Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-information-00.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 29 October 2019 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 E1419120128 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 qXHolkBfXI0f for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B512120119 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472nGf1WvWzG67; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 00:04:42 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1572390282; bh=AgM6oSfl2svrLbF7IF6j+XOXAf347cWBGsJwp2d14IM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ODYxNZq7CMdr7tQPVAsMxNjR19R3vzP4TVhsnGNbCygev4eFA+7itzWiWIhPQccYZ A/R/LkEkBImtf/r4bxzugLdta/7nedvnFz+4Cfz0NlM43IzpvfKBeFkVo3WIfdUuZ4 sAbkIjXdNUzWpDguSOJ5HGHrN0NqRvpcrUoQQT4I=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4VFvgKd3h0rE; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 00:04:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 00:04:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0B05A606AA31; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07AFA65F01; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Neil Cook <neil.cook@noware.co.uk>
cc: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <54A6311E-E688-4357-AC14-8A9ACBC1D6FF@noware.co.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910291903230.1249@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <156624288737.19884.5252170663574668911@ietfa.amsl.com> <A8482079-FC91-414D-B0EF-E016606E9093@noware.co.uk> <34CACD4F-554A-4736-BD53-36D980B5A5A5@noware.co.uk> <CAMGpriWD_dOADk4=OKFzVZn8KT9RC_A1v3jQDq6oDLuRB3K9yg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsCng7tG=qNjDv23xzRU+_-_QD-4a_NvKzGDAHmGO4PA5Q@mail.gmail.com> <54A6311E-E688-4357-AC14-8A9ACBC1D6FF@noware.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/jwaf8k8x24GCNdhA7jIupBv5UqA>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-information-00.txt
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: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 23:04:46 -0000

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019, Neil Cook wrote:

>       FWIW, I've previously stated a preference for dropping the use of ".well-known" entirely, and using draft-00's "resolver-info.arpa" name instead of reverse-IP, in order to improve support for
>       passive forwarders.  I understand this was changed in the hope of offering some kind of security here with DNSSEC, but I think it's unlikely to work in practice, and we're better off keeping
>       things simple.
> 
> 
> I completely agree. I’d much rather see something like "resolver-info.arpa" instead of reverse-IP.

Throwing DNSSEC under the bus for a "simpler" name seems rather
excessive. I for one would like to see DNSSEC in the reverse
support when possible. For a future where not everything is
chained to a single all-powerful LetsEncrypt root CA.

Paul