Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 21 March 2019 22:50 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3491311CB for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=FGraSmcB; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Fch6g4Uv
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 Nuw5IbiGU_mM for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
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 0449A13116C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 92685 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2019 22:50:25 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=16a0b.5c941531.k1903; bh=r6c+EKkSugBdLSJI68Fh9XZarhwsg64shZ2dmlXU92g=; b=FGraSmcB7hXzkIAhX2Ux4McTsUTDMhTBqGCR7D45f/1jsF3tN9KJ3HVPSyU+/izkfglVtfA92d87ZlxA0pwZe2wbaKv2V3usGyg0RePcd8yyKJZwWT/UuTq7kZAriDuH6accj2lW7iSgfIwbJqDq1SQ+BT+EY9kgc2Vbd47EYPS/MO7ij8aoqO0298hai2MBGTMjJ24b30qU8rxBlFKuCD4Y+IKEe0hNM9cnHT3HTzrJ3+LQXYQGfXhkeuyH6BLI
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=16a0b.5c941531.k1903; bh=r6c+EKkSugBdLSJI68Fh9XZarhwsg64shZ2dmlXU92g=; b=Fch6g4UvPf/5lj1S54YAHKFwrbAfLKVjeSX9z9yMR7ybPXdg8IQB+Vdhanhs5ZevYTu8MAo1Y9y38M2eah6U3/+SzMyr3KnCbIAbcgtZiChD2tdNUwwqNN2EHaII3jEeU3PGBDdKkX3qjlggCRFwKRQpo+RKIMc7EpAADcviGa03O+B/th/yQrXcuD/Q/FL89mKniycDoNmLaY3TR7v+bOpCk1aR4bK22ODf1U4tMcB6yodcOcUfNqWuZPMiN4Ym
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 21 Mar 2019 22:50:25 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id CC08320105BB28; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:50:24 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 21 Mar 2019 18:50:24 -0400
Message-Id: <20190321225024.CC08320105BB28@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: Jacques.Latour@cira.ca
In-Reply-To: <428d5ff2b5704cdf956a5919e330e4dc@cira.ca>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/0HPTrUj0n5Iz3qud-cL4tfrVUFA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 22:50:29 -0000

In article <428d5ff2b5704cdf956a5919e330e4dc@cira.ca>; you write:
>Plus! 
>Is anyone looking at adding DoH and DoT servers as part of DHCP/SLAAC?

I believe that for DoT, the idea is that the client just probes the
DNS server address on port 853 and uses it if it gets an answer.  I
suppose you could try the same thing on port 443 but that seems
riskier.

R's,
John