IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04: (with COMMENT)

Willem Toorop <willem@nlnetlabs.nl> Mon, 11 January 2021 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>
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 518143A0EF3; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:25:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 jclxSSvveUNx; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound.soverin.net (outbound.soverin.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:fff0:2d:8::218]) (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 48C603A0EF1; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 07:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (unknown [10.10.3.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C92960199; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 15:25:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [159.69.232.142]) by soverin.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1610378699; bh=NP9//ZseAsse3IsUdMLTfvpwx+Wpmzjg2YF4v0XEgbM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=I9ZJrKqL98m444wcED/eVDG+dS7KZ068p9T9rkY0nXlDp5IogLaY/2tOUmzzRnGyb 3oBwAIiuYktVmX4RvTNsMUFs0h6zNaNY8OLLA31qRAdQh1oA8gEoLuM4ivPbP6CfS2 969CMF//YLpkgOwoYH5jKidXJl7jY9DP6f85Jm6vRqE1MY1O1cp3speSkRlkdkKM97 XsOt6ox82MvnsfXh6M39Q7cIeQzINc9LCqRyGP/AgFC8maB9Qp3zjWjujYKVONxc/2 q2RSRCMvVHlmEjRbz3FH1CjZNKJe8ocX/YWtB4nkihuM6dPdtRBCMyoes2fP/nXnfI 9TrjQoYD+xi9Q==
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: tjw.ietf@gmail.com, dnsop@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies@ietf.org, dnsop-chairs@ietf.org
References: <160801984945.4965.7807011386795738834@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Willem Toorop <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <6c19fb3d-2b44-e470-3089-bc68ec287d81@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:24:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <160801984945.4965.7807011386795738834@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FEXxhuKmaBha10MlSoFwPkZY_Ng>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04: (with COMMENT)
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, 11 Jan 2021 15:25:09 -0000

Op 15-12-2020 om 09:10 schreef Erik Kline via Datatracker:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [ questions ]]
> 
> [ section 3 ]
> 
> * I assume it's not a big deal that sometimes the client cannot easily
>   tell when its upstream IP address has changed (vis. RFC 7873 S6
>   considerations)?
> 
>   NAT makes it difficult to comply with the MUST for clients stated
>   in section 8, but...what should a client do if only has, say, an
>   RFC 1918 address and is quite likely to be behind a NAT?  If its
>   server is also a likely-NAT'd IP then it might presume no NAT between
>   the two, but if the server has a global IP address...I suppose it
>   can just rotate the per-server cookies once per year?

Thanks Erik,

Indeed, I have added a paragraph to the Security Considerations that
preventing tracking of the public IP of a routing device that performs
NAT is beyond the scope of this document, see:
	
	https://github.com/NLnetLabs/draft-sury-toorop-dns-cookies-algorithms/pull/23/commits/83155e4bfed1afb08611723a13f9ebc045179e63

The nits have been processed too.

Cheers,
-- Willem

> [[ nits ]]
> 
> [ section 1 ]
> 
> * Final sentence of the final paragraph:
>   "in a Client protecting fashion" ->
>   "in a privacy protecting fashion"? (to match the abstract)
> 
> [ section 8 ]
> 
> * "five minute" -> "five minutes"
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email