IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] next steps for draft-opportunistic-adotq

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Mon, 29 March 2021 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.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 C2BA43A1B03 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 10:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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=verisign.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 ftNR16gnshmp for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 10:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail5.verisign.com (mail5.verisign.com [69.58.187.31]) (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 ADD0C3A1B01 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 10:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=verisign.com; l=2514; q=dns/txt; s=VRSN; t=1617037356; h=from:to:cc:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject; bh=WdtaykUJ/yQ5nFdCRRP9XPgn+sBaW+rE4mD4QrDTCHk=; b=UDwhSkWc3VKRO09VBa3TxI8dkioO0h0b9A0VBgN+UqF6Mr9Q+8x62ZZQ iY3hn3ccnZWQ7g6OywQ/ltYHNDBrMsC5UnPse4IjAy2mFi1AELqYLbVcw Ow91zHrZpKU0dgx6KsFfKW9XkO7COuEsDl9dDuiXyh7OqAhyX70jQEr1v kn+7nuOM98/tiqbxvJf5xS3SHPk0Ms7mnesMvZWp/FFzEpJoGv/2n0RFP Ctu3osYq9OMsocGrTUhZ4daaYhoEBUog+fdcvqphlsdPrJRZDfdcebGZS Ab/qTbeNUnAmF4uRdWIPxsI0XUo3N9K0MZVsbbzvjpDFqEi0e7eaguL+/ A==;
IronPort-SDR: rD0TEYUOkbh2WdpyoRcpFff92kkQ46ibY3/pphL7TZ+xl2XeiVa+yb6/rRF3Hhf1uPGfRWdbjB IuPXilZNjMPfq68Po0fgorcxZkrGsylW15acIVxcNqPQawLcvo5MyRJK2X0OX6Uwh78jOSWFAS 6kQCgYviq/1P5yjI9gKAse662c7HaQOvDQmaSChBAMu3/hPHit4OGBG9Lt73zZ9Ns/zBjcnmyc H/B4B8N/OXN7T9heqahC3KQwwEY7mHZ0qBKrZivqDOVKUC482p8aSFsRGtXRNiQ5Wpp0NnkZHd yxg=
IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:PMbem6hoDjwBvB6cXw48FkeWN3BQX8x13DAbvn1ZSRFFG/Gwv8 qlkO0HkTr9jzgMUH8t8OrwXJWoa1m0z/JIyKMWOqqvWxSjnWOuIp1r44eK+UyGJwTV8OlB2a B8N5VkANrrAlRgyer86g+0E9EvqeP3ipyAr+HY0ntrUEVWe7hthj0JcTqzP0VqSGB9ZaYRO4 Gb4qN8zQaIWXNSVcijA2lAYu6rnayvqLvDQTorQyEq8xOPizTA0s+GLzG90g0FWz1ChZcOmF K18DDR3amov/GlxhK07Qa6hKh+o9fvxsBOA8aBkKEuW1fRozy1b4dsUaDqhl8Iidyv81ojnZ 3tpBotLq1Iik/5Q2CvrRPhnzTnyTYlgkWN9XakhxLYzPDRdXYfMY5hjZgcWgbF40Ag1esMtp 5j7ia8jd5rKj/u2A76/MPFUhl2kFHcmwtarccDy3pFUYUfb7dNrYsQuENNea1wZB7H1A==
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,288,1610427600"; d="scan'208";a="6040703"
Received: from BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.49) by BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 13:02:33 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([fe80::7c0a:1cc:5def:9dde]) by BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([fe80::7c0a:1cc:5def:9dde%4]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.009; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 13:02:33 -0400
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "ekr@rtfm.com" <ekr@rtfm.com>, "jim@rfc1035.com" <jim@rfc1035.com>
CC: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>, "woody@pch.net" <woody@pch.net>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] next steps for draft-opportunistic-adotq
Thread-Index: AQHXIp+gLyXRnWsFjEGBHKuAgpU6eKqXWDgAgAPcNDA=
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:02:33 +0000
Message-ID: <bb645e94b2464d46ab7433eb16c7b298@verisign.com>
References: <A68841F4-B7CC-4AAC-BC9F-0961ADF2C8FA@rfc1035.com> <DF40D081-1EA8-4E92-BB67-2966E32688DE@nohats.ca> <2E5B5290-CBBE-4F20-AD89-0BDCE3B2AA7F@pch.net> <DB196A4D-2720-4C9E-8A66-C314AB16BA0E@rfc1035.com> <A45C3DAA-C910-427A-9359-E38570D274D3@pch.net> <C6C1D17A-CE7B-4189-BC63-69FD2C5E9FD8@rfc1035.com> <CABcZeBMHXHY28y3KD=b7+KVkKhZ=A=du-2fJiG2=5oEYgm1ZRQ@mail.gmail.com> <80e40639-56ae-49a9-8207-83d7080593f0@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <80e40639-56ae-49a9-8207-83d7080593f0@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.170.148.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/UhzbQqaRA7PMAKIboqEP7xYkT9o>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] next steps for draft-opportunistic-adotq
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, 29 Mar 2021 17:02:40 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dns-privacy <dns-privacy-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stephen
> Farrell
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 10:02 PM
> To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
> Cc: DNS Privacy Working Group <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Bill Woodcock
> <woody@pch.net>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] next steps for draft-
> opportunistic-adotq
>
>
> Hiya,
>
> Not asking anyone in particular but...
>
> On 27/03/2021 00:24, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > WRT the operational risk (slide 3), it's likely true that it's
> > somewhat harder to run a DoX server than a Do53 server. However, given
> > that we have plenty of worked examples of TLS servers of comparable if
> > not greater scale being operated with high reliability (e.g., Google,
> > Fastly, Cloudflare, etc.), I think there's pretty strong evidence that
> > this is an operational issue that can be addressed.
>
> That's been said a number of times, and I think has a fairly clear ring of truth
> to it, but yet it somehow doesn't seem to sway those who operate larger
> scale Do53 services today.
>
> Can anyone help me understand that?
>
> I could understand if the justifications were down to stability or cost, either
> of which could be valid engineering reasons why someone might prefer the
> status-quo, but I don't think I've seen the argument made explicit in either of
> those ways.
>
> I don't have first-hand knowledge of this, so it'd help me at least if it the
> reasons why DoH or DoT are hard for (especially the likes of .com/.net) could
> be further clarified.

[SAH] I'm working on a more detailed response, but in the meantime it might help to read this expired Internet-Draft:

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hal-adot-operational-considerations-02.txt

Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email