Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz

Matthew Pounsett <> Wed, 21 December 2016 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196481298A3 for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:52:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 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] 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 yv9AY1Hgk76J for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D824129507 for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y22so26831053uay.0 for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:52:24 -0800 (PST)
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=i1drApN3/OHP4rLHe2hy156zT9DtHK1Mrj8azqgrFnQ=; b=o1/ZULAcsAQCn+oecV2pParu5ou6bBfsLT9ANLfdv8WANtUPTqQ5XyhJjMj9hZh+8N BUP3cS37kmb9SVBn8bSXs4zzMmMpkJwCcdowTosM2zYJ/3CEwe3xtgKBoZJ+P5WjTnzK /uZq0SIXGRVPzJLFFF1Q7CzMqKwNvzeyR/c5y6bfoJGcld0wAY6vz394I5meh317e2gf telrhj+Fmatu3ddKyMy91DknW0jNePG8xggoBW2Hl7iLbVj5tKBrjIOruWDni+tiU2IA uDuo2kS2decK7QiJ3SBPwm+BKBoROas8ewL+yI1en1Tt6I0pXquA10MFLcKrbzxDBTAb rjmQ==
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=i1drApN3/OHP4rLHe2hy156zT9DtHK1Mrj8azqgrFnQ=; b=IC/WZwuQy9X5WG/XD9aI8jOCWgL+HHf6RBrW1ztP1lq5uIkWZl/Cg8b1McWpiJYH3N IR9SbwUrQgdUZcfwdWQtbB+8/xrB038yhk0N4G08tQHKR8dsxRGMDiXA7IL9LSbkJO8x ZShhRopwUuZ3t9DPkRpq1UnrlvzavnGO8eqI8a+GPogynnYdqHbXVdfYXnYrR59k1v0D /4vPudcmXOt312ussB2rqxt99gj+ayv7ehr9OVwGILeo4ty8mJKNW3XbILxvmNcEhRDX ddOqFea8fKKDvf1dnw2oEtzpqbZlOSxmJBUWrD49I5QANumEv381T1EuK/iUQRyTax41 6R1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKM/j4Sh3jnBmPU+YukHQVROu3xd7EXxMOH25FFnAVyi5fHQ+g5jYodPXouZsXxje67B6Ge0nSFkjk/9g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i25mr3875678uac.31.1482342743163; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:52:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:52:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Matthew Pounsett <>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 12:52:22 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f81bca4527405442ed072"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dnsop <>, Paul Wouters <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption draft-vixie-dns-rpz
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:52:26 -0000

On 21 December 2016 at 12:47, Ted Lemon <> wrote:

> On Dec 21, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Matthew Pounsett <> wrote:
> None of those things are required by RPZ, but I believe they are required
> by the hypothetical better alternative that a few people have suggested we
> should work on instead.
> To be clear, there is no real alternative to RPZ in terms of providing
> protection.   We could provide annotation in RPZ, and that might be useful
> in some cases.   But ultimately if a domain is malicious, you _have_ to
> block it by not providing an answer.   If you do not, only those devices
> that implement the new protocol will be protected, which is to say we will
> be failing broken, not failing safe.

You and I are in energetic agreement.

> If you want the browser to receive and understand a signal then that
> signal needs to be invented, the DNS servers need to be modified to send
> it, and the browsers (and all other applications you want to benefit) need
> to be modified to receive and understand it.  This is the point I was
> making.
> Yes, correct.   I proposed a draft in tls to do this after the redirect
> has happened, which I think is useful, but does not solve the problem of
> signaling when DNSSEC is available: https://tools.ietf.
> org/html/draft-lemon-tls-blocking-alert-00
> If we wanted to account for DNSSEC and provide signaling, I think the
> signaling would have to take the form of a signed EDNS0 option that
> signaled similar information.
> In the draft I’m referencing, it was my intention to provide a set of
> values that could be returned to indicate what has happened.   I think it’s
> a bad idea to provide anything more than that, because for example if you
> return a text string, that becomes an attack surface.   You can use it to
> trick the user into bypassing their security settings.