Re: [DNSOP] Special-use TLDs in resolvers

Ted Lemon <> Fri, 16 August 2019 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F98120133 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 06:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ByuUl8-GZ67P for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 06:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::730]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CC0D12004A for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 06:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r21so4739266qke.2 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 06:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=nk3zJhaUgGx6FMIImEXYaPk4XF1bwVcmuIPNexof5R4=; b=E2yviBufL/gfSZo8kEy1mfg9hxhkoizrqtPytZXL3HsG5efTmrHUhf/8jxgcEOavQu KCTOY09zHzlRvcaAQzZgzyL2VhQJ92hfuLkVaURgYwrFh8YCQmECn7Ry3gFu1u0zWYgt EKGTqftmyFUFB9kPE5CHs7C4mh7GjhT5YTlADPSfz5wJpDBndpGrXexjaTmc1L6s0986 2a28DFDPgsJppC727+z1rOjwJXB+sfQQxGh+/y8nXbsvrFSdEScHccv3fQTJAHHsn/vp 5O+K7PUlA94II2tVh6uXvQ2VWjNujKjvSkwitpT98wiJHxZkRFpTfk8U/bhh0t7IJ+f/ NiwQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=nk3zJhaUgGx6FMIImEXYaPk4XF1bwVcmuIPNexof5R4=; b=E4iK6dmA5UqL/q6vQR0jbOA3g1Lt88KZRL+axxmi86ylqRC8Pr324kQ9qCUni0RBLT id06YKI1xUDALlFOGwkR2z84f05qQ0ftyIw8854RZNDA9blRVl6HYSH5XpdyvLCh5Sv4 o09tgJOivmm5CpRiD2GKFjY+diaSLz1y7rkjdQS1h7TfsYCbgBg9LfNL+C0Dsui1Pr0v f+cV1hnCqddnwE4csnsKHZVzqrAzYX0U2jYQvCRg1S8nmX9gG+gXhgeSENzFx0wa3PH2 q3zSkmmOu1njgRsdOE7mvN4I2tnW6KByvczeJRVFAlJdQ1h5VMsY2FxBWdLSfX2Z5kvj h8/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWdiPhMk4C27ANZfNann64VXNiJkTvDZZEZTUMJPkTFTfwPq2AP bkhdhy9GpZlfvedkfHqes9wgjVTdSFP1ww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzZ2CIwN0RBLHbN9CFQlfmiYxAh9dIo09SkWfhvoY5PZGjMZ3lJYGVbEEBGfoxFdSz0zLtJcA==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:137b:: with SMTP id d27mr9160878qkl.161.1565962259266; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 06:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v24sm3622712qth.33.2019. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Aug 2019 06:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ted Lemon <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:30:58 -0400
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Vladim=C3=ADr_=C4=8Cun=C3=A1t?= <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17A568)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Special-use TLDs in resolvers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:31:02 -0000

On Aug 16, 2019, at 09:26, Vladimír Čunát <> wrote:
> On 8/16/19 3:10 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> If you look up “onion”, you have revealed that the user is trying to
>> use tOR, even if you haven’t revealed where they are going.
> Well, in this particular case the tOR client would probably better not
> send onion queries to DNS resolver, but generally there would be a leak,
> though the TTL is a whole day.  At least unless combined with one of the
> "local root" schemes (which are so far not commonly deployed, I think).

It could leak accidentally if the URL gets sent to the wrong browser. 

>> What’s the motivation behind this proposal?
> As I wrote, supplying the answer with a DNSSEC proof seems better to
> me.  And it makes my camel a tiny bit happier, I guess :-)  At that
> moment I didn't realize that if you forward to a resolver that does
> respect that SHOULD, you will not be able to obtain the proof in this
> way and consequently regress, so the change would be double-edged in
> this respect.

There is no need for DNSSEC proof of the nonexistence of these zones. They are nonexistent by postulate, not by theorem. :)