Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sah-resolver-information
"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 06 May 2019 16:41 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 E9761120272 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2019 09:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com header.b=s+xHzCWW; dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=taugh.com header.b=nXZ/kclR
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 zV_heogQO7y1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 May 2019 09:41:25 -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 B0EEB12027E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 May 2019 09:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 67625 invoked by uid 100); 6 May 2019 16:41:22 -0000
Date: Mon, 06 May 2019 16:41:22 -0000
Message-ID: <qapo3i$220r$1@gal.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:cleverness; s=10820.5cd063b2.k1905; i=news@user.iecc.com; bh=ZjYQR9mIrXBBYeAj2MhrdiS1XzzZxc5LxYDqBHfhQpE=; b=s+xHzCWWpO+swk8bf3TSgovVQO4OvSzQB2I7yuem7DwzD/qM8Yiwj4ZfW8bAxYHhENH++bzS+FAfNWWohwt3107ioAvkcbH2MMPcE7jqkowXHdk59ChMYC0X/n3lqCG/6aOIohQTjVGzbQXAyO420Tf/pB/7+zABG+25Y0wGyugCJ5OSQFpVGT14cKkgIsiCmV4BWS1s8mi31WWANzaykOnmhNNCaP6XlcL656M42dNhsqABllr+LSKCOGNyubWs
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:references:cleverness; s=10820.5cd063b2.k1905; olt=news@user.iecc.com; bh=ZjYQR9mIrXBBYeAj2MhrdiS1XzzZxc5LxYDqBHfhQpE=; b=nXZ/kclRbvVr0XfpJuQ29W7/36zFF/YBBnxpU7ynseaqRdQvJ1jfMjqanCyaCVK9HEaxs4BMAxpHVyh37TGtVLWlpp+m7w5fhBI9vVfF0IYfUDSpTAqX5ZYga1e23TrAGuOpHopKKpFPPeHQdYz5LNbHP/5CkB3/SzC7DbHWwCiGvJEU6LL0wdbtEovC1eBZRM9rOJCQqzsz4qJldWWMm5fXQcEhrfaYZhd+S9c4OW2278x+hBhRAAOwG3QfMM+y
Organization: Taughannock Networks
References: <6B112B6B-A8B3-46EA-8DE9-8A0535A7B878@icann.org> <20190502205938.604982013404D1@ary.qy>
Cleverness: some
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/EkM6o8e87DXQSS53htaNm36_q7U>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sah-resolver-information
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: Mon, 06 May 2019 16:41:40 -0000
In article <20190502205938.604982013404D1@ary.qy>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote: >My inclination would be to put this on hold and advance the web server >part if ACME adds a way to do IP address certs. I don't see any >reason to prefer DoH or DoT over .well-known, since it uses same TLS >channel and has a much simpler encoding of the content. Here's a further thought. After poking at a bunch of public DoT servers including 1.1.1.1, 8.8.4.4, 8.8.8.8, 9.9.9.9 and lesser known ones like 89.233.43.71, I find that most of them return a signed cert for a name that resolves to the appropriate IP. If you think there is likely to be a critical mass of clients that find their DoT or DoH server by name, or that have external knowledge of what the name should be for a server found by IP, it could make sense to advance the .well-known part, with a security note that you only get the validation part of TLS if you know the name or you're in the elite few who can get a signed IP address certificate. This could still work for servers on private IPs, since it's not hard to get a signed certificate for a public name that doesn't resolve to a public IP. (The public name doesn't even have to be in the DNS other than for two minutes while the signer checks it.) I still think that the new RR with funky names is a bad idea, a lot of complexity that offers the same info that .well-known does. R's, John -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
- [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sah-re… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… Erik Kline
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… Ralf Weber
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… Puneet Sood
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… John Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… Vladimír Čunát
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… Vladimír Čunát
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… Töma Gavrichenkov
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… John R Levine
- Re: [DNSOP] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sa… John Levine