Re: [DNSOP] definitions of "public DNS Service"

dagon <dagon@sudo.sh> Sat, 23 May 2020 01:32 UTC

Return-Path: <dagon@sudo.sh>
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 26CA73A0D57 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 18:32:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 JQFPzZQx2z5M for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 18:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sudo.sh (hexakaideca.sudo.sh [198.177.251.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3F03A0D56 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2020 18:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by sudo.sh (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5C305389EF0; Sat, 23 May 2020 01:32:12 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2020 01:32:12 +0000
From: dagon <dagon@sudo.sh>
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, George Kuo <george@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <20200523013212.GA10996@sudo.sh>
References: <CAKr6gn0Fqk0qNCs5wbptN+rWRBQgBKom4iiudW0V1Xrj3fmE7Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn0Fqk0qNCs5wbptN+rWRBQgBKom4iiudW0V1Xrj3fmE7Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/7bX8goN3ifMbysiNWWe6OKlqqYE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] definitions of "public DNS Service"
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: Sat, 23 May 2020 01:32:17 -0000

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:55:34AM +1000, George Michaelson wrote:

> My Colleague George Kuo asked me for definitions of public DNS
> service. not "public DNS" but the trigram "public DNS service"

Is there room for this bike:

  1) Policy: A "public DNS service" is a full DNS speaker outside of
     the end user's network and control.

     I.e., non-local recursion crosses one or more policy
     barriers---local network, carrier, state and international---with
     implications for integrity, resolution security, and privacy.

     For some enterprises, recursion against 'public DNS services'
     creates an audit criticism.  A poorly selected public resolver
     may import censorship.  Or a well selected resolver may evade
     (older) regional media controls by suggesting false locality to a
     media server, for those services unwilling to impose policy
     regional controls in their TCP multiplex.

     Given these explicit choices and surprise outcomes, "crossing
     policy barriers" is a fair partial description.

  2) Latent RRsets requiring protocol changes.  Public DNS servers are
     the most distant commercially viable DNS iterator from the end
     user.

     Resolvers mitigate distance-induced latency via anycasting and
     robust provisioning.  Suboptimal RRset selections required
     fundamental protocol changes---e.g., exposing local octets to the
     iterative layer---accommodate what remains.  (And hats off to the
     Tor exit nodes offering on-exit recursion, and injecting RFC 1918
     addresses into the ECS payload.)

     "Distant" is a fair description.  Users pay for this distance, in
     either latency, privacy, or protocol changes.

  3) "Free with footnotes".

     No good deed goes unmonetized.  Users should understand the
     trade offs in selecting a non-local resolver.  The term "public"
     obscures stake holder interests.

I suggest: "distant resolver outside of the user's policy oversight".

-- 
David Dagon
dagon@sudo.sh
D970 6D9E E500 E877 B1E3  D3F8 5937 48DC 0FDC E717