Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-xpf-04.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 15 March 2018 14:45 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 916BC12D88F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 mODJIbgP9Ejt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::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 130B9126BF3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 07:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402BFy4PHkz3HC; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:45:10 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1521125110; bh=r0ZGlnoBULEHZ5GoSweZjpg6lQHWdi2VSrllxAUZCX0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=TYeJyKNI2r11v+EB7CcNAejrhvKQLkhOZAI0H/apn62Z8CXOuEupIzCU6VDR1IlPQ u3PSm+2t5z0MucWJ6g1Trro0uag0QJFGAwIO+zvorlvr0wGsYACLpgTs2EgGRbn4+b 32mH/ZPNUCBUBGMg90qZFWddOWuAIqfVN+SX1ny8=
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 1C7b_c6Y2S1o; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:45:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:45:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 22B7330B3EC; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:45:04 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 22B7330B3EC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9014023304; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:45:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:45:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
cc: dnsop@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <6eba7e54-468b-eae0-49c1-e60e48e00aa5@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1803151044161.5417@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <152026531853.14559.3697718467935375329.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <284032BE-285A-499D-906C-9C24E5901B25@powerdns.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1803141744550.16094@bofh.nohats.ca> <a68742d6-b8fe-df3a-0a9c-675967a14b4d@bellis.me.uk> <6eba7e54-468b-eae0-49c1-e60e48e00aa5@bellis.me.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/lu-bej9j7gFmABWVeSIgCvruLUw>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-xpf-04.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:45:17 -0000

On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Ray Bellis wrote:

>>> It could mention DNS-COOKIES as one way to avoid spoofing issues.
>>
>> That sounds like a good idea.
>
> On reflection (and discussion with one of my co-authors) we think that
> would be problematic.
>
> Don't forget that the issue here is non-spoofability of the internal
> channel _between the front-end forwarder and the back-end server_, and
> not end-to-end.

Makes sense. So forget about DNS-COOKIES :)

Paul