IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] ALPN protocol ID for DoT

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 13 December 2019 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 9990F1200C4 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:22:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=MwckBF0Q; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=bEz9ybdS
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 2SWSPhEksjmt for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:22:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 BC8EB120013 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:22:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 91307 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2019 15:22:24 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=164a9.5df3acb0.k1912; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=lZVbDb7wkqvqEtHT0uaD2XyC88s5yK9zAPYWqPKRdPQ=; b=MwckBF0Q/WfMT12pOWawBni2NpVTMunWJ0R2/A9a7LN/VMIY9KCXdDIRgbJ+CgOCWZbECpGGncSZZvkV+/VQoVWJoiBE+1NepGr0PWuoyArcFAMZ4swsVQqzrfqR4jvLvwzkc+LOpDeyZaJt3Qdz/iU71U35iNo06kDGe0t0YyRux2D6nmEwXHnLflrs2bEtYDAV2s91805iSP7QiyezK/D5JRyB0Gg2cbcxTL7eA3th0/yn9qNHnV0XCtXok5RQ
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=164a9.5df3acb0.k1912; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=lZVbDb7wkqvqEtHT0uaD2XyC88s5yK9zAPYWqPKRdPQ=; b=bEz9ybdSfwJKhymHYdWcukN065LUia6IQwve9CRuBpSxJ31waQfZrH/D2FdNRPXqlGQlfaGdeaARGLpasGIcz3OHxoZQ3ZIDER34bsfOarNvNhmd2VFDi55jznEbshSty48OzcY5qwbeRMIGj3t/XQ0YSoortcHRFnQjiK3cpAtYTEZTjzI0eZHE2P7pKjYBelZQ7vbbBiG9Tcw9XBsVflZ1zShJ1g78jhDFYYCYln/BRlhqAG0/VFtiUbOByeDz
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 13 Dec 2019 15:22:24 -0000
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 10:22:24 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.99999.374.1912131022080.8207@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Reed, Jon" <jreed@akamai.com>
Cc: "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <D5F89B94-1A5D-4250-9BAC-C993F6CA2E49@akamai.com>
References: <20191213041824.3F164114907C@ary.qy> <D5F89B94-1A5D-4250-9BAC-C993F6CA2E49@akamai.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21.99999 (OSX 374 2019-10-27)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/bhl92fkane3qYEyMPBOQyY-BoOE>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] [Ext] ALPN protocol ID for DoT
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: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:22:28 -0000

> If a small RFC is published, as others have discussed, I would support a statement to the fact that ALPN-capable resolvers SHOULD NOT (MUST NOT?) require the ALPN identifier when accepting DoT connections on 853.
>
> Ports other than 853 don't impact opportunistic DoT, since you have to have prior mutual agreement of the alternative port.

Sounds good to me.  Tnx.

>
>>
>> We really need to figure out how to do DoWhatever discovery,
>> preferably better than probe ports on the same IP as the port 53
>> server.
>
> Agreed.
>
> -Jon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email