Re: [DNSOP] Proposal for a new record type: SNI

Ben Schwartz <> Fri, 17 February 2017 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704E4129BD5 for <>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:49:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 8LADmXkQu82d for <>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:49:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3370129BD3 for <>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:49:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id h10so32363626ith.1 for <>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:49:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=4UvPCqVLyTexZXbDSGRt0zvnKlxn3GbLqFW0QOMtWGM=; b=Qw5EcuGP6QZTSN6m4BONM3jtZutRbpRqp21R4t0YDVoMaLsZXPQHNDTe1c0w+t0P4f o/Bs1BpnNqSWHtuNmNDqKosYfjKYmQpf9OM0LYbpBZZ6I+bRHMJPTX6Q0pOFUN2dtE1c mN1+tlK5+N/oTYGo8KtOssIZ9qBWcG3fFlKdhQMxrLs6vbA+5labc+UHjmZs1+KXKSy9 UUa6z/HoyZN4Mu9xufgnKKrXxoIUlnnmbUHPmAHk9i8AgA9Qy0JxS3uQ/ClGp2lTz+5j DA2iPTQfIv2vVGDsdzPZtVF7TddjdxpFC7BtMSuZnzD7ghsXFlzPaXuljJrlmwA5qEpj vQBQ==
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; bh=4UvPCqVLyTexZXbDSGRt0zvnKlxn3GbLqFW0QOMtWGM=; b=LTvLIvcFqnHfCw6dmkWUQ5eskaXpdJ8VdNG6ltHQcEWGaQoIhMaUzRXJs/FC7yTFMC 9qYQnBpO0qGsWVk94TeVctFG5pp2WSBrtbaiLbUjXTxyt09PmPiLZFoRjZY5+BLjJBfF YEqvDr2/+n9MBXblgodiYrdyu5RT/GqhF3LRpT2FIXxig5mrr554nr3VHCEc4lpMvsf9 gq+8WJoBVI+q8rrYsSbuH2b8TYirWywTVvXtMosjU1KxDqeauTDXLKgJRkj6SnQK5Cke 0A6AIvetbZLe+kP553/NXoY0q1i3pB49A7I7NiB/kMIfnuuuW7lqSHbTd64Fmiovc5pv HPzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lBvjFEN4656xypclvww+4Lpo3eyP4TuviWEryT4Ec1jibIqj7qXX6UnSIMEjs1mJaJg+ZE00Jb0Yxo5xhM
X-Received: by with SMTP id t198mr6258004itb.98.1487364552879; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:49:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:49:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Ben Schwartz <>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:49:12 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="001a1145b664d8410d0548c00b10"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Proposal for a new record type: SNI
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: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 20:49:15 -0000

Thanks for the input everyone!  Here's an updated version with some
clarifications based on your feedback:


I know this approach is controversial, so I'm also very curious to hear any
suggestions of other ways that we could fix this privacy leak without
slowing down everyone's connections.  As a friend put it: if everyone can
see you're reading, "that defeats the whole point
of HTTPS".

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Ben Schwartz <> wrote:

> Hi dnsop,
> I've written a draft proposal to improve the privacy of TLS connections,
> by letting servers use the DNS to tell clients what SNI to send.
> I've incorporated some helpful feedback [1] from the TLS WG, but now I
> could use your help analyzing the DNS side. All comments welcome; this
> draft will change based on your feedback.
> One particular issue that I could use advice on: should this be a new
> record type, or should it reuse/repurpose an existing type like SRV or PTR?
> Thanks,
> Ben
> [1]