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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Sun, 19 August 2018 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D7E12D949 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 x4orrmpAFYph for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22c.google.com (mail-it0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16817126CB6 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id d10-v6so17263071itj.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hSLWlQpaGdUSGH1p1iL2mjilQWDP0LXC/6ymK8oS61o=; b=DAvB1vUf5CCt1x+0HeCefhivtQ6CBy8FGX3+Z3U0yqLwGkp+CSwUW3CUt0LH4a8MNb 5yIGrk7TFRgsRw9KtivB2D6fgM6Gt01SDn8ukfmfxZoXHNBg/WSFnzhPmalGCbENzMAn Yfipaq7G0thSerk8DL8oX82aIHJMYzl+MoU25WfGHOy0u278FIHd8xwwxCJCiyl5AjKg +UvAh1Uj/gSxHt9kr3+x+Ilg/aW413hixjcJg9pMohmX4G30oacDXs1+FNqqq4wrQn7Q D4hStvqAqNEM1X6zX6HNZzd5+o0QX1awurtydxYd3eRnENhC73pDcsMYydDmUTl038Ov 2KGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hSLWlQpaGdUSGH1p1iL2mjilQWDP0LXC/6ymK8oS61o=; b=ckdz+l9X3bwAyN5OS61Jxz3eKKBbi44WGt4sudnNqYSEgvRpaG3fg+J8tI10vB0usg QNoOM9BJaiE7GUwermBUeyLW7MGwWiOQBZTEVXJjlWygGlslpFBgWg//+xB/hwGpG4ES iyD1a8MXwuezR2cWfyLmI9hwUT1CdHC/r1xYp1WJvQU57+0MJhvlRlO8vp7M+YNov4f1 QpUc48hJT4FX9ju4Po5o4hq3oRkcoDPvSfDHKxgIiLGZKwmLEqdsIHAGryYLVfrRFnkZ YTbQU84m747Ib4poZ19/PpWcvJPWBLz2IFK9hBFufp1rPplbPR5AlGFunh7o7MCj9L/I 9C+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlE3ndqaGq9GqN31pXp6ee+kP7Bbx3oX5x2TEILnCWp9cQ1pZLhP 5/jy+aBo78wLdV2kzH2TX3tLMSMZdMeSmNNiBMK5Xg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPyM1XRmMNSCcNcB764TmyW8mGcJ6mjJvBHnV/ZmjaCivp/jkRn98tsFN9yM15GxNi4KZW1HLOm1LoMTyj0umgs=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:5f92:: with SMTP id r140-v6mr31716015itb.95.1534689086314; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4f:a009:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Aug 2018 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5374C85A-D26B-4B20-817D-5363F9807C2B@cable.comcast.com>
References: <CAC=TB13mUH2SDxFb4c3rOz0-Z6PE_r9i84_xK=dmLxiVr45+tA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=-792WkQmbTigPdqOh0dONykYycG0hheOecoQa4ai=Hw@mail.gmail.com> <20180818230319.GA32131@server.ds9a.nl> <5374C85A-D26B-4B20-817D-5363F9807C2B@cable.comcast.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2018 10:30:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1k6zA=DQw3DeL1p1UU3=T+6JQUSvHH8jdti5CWz0xmv_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>
Cc: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Marek_Vavru=C5=A1a?= <mvavrusa=40cloudflare.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d4ba320573caa55a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/QPv7h0Abuw5u7qsnx8rJZYJWcjM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft for dynamic discovery of secure resolvers
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 19 Aug 2018 14:31:30 -0000

I think this would be a better place to start than proposing a solution.
 It's pretty clear that the thinking in this space is all over the map.

On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Livingood, Jason <
Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> wrote:

> On 8/18/18, 7:03 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of bert hubert" <
> dnsop-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of bert.hubert@powerdns.com> 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
>
>
>