IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 23 March 2021 14:59 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 9FE273A1135 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 07:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 lsuDrqzh8n06 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 07:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa3.lax.icann.org (ppa3.lax.icann.org [192.0.33.78]) (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 DB09B3A1130 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 07:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.5]) by ppa3.lax.icann.org (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with ESMTPS id 12NEx352008716 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:59:03 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 15.2.721.2; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 07:59:02 -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 15.02.0721.013; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 07:59:02 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
CC: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dns-privacy] [Ext] next steps for draft-opportunistic-adotq
Thread-Index: AQHXH+8YBh9mhkOulUeGou0cj8RqXaqSH5kA
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:59:02 +0000
Message-ID: <E37E7434-A557-40F2-A9FA-B647B35D1638@icann.org>
References: <2ba5ac12c24eaee4c51de2cd2c1693e9bd1fd8b2.camel@powerdns.com> <4bc96140-454e-0746-83b3-bb1331cf7cce@cs.tcd.ie> <ADB00FD5-A6EA-4D05-84E8-A44A2E40BE7C@icann.org> <8363070a-8fc5-2d20-a9aa-45673d1515ac@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <8363070a-8fc5-2d20-a9aa-45673d1515ac@innovationslab.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BC54973A-223C-4898-8759-537C1C1B29BE"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.369, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-03-23_06:2021-03-22, 2021-03-23 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/XRrNWcsTTDrs44ir3t0b5tPGNTk>
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: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:59:10 -0000

On Mar 23, 2021, at 7:16 AM, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
> 
> Hey Paul,
>     Clarifying question about SVCB...
> 
> On 3/22/21 5:10 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 2021, at 1:59 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>>> I think that makes sense with one caveat: I don't interpret
>>> these changes as representing a consensus to not use TLSA - I
>>> think such a decision is still down the road some, after we
>>> have some better ideas as to the practicality or otherwise
>>> of the various approaches one might adopt.
>>> 
>>> I know none of these are WG drafts yet but I'd be a bit
>>> worried that your changing to use SVCB now might be
>>> intrepreted in that way.
>> 
>> Good point. As we revise this draft, we can put a note in about us needing a signal, and use SCVB as the signal, but the signal might change.
>> 
> 
> Is there an issue with putting SVCB info in the TLD zones? If I
> interpret this ICANN document correctly
> (https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.html#exhibitA.1),
> there are strict limitations on the info that can be put in the TLD zones.

There are currently such limitations, and only in gTLDs. If the IETF creates a standard that would cause zone owners to want additional record types in their zones, I suspect that the technical and gTLD operator communities will talk to ICANN about changing the contracts.

Said a different way: if this WG wants to have a mechanism for authoritative discovery that involves adding new glue-like records in parent zones, it should not be constrained by current contracts that could be changed in the future.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email