Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] [EXTERNAL] Re: New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator

Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> Mon, 25 March 2019 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.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 44F34120385; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 02:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4qiH2B3FgaHX; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 02:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x843.google.com (mail-qt1-x843.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::843]) (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 B7C1812014F; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 02:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x843.google.com with SMTP id d13so4754963qth.5; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 02:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NYM3WQMP8Jkwmnr8oLxtRT5PoUdBhmrT/qydqG+zrTY=; b=NNKqd3hin9nO48E09oxhp7c/Yab8W5OKm9lnFw8Nu90/o3RTUAxx6RG5CnwoRpGneM kdZHzLIwGfCVMlOrblaLrNh3xmyiaDfv7fJDd37qgRKw1mTE7dFRUEsYlfMPsFB98D9c HsRJr5Cv4xgSH6b/gpYl2ZP77LzK34LzKgeCjBpy6VLhrfsQDA9CGA4SKamR8Y3eHju4 j3oChH4YHpdxsBED5rOzvxa7GzY4LtshfwRbNfONwe7sEfsTDgNTvjcBcUGhal9haWM+ +u0kEnkNFpLmUl1zUyJDKOkDMHJh8OjGQMdrl9MHb42miHi7yVbAFTBzPktp3AfhUQLk 2ykA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NYM3WQMP8Jkwmnr8oLxtRT5PoUdBhmrT/qydqG+zrTY=; b=cLnk3Q6orNLWvmdqGOVmHUXPfhxxQDIyDvse2gSsQzl16UN1CKwucuL6RfHhMOQZHT UsG2eA1I5+3kuKHhxV4itmC5PIHVhJ0u6CqgCfnL4i/3TxBnJuOhozXWwNPRDd+s6o8n SxgojMraIH+GZDqmxmQKb5JsOc1/QKhhdkCpUUqLDUJu8+TS+i+jRjJQ5ZwyfBvuOLU7 ufc1mXW5sbg89p2ewQG6pN2sCvp4oi5qzbET/fdMo+bfr1e76h6d+FGangI2UpL6D0by CObsLU9rfO5kvXF+yDf3dZl/k5FSmU7NauKb49bj1Hnz69IGJtJZ9rdAkzPsdwFinjHY Xc9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXZqzQ/8TIgpDiNdbFta/WIybq5rd3knWv+kZJ0h6vwNiAox3kv sdPfeofRCWDdn/9/x/K9+J5fuPu76gKjANsg5ME=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy4BaavXn7RlKH1NTDftiI0q1rHjtlRt9nNY2y0L/NHQPONJsieRp4u//nKi/ac3j5kaxB4ISHxq2pDZbykP3c=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2d62:: with SMTP id o31mr20319456qta.370.1553506980959; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 02:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <04C556AF-D3B3-41A5-B119-8FE5F81FB9A7@huitema.net> <1878722055.8877.1553241201213@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <CABcZeBPmpN-cEPK92QQW3bkvc41Cx5g7B_YuUXCJK3j1qF995Q@mail.gmail.com> <20190322.101434.307385973.sthaug@nethelp.no> <32A78B0C-52B6-46E5-A46F-D63D21DEC52C@sky.uk> <CAOdDvNqb2+4Az+g608QRjYt+ZdUt1L9GAc=MJM3-xd0ZNmeBEQ@mail.gmail.com> <1C720263-10E4-423B-B152-5673E115A4C1@gmail.com> <CAOdDvNrQiM2bpi65tCvwjanQTM1KtcZjRL0aOwS2oAryTR-YEA@mail.gmail.com> <E7E54A3B-4C85-4B64-BEFD-51891534DC9D@gmail.com> <CAOdDvNqKja9SRWa7FpjnGR3XZbVwZbitoU0yuWc+oXw3xXFEQA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH1iCirtvx2eipt65+TbazZ1f4uKiu6HA2PjVmPiAkGjN-hbEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNoKGVhNkdacKUTefa40f_spxjvmDsbd5g78+A9TBuUdKg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNoKGVhNkdacKUTefa40f_spxjvmDsbd5g78+A9TBuUdKg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:42:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH1iCirbM=8NJhAqS73+hF824z--8-gYmg55Phq9i-S7X4SoDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Cc: "Winfield, Alister" <Alister.Winfield=40sky.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>, "wjhns1@hardakers.net" <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>, "huitema@huitema.net" <huitema@huitema.net>, "vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org" <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c198ae0584e80716"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jvVQ7J-6aVBzTvMRni4teJqTKK0>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Doh] [EXTERNAL] Re: New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:43:05 -0000

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:31 AM Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>;
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 9:37 AM Brian Dickson <
> brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> \Other than blocking all-but-a-few (or all, or a few) DoT servers, I do
>> not believe anyone has proposed explicit downgrade triggers.
>>
>
> that's the downgrade I am referring to
>
>
>
>> Or do you mean, when a DoT connection is blocked by e.g. a firewall (or
>> other network enforcement device), that an RST is generated? I believe the
>> RST requires sequence number validation before it can be processed by the
>> TCP stack, which means the entity doing the RST generally needs to be in
>> the data path. Other than "lucky guess" or "high volume attempts", I don't
>> believe RST to be a serious threat.
>>
>
> path manipulation attacks are real. arp attacks.. bootp attacks.. rouge
> access points. stingray. all kinds of things. unauthenticated network
> packets are just that: unauthenticated. RST (or blackhole) is a good
> indication that a path isn't going to work - its not a good indication of
> who is expressing that policy (or whether it is a policy at all).
>
> Anyhow - I'm really not trying to amp up this thread.. I just felt that
> there were a few relevant points to the discussion that had not been
> introduced.
>

Okay, that's good to know, and I think we are in agreement (i.e. that
inference is a poor substitute for declarations.)

I think that this is an area that needs thought and mechanism development,
possibly aligned with DoT/DoH operation, possibly not (or orthogonal to
them).

Brian