Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] On today's resolverless DNS meeting

Justin Henck <> Tue, 06 November 2018 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A964130E48 for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 06:45:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x-OqMzh5XGfZ for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 06:45:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBFDB130E3F for <>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 06:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z11so2693147uaa.10 for <>; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 06:45:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fZ85//HAL1u8tGRSWBYUwISmaevkCKDhlUIFuHg5k+w=; b=aZI0WTuCyXrhMe+52Fg6+iauDJnLaLPu34M7ZyctrGnB218nfxOChq2zRwvVuplatm MnPiHHDBzdS40rVuYER83U6r41iEIf18VMb0ZEFdYeBb7oSpwTQ6pp+gIlAn8BDgBqAO Cd7gxiL14in7qvAPgR7HzujT5/0nTVhv7LFKOOCue2BGj704T10dAnGrelwG3M9t5MRY x9ZxJMkUtWn+DkKWBLyZZmz65yL2cqzFbV5tH6SZTk4/v2wpzpm/Lftq6quqhIOR0ooy xescuAVX0d0Nz3P26Vi59jstnK0ugtUZ90ok9gEzmWUzbfPKk14FStstwxaiIHTSDlxT UAPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fZ85//HAL1u8tGRSWBYUwISmaevkCKDhlUIFuHg5k+w=; b=lGG1xMT4wtIt2nBAHD013CeL+EBz3oU84tGiIOoSQW07mTrBjIZCXLNWW8XuLSg1r6 Xx2HwGl3hgElXdbpgkNwKBt1YGW8JYyOoMHVWMMQ/4h2VmMDsvuz7MalUgAwsUaD3Sqn K//Kjhgd5S1mlfl2NcHKwDNoCvT6eygdJcA5o7LLynDS1Y4SiUqNu3HaunNF3jQQks4t snNWfOHXU3zQiDbx1dWlqqkRO05HvRSKb1zpIUQHyh2+oTF7dr650Z2M20bL7kQOcWFO S4rS1pUsfTjqnFx+Cv/Ycd8Wv9q7sxmVcaEA3msh4cNASUMk0yQPSQ6u0tOAf8uVuH6c wM4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJufXnAK2zxux2a5lfggT4qJhxMKZboRLu177SrBuUovkJAbvyg pd+KHLu6KxtKXZP14SaY97oKMwWVPYfY85B2csqyBA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fr7cyx5bq+p3+fxcFMZ2tJsuWRaF17YcFuwfnFuwqjKzotUVQ0FLqi+ViJSwaxb7uLCev8rTtoX8mwZ+XP5Sg=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:550b:: with SMTP id t11mr509297uaa.31.1541515507533; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 06:45:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181106102731.GA5280@naina> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Justin Henck <>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 21:44:55 +0700
Message-ID: <>
Cc: Mukund Sivaraman <>,,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003e71bf057a000cad"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] On today's resolverless DNS meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 14:45:12 -0000

Briefly jumping in to add, which was set up after
the last meeting for discussion of this specific topic.  Direct link:

I also just sent the notes to that mailing list.

Justin Henck
Product Manager

PGP: EA8E 8C27 2D75 974D B357 482B 1039 9F2D 869A 117B

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 9:39 PM Joe Abley <> wrote:

> > On Nov 6, 2018, at 17:27, Mukund Sivaraman <> wrote:
> >
> > We talked about DNSSEC and certificate signing and such. If the host
> > serving this webpage to the browser has control over the webpage's
> > content (e.g., the contents of that src attribute), and the webpage's
> > contents are already authenticated by TLS, then why does an address
> > record have to be separately authenticated?
> I think this is an easy one. It doesn't.
> The names that it is permissible for a server to push information
> about (and the names that a client should be allowed to accept) must
> be constrained such that the names supplied for use in one web
> application can't influence the operation of another.
> (For example, it would be bad if some generic and otherwise benign web
> page could feed the browser high-TTL DNS messages for names under
> online retailer domains that accept credit cards or component APIs
> used within genuine web apps.)
> The obvious analogy to me is the logic that controls what cookies a
> browser should accept. Maybe exactly the same rules are appropriate. I
> realise that managing those rules using mechanisms like the public
> suffix list is not without challenges.
> If we accept that these constraints are necessary, then the presence
> or absence of DNSSEC signatures doesn't matter. The DoH objects are
> within the same security perimeter as the URIs that make use of them
> and don't benefit from additional integrity protection; the transport
> security for all the other objects being sent from server to client
> provides the right coverage.
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list