[DNSOP] [TCP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-00.txt

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Sun, 04 January 2015 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BD11A89B9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 09:43:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 3HIfbC3w8DkF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 09:43:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:41:216:3eff:fece:1902]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19AFA1A8A0C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 09:43:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id C638B3B997; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:43:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 817791906A5; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:42:26 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 18:42:26 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20150104174226.GA23493@sources.org>
References: <20141204135801.12482.73201.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20141204135801.12482.73201.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 7.7
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/H6XdZnLfYuh8aIhtFOnaBIkMaN0
Subject: [DNSOP] [TCP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 17:43:13 -0000

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 05:58:01AM -0800,
 internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote 
 a message of 37 lines which said:

>         Title           : DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements

One month later... Sorry.

I have read draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-00 and I like it. I think the
general idea (not just supporting TCP but having it working as well as
UDP is both realistic, and in the right direction. The document is
short (a good thing, in my book) and to the point. I do not find
errors or problems.

Some issues:

Section 3, "some network devices deliberately refuse to handle DNS
packets containing EDNS0 options" Isn't it true of DNS-over-TCP as
well? SAC035 is pessimistic (see table 2). Do we have other data on
TCP (lack of) support in middleboxes?

Section 11, the Security Considerations does not mention an important
reason to use TCP: completely solving reflection attacks. 

In the same section, should we add a word about poisoning attacks?
AFAIK, at least one resolver, CNS, switches to TCP when it receives
too many answers with the wrong Query ID. Should we document that the
use of TCP may make poisoning more difficult?

Editorial: 

Section 8, TCP fastopen is now a RFC, RFC 7413