IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-11.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 08 August 2023 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 C034FC14CEFC for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 11:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hZApTewmUoCP for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 11:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa5.dc.icann.org (ppa5.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.78]) (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 89825C14F74E for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 11:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa5.dc.icann.org (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTPS id 378IfXa8028728 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Aug 2023 18:41:33 GMT
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.30; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 11:41:32 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([10.226.41.128]) with mapi id 15.02.1118.030; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 11:41:32 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Florian Obser <florian+ietf@narrans.de>
CC: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [dns-privacy] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-11.txt
Thread-Index: AQHZyifz/KOqupBGLU2q2pXQQlkyyw==
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 18:41:32 +0000
Message-ID: <2D1304D5-35E0-4D5B-9B4C-EE08E47A88F9@icann.org>
References: <169151485727.52839.10580373736526971224@ietfa.amsl.com> <m1msz1tmnb.fsf@narrans.de>
In-Reply-To: <m1msz1tmnb.fsf@narrans.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <679E4E8F519378498CE91F018B76B1F9@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.267,Aquarius:18.0.957,Hydra:6.0.591,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-08-08_15,2023-08-08_01,2023-05-22_02
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/LabrWl2WmfSomldPgi8ix1POrL8>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dprive-unilateral-probing-11.txt
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Addition of privacy to the DNS protocol <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: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 18:41:38 -0000

On Aug 8, 2023, at 11:27 AM, Florian Obser <florian+ietf@narrans.de> wrote:
> 
> This introduced at least a nit

Yipes, very good points. 

> 
>   For example, consider an authoritative server named ns0.example.com
>   that is served by two installations (with two A records), one at
>   192.0.2.7 that follows this guidance, and one at 2001:db8::8 that is
>   a legacy (cleartext port 53-only) deployment.
> 
> It doesn't have two A records. It has an A and AAAA record.

Errr, yup!

> I know
> that Éric asked for a non-legacy IP example,

...and he's our AD...

> but I don't think this makes
> things better. I find it very confusing, usually the server would be
> dual stacked so why would it do different things depending on the
> address family? Maybe just go v6 only, thusly?
> 
>   For example, consider an authoritative server named ns0.example.com
>   that is served by two installations (with two AAAA records), one at
>   2001:db8::7 that follows this guidance, and one at 2001:db8::8 that is
>   a legacy (cleartext port 53-only) deployment.  A recursive client who
>   associates state with the NS name and reaches 2001:db8::7 first will

It is that uncommon for a name server to have one A record and one AAAA record? I'd rather not go all-IPv6 because some readers might think that the discussion is for v6-only systems. If possible, I'd rather just say "(with one A record and one AAAA record)".

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email