbRucUQFZ6 JONg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=89ObGhmC9Jvwof6slQmEW4UC3fSbmA1UuNL9+XdHqYA=; b=JcwKaEAncZeu16EB7JdYAhtKmOSaH0/v2KtcSliS4a+oVgMVEXrPRKBGR5ILAWrGSA q5QuXYkakF6gGBP/qQa5sOcP0rsT29759JMp+mMDDznnoMFA1cavalZS5h1QPldfmGqF jNaAM0t2PLuaPItJTaOFQhsGJxa9eh8etuUwMRguznoNWjJmeizg5PeC7Fqu2XrMTBns jVnTw7PT8e45vy8WZGJboCJkLQhsubkuVx4hgctB9IuyTwDs5nskEjs/tdeX7eCm1Q11 MpmgiU8GCzctreGETsCtNe/3p7m82thqN0W1Kf3vqU1Bzg90RG0VY0dNryAM1H8zhZtU drTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5323E7PAaC0OL1UgtVzQDkhEx+w5pwuEMtmbdsK4+09qBHNSrcSh 8JM3RLtAKENtJ0f5H6Hqo2mX6YhrqmqZRzXRaPE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyV4KInj7sJ4VZygKU8U5BmO6/YrFsWmw4anubdBBxic5StgEj+pk3iR5WnX4wNUx+HcZ1As3nzP/c8C+u9jfc=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8ad2:: with SMTP id e18mr16046739iot.51.1620070532269; Mon, 03 May 2021 12:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162006706040.3639.6179900042922096790@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALUxDspOEaSGnUdhh2ASFp6wOc66pdEy+kdRQudgw0EG-C3K9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALUxDspOEaSGnUdhh2ASFp6wOc66pdEy+kdRQudgw0EG-C3K9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 12:35:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxQNyY+pZb-Dw7grKneULGfwjt5pV5GLjBsH9hf_Jp=yAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Allison Mankin <amankin@salesforce.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, dns-privacy@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls@ietf.org, dprive-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000096488b05c1721029"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/BZ9osD3NrCPuEd_H6YVP9tsU5V0>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Mon, 03 May 2021 19:35:39 -0000

Excellent,

Thanks for clarifying.

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:32 PM Allison Mankin <amankin@salesforce.com>
wrote:

> Hi, Martin,
>
> Sara is out of the office for a day or two, so I will jump in.  We do not
> object to using an ALPN code for DoT, and indeed, the message that ALPN
> should not distinguish between DoT and XoT drowned out the more important
> message that ALPN for DoT had to be there.  A miss by the earlier reviewers.
>
> Allison
>
>
> Allison Mankin, Principal Architect, DNS-AEO Cloud Leader | Salesforce
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:37 PM Martin Duke via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls-11: Discuss
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> In further discussions it became clear that the authors do not intend for
>> XoT
>> traffic to use an ALPN code at all. I'm afraid this may be a
>> misunderstanding
>> of previous guidance from TLS that XoT did not need its own ALPN code, but
>> could simply use the DoT ALPN since the messages are distinguishable on
>> the
>> wire.
>>
>> To not use an ALPN at all violates best TLS practice. The reasoning given
>> in
>> Appendix A, that this creates difficulty for proxies, doesn't make sense
>> to me.
>> We can talk about it in the telechat.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> - There ought to be a warning somewhere that mTLS verifies that the CA has
>> verified identity, while IP ACLs merely prove that the bearer can observe
>> the
>> path to the address. The former is much stronger than the latter, unless
>> there
>> are more mechanisms built into the ACL than are obvious from the text
>> here.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dns-privacy mailing list
>> dns-privacy@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
>>
>