Re: [dns-privacy] Root Server Operators Statement on DNS Encryption

Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> Wed, 31 March 2021 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <woody@pch.net>
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 EB3343A3806 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:35:00 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8-EQLellHIzS for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pch.net (keriomail.pch.net [206.220.231.84]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 349EE3A3804 for <dprive@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Footer: cGNoLm5ldA==
Received: from [10.19.48.7] ([69.166.14.2]) by mail.pch.net (Kerio Connect 9.2.7 patch 3) with ESMTPS (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)); Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:34:46 -0700
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Message-Id: <ABD711DE-80CE-4B15-9153-82DA25E4F000@pch.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A14669EA-6F00-4992-8496-62ADDE9C933D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 23:34:42 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Sym=tm-vj-3FB-GbOG6U=U4CFsRE6yyWJk14waZQLbRiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "dprive@ietf.org" <dprive@ietf.org>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
References: <c925da9089fa4b1e991ec74fc9c11e7f@verisign.com> <CAChr6Sxwao=FAcoeHMuOf0L=JCZ+wvhsr9BNZW_dbt+1=HWQwg@mail.gmail.com> <20210331091238.GA10597@nic.fr> <CAChr6SxPNVAZMYfZqF+K6Xf8FPGa9ZgHkL-uUvtKMEiJSPmp8Q@mail.gmail.com> <2607D274-936F-4A31-9E4D-EEBCF45BE838@pch.net> <CAChr6Szg+EbFqSpFPco8Gyb9pzNNnrSoQJcXTDVeg40_EXiPDg@mail.gmail.com> <4B1CCB51-C777-4434-B28E-76C22C12E4DA@pch.net> <CAChr6Sym=tm-vj-3FB-GbOG6U=U4CFsRE6yyWJk14waZQLbRiQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/FXanTdHKTquEpPRRmPt6vzA9Tiw>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Root Server Operators Statement on DNS Encryption
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: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 21:35:01 -0000


> On Mar 31, 2021, at 11:28 PM, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
> Plenty of folks have evaluated the costs here.

And in all cases, they’re non-negative.  Which is the point.

>>>> >> Could you state the problem that’s being solved?
>>>> >>
>>> > Sure, it's in the first sentence of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-opportunistic-adotq-00:
>>> >
>>> > "A recursive resolver using traditional DNS over port 53 may wish instead to use encrypted communication with authoritative servers in order to limit passive snooping of its DNS traffic."
>>> 
>> Right, so that just means the wording of the draft is over-broad, in that it just says “authoritative” rather than “authoritative SLD” or something.  It’s quite a stretch to think that anything sensitive would be disclosed between a well-behaved recursive and a _root_ server, since it doesn’t disclose either the individual nor the domain being queried.
>> 
>> So, again, what problem would be solved?
>> 
> In that case, I think the goal would be to prevent aggregate measurements, rather than individual data.

Moving the goalposts.

So you’re saying that we all need to go spend some non-negative number, which, for us, is 3x-5x as much, in order that third parties should not know the relative volume of recursor cache-misses with respect to different TLDs?

Why is this something I would want to spend my money to achieve, when there are problems that aren’t hypothetical, and for which there are real live constituents, on which I could spend the money instead?

                                -Bill