Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis: hopefully ready for WG Last Call

Ralph Dolmans <ralph@nlnetlabs.nl> Fri, 23 October 2020 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ralph@nlnetlabs.nl>
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 D1ED83A0B78 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 03:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 lNv19h5ye-Pa for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 03:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.soverin.net (outbound.soverin.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:fff0:2d:8::215]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A2EC3A0B74 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 03:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (unknown [10.10.3.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound.soverin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BABC601C8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:25:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.soverin.net (smtp.soverin.net [159.69.232.142]) by soverin.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=soverin; t=1603448709; bh=/QIHFa8a2G+sxg7Gj3ITobYOhK3jYYT05OEKIg9mJns=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ScCLHPZ8S9PS0shWeSI1G01BLTNFm4phiQrgd2i/bzJ4T1tipH3bEQ+4or8vTL8nr 1ObpWa+tGzlb67iFMGkarFUwvHaIJRYanQlc8ZY0ufY/BwfNVRYpbjkvy7o2kR8ngY XFZYwSnuJsRFXu0SygzocLvYPC0JNYD28cGufjFfW5IK2EXS5g/C20qTo0Wp3c8my2 /BsImcYBLFJSvQfRS9lBOasp+7AT4XIbCbQzUcOt7F3L3V2QJpKBeG1i1aL4UlwRme eTdeOZqA0XxpUTxqgJ4WcW58SsC8g1Wz/zdDEebrR+59eVFRU+5rBtAK5l78HjKXX7 xkAk7U2gghFJA==
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <C0C343BA-D0A6-46A0-90C8-053793BC5F40@icann.org> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2010141752020.8465@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <e81e62a5-747a-201d-0892-f498ef89e7a0@nlnetlabs.nl> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2010222307480.4712@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
From: Ralph Dolmans <ralph@nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <95f5d284-e73d-5601-6566-aafd82ffb0b1@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 12:25:09 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2010222307480.4712@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/lnE7IF9RDlv-M5gzqg69XjPi0W4>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis: hopefully ready for WG Last Call
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: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:25:15 -0000


On 23-10-2020 00:12, Tony Finch wrote:
> Ralph Dolmans <ralph@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback, appreciated!
> 
> Thanks for the response!
> 
> I thought of another thing:
> 
> Some of the points in section 5 (on limiting the number of queries and the
> performance downsides) should be discussed in section 7 (security
> considerations). In particular QNAME minimization can amplify query volume
> so it can be abused to make random subdomain attacks worse, though that
> can be mitigated by RFC 8020 NXDOMAIN.

Mentioning it in the security considerations makes sense. Note that
RFC8020 won't help you here when the answer is synthesized using a
wildcard, which is also why the example in section 5 has a wildcard
record. Happy to make this more explicit in the text.

Thanks,
Ralph