Re: [DNSOP] Draft for dynamic discovery of secure resolvers

Marek Vavruša <> Sun, 19 August 2018 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7460B130E99 for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7UGDn9koA58h for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69E76130E92 for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id c1-v6so2126974ybq.5 for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EzRNOYiN/VJ2I+Bk3E+qZEm8npJPcF0bzZceKmOrAfM=; b=LnFjbt3OhuLkyL2rkxTwlWXxRPWQruOItc07nKOR5Lr+YzeyFfwha2bgsW9qQ8O2wO P14GAXI6tCwHoSt7Y5PnFpv5cBb7WZs1LMPf5ivpYukKsyn0i8A/qdYHqijOKcF2aEs2 QOYprfpgxI+1MDiVNmaLLR7JEW7/Vwzv6N71M=
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=EzRNOYiN/VJ2I+Bk3E+qZEm8npJPcF0bzZceKmOrAfM=; b=rPPVrCS7KkeQQinDRt8u/6FbzNCHAI8Wd2fuMi5sJ9/2HLIEMUoKrDgH1RrsFiOwZU BKSPtv0Pty0IpeccvczX3X2Q/FXbmUkadAzYOi1bxZS40Ahc23D+HwRm+LJMT5AYYmvo 5MmSnNmtwuXFZZCGMJMJUk/N9hl8Q/7R0KGuL0sESYPj1o7tpn8jNtHmnG5oqXZnQ6hg UpBUxbz5YDc9SbncgwG2W1n5sgi7BgXpdVSeolyVzGSbrHtqa3mp+yIW7yJbbBfEMJ9G frqeuELiaR8WNHKqU6NhNPb/kNaF2qzVg10/H7kK9vjrgq6MMjJ5QPfgbOLrhc92yKDj k0rQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFuH9dC/Hjrwnl5ltl0mYHXo0FquXdikPAoeP3KuFyXNK6j+6CG aM9Ha9xd+k0IyECTWd9QJMuEJguQ5S626Qr9Xo+8gA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPwBnbK1lWIh21MVsBE82ErtawrYtLNHgoICOKmOfUF8L/26NiOCDYpuhHIBsIuqKHtKcwYSzT129O4UlXE+rrI=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:bc14:: with SMTP id i20-v6mr10212471ybh.368.1534704391478; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a25:a045:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Marek Vavruša <>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 11:46:30 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Tom Pusateri <>
Cc: "Livingood, Jason" <>, bert hubert <>, Ted Lemon <>, dnsop <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft for dynamic discovery of secure resolvers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 18:46:35 -0000

Interesting. This approach is similar to the lists curated by Frank
and people from dnscrypt-proxy:

Assuming that separating protocol change from trust model change is a
no-go, then the trust would need to go both ways - the network
operator would need to push the list of resolvers that she considers
trusted, and the client would crosscheck that list to its provisioned
configuration (or list downloaded from a public service such as this
etc.). This is conceptually similar to NPN/ALPN.


On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Tom Pusateri <> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Livingood, Jason <>
> wrote:
> On 8/18/18, 7:03 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of bert hubert"
> < on behalf of> wrote:
>    Especially when such a move will incidentally kill intranets, VPNs, split
>    horizon, DNS monitoring & DNS malware detecion and blocking.
> It seems to me that the underlying protocol is separable from the
> operational implementation, and the latter case is likely where most of the
> concerns lie. Thus, the issue is likely less DoH itself but rather how it is
> likely to be deployed.
> I am considering starting work on a draft along the lines of 'potential
> impacts of DoH deployment' to try to document some of this, if for nothing
> else than to organize my own thinking on the matter. This is because I also
> share concern, given the apparent deployment model, around what may break in
> enterprise networks, malware detection & remediation, walled garden portals
> during service provisioning, parental controls, and the impacts of
> eliminating other local policies. The CDN-to-CDN competition case is an
> interesting one as well, with respect to passing EDNS client subnet or not.
> JL
> In the DRIU BOF, I mentioned establishing a reputation service for public
> DNS resolvers. With a JSON interface, this could lead to users conveying
> some trust of a public service or more likely, the inverse of trust for
> operating systems or stub resolvers to whitelist/blacklist public DNS
> resolvers.
> I tried to summarize it here:
> Or you could go listen to the proceedings of the DRIU BOF.
> Thanks,
> Tom