Re: [DNSOP] Draft for dynamic discovery of secure resolvers

Ted Lemon <> Sun, 19 August 2018 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2095D130E05 for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 14:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, 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 fHSNlWjLZ3UV for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 14:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46F6B130E4C for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 14:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r196-v6so4014010iod.0 for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 14:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b8yAIrjoQ0U8p0m9JRayeGSnR8plwXiVzCcLMhcZhz4=; b=BXgYh/QqqSTcrQiSNckFQm2Gf0DfwEGQcSu5f4qEJqPc1Krdgbepsoyclmicl3mlHI qmY20Qtabvw4vQ3mvvAaN7Q9Y6VHHjtlLy/d1Dmwxguo15Mui6mliJnEGw0DLE9igpCB UZWDE2gH0RweE0F4bHaey6DH0L9LRHdv0HC1hsowtWljkiSnu/KYkBQaRAFhK+rAPsTN dTBPDIrmuuV1+hUirs6BV+NEJWGN2g5FHhUUQIrQtuOmJPY0DZdBnQ0UNUjV/0pPkVJD eAXNnTJmemCFGyuhDppUkbXIaHn3/PpeTKrS0qhi/v4VFYFORHh0wtQPNBwDNlKaz/bg HqTQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b8yAIrjoQ0U8p0m9JRayeGSnR8plwXiVzCcLMhcZhz4=; b=dFmKHehcpdYQbyXtrReO0BiwTMjGgn+hC6NQOtltM0elbjb2NISZD4HwhdsiCyVUKT fZ9MLIJVAcqPaAQIhE2D8qVw22AuK+udF9zjSjxILZsFmedeWlr4b0KQCeNtIfk9shFx eeDPqf6Un3LaK+iR2ZGDmFRJyq7pvbFZzwqk4cfI86a0XxTNs9L3pUkvDwQI+id/eRAi OVT4b1R0NTuw8J/+HSomH7vUCPvmnsksgEogRS56LPS2O8AQyJpth/dErHNYJ4QSfgn4 D0JvGWS99Fewr6qTTAwbKuISwk+OXerXesvrmAcASUBzJawPs4SVLogOB/g6T4xc5Jgr HfqA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHtWI9p7oVFe1ykhCphVETM8e+/Uzwor3hi13Z93gzu+K3JYnEn cITeSQenwAHWmzLmkQbC4q/0md2gYpt2CBZoG9hDbQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPzvOD9F9G6PQEjZd4lT0O6sjguQeHb0Z/hcLatrenrw/o+ufDw2N5AMG2geA+rpl0fghXnrwbAed7R3I656jx4=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:9d0b:: with SMTP id g11-v6mr38123836ioe.85.1534712560511; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 14:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4f:a009:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 14:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 17:01:59 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Paul Ebersman <>
Cc: dnsop WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000083d90573d01da0"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft for dynamic discovery of secure resolvers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 21:02:44 -0000

Right, that's the second trust model.   It's incompatible with the first
trust model.   Did you see the message earlier to day where I described
these trust models?

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Paul Ebersman <>

> mellon> Think about DHCP providing an SMTP server address. Does that
> mellon> make sense?
> That doesn't. But DHCP already hands out DNS servers. You are already
> trusting the DHCP server to give you default gateway and DNS server (or
> you are choosing not to use DHCP).
> Take the use case of coffee house or wireless hotspot. I think that it
> would be an improvement of privacy to not allow anyone there to sniff
> DNS packets because the owner of the network uses DOH for their
> recursive resolver. I'm already trusting the network for default gateway
> and most users would trust the DNS servers handed via DHCP. So no huge
> new leap of trust and improved privacy. Seems like a win.
> Why not allow network operators that option via a new DHCP option? You
> don't have to use it but it would be a good choice for some.