Re: [DNSOP] New draft for consideration:

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Mon, 25 March 2019 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mcmanus@ducksong.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 8D2AC120380 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 02:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ducksong.com header.b=MB2O/Ksr; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outbound.mailhop.org header.b=h695wSlS
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 5Hwi4C-QiY0j for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 02:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound2r.ore.mailhop.org (outbound2r.ore.mailhop.org [54.200.129.228]) (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 7AF78120373 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 02:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1553505426; cv=none; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=arc-outbound20181012; b=hN/rB0pTY3AU3qG1VxkSbYAQZFgpUTX6wjl5kRKTIxNLb1VQArpAwQ42OL0rDRxt7HzNsHAb3RIyL i9t5YiXdRqoJHBHSvmmfy1MVJT4B2eaDQiQk5XP9gn32g1PO8CzJCPOleX5GxdPoPCkSNTC1dS1j1q pKLyZNGt/1Gze80+cAb1zgbaKWeThdZ2mUdw+pD8ka27SJpK6hPPv44SVsRl1qswLtZwCyo7tVbF7n 1UMgE4Nr9gudq33LFJaywmYAOSG58IlW+/znpSUbq4HgQl2wwVyMYGzbgG+X7XYL+2qSZuO3TIi7rY GybDv7EAuEXYjPCNwbCMXZrNZwxZVPg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=arc-outbound20181012; h=content-type:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references: mime-version:dkim-signature:dkim-signature:from; bh=19esYfRE0E8PQA1hKZTEUKCCZPtiLOSN5JOOlwMADY4=; b=n5Jb1zia4F999DDTiW9NziuluIB9VMlCEEQoSiputCIQr6iOJpfathYL8b6yQcQOYKR9UHXil1MsM Qlf0LolwryNwIgUcfPiqGVm120sAZVwWyct2iddkLRi9aehlXqo/rgaeBgs1MtEUst9Bwefi3Cn0O2 MNSIbTkvV7pJWqO6wvXsk205aJ2F7WfcrMkPJWpBHWUW4G6V+A4JxofQ0t/kBhLUMy/nG4IEGsjPUu X87ZyAB0NdLidYJzK3s5RU/Komjkdl7huZurfkXD72XPxckwF8j+D70MZzBI5jbA/m0RTdatPbxhqo tkq2eLMzcKSRCenICPS+4IVBiYx+CQg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; outbound4.ore.mailhop.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ducksong.com smtp.remote-ip=209.85.210.50; dmarc=none header.from=ducksong.com; arc=none header.oldest-pass=0;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ducksong.com; s=duo-1537391512170-ea99bbb3; h=content-type:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references: mime-version:from; bh=19esYfRE0E8PQA1hKZTEUKCCZPtiLOSN5JOOlwMADY4=; b=MB2O/KsrvvIev8HbWnhMaMn9/J2DyUSQ7KWk14HdGlkC95Nrw1/M1vP9XDbrCAXgq4Gg7BFc6HJr3 gLnHO6eGTg+ywBopFpWOBsL3pX/XmtxFY5QA71a7l9lYLiqgjKUmH85VLnmf0k+P3YsfjYD8QBWlGP m2UM9bgo9GZwGA28=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=dkim-high; h=content-type:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references: mime-version:from; bh=19esYfRE0E8PQA1hKZTEUKCCZPtiLOSN5JOOlwMADY4=; b=h695wSlSaHpdMfGw/PkRaKjQPmkLWnyt2v39SCEa2XgfJAtmn/2jOo1valz8elMdgKRCCQJ2hFC/C fC2uHAq5IJkiFqBtt33wAenQ5DMlaEtTGnRdKSwL6K0t80Iot61p9DFyPOI3K6U8EVnMs46Sg4zjsr /AdBm/MqHqz3lNe8E0dI7O0ixMkkNbWQ2wIWsYdjpwdfiDio+QGNETQC8cQr3IZdNrdyrSwxzoPg4a RGPqIXwnalLad0R9s1SAEIGZes++pLmLpG7dUIFbynI4jJFGvLL2ZMyAEhTXDJlVzL5Kbq/CM+nNB9 QiTGwmZ2w2WfCucToRNFNA6Sf3HjrYg==
X-MHO-RoutePath: bWNtYW51cw==
X-MHO-User: c14a8e65-4ede-11e9-befd-af03bedce89f
X-Report-Abuse-To: https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information
X-Originating-IP: 209.85.210.50
X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP
Received: from mail-ot1-f50.google.com (unknown [209.85.210.50]) by outbound4.ore.mailhop.org (Halon) with ESMTPSA id c14a8e65-4ede-11e9-befd-af03bedce89f; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:17:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ot1-f50.google.com with SMTP id d24so7312476otl.11 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 02:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXXOvYiYuWNZ+NMz5FDbK3tklSAMqLshOf8LtNhEOP2aZcB2ZM7 0DAituPp1qcyec5UciyfM/BZD882vKFeRbRy4WA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzABBN6gRjN+fO585EyvchyO5JOOFNQ8ct6f1J3oRZ3ouiqDQG5xb0+u9XV5+PWGSN2r39+fFM+THgh0xLNj3o=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:183:: with SMTP id q3mr17993285ota.204.1553505424248; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 02:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E2267015-0A5F-4D6E-85F0-3FA93348CA79@icann.org> <1743613011.14034.1553503089731@appsuite.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <1743613011.14034.1553503089731@appsuite.open-xchange.com>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:16:53 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqua5idXfxUC4kT=NoobwNmmzPfg+zD4qYi9SFSZhJe2A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqua5idXfxUC4kT=NoobwNmmzPfg+zD4qYi9SFSZhJe2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f8150b0584e7aac4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/m-DtHhyM7kOOQQixvtNK14sglXI>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] New draft for consideration:
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 09:17:11 -0000

ts nice to have a thread where bike shedding of terms is actually on topic,
and the point of the draft.

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 9:39 AM Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=
40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:

> >
> I don't know if these terms are already defined somewhere else, but the
> distinction that I've found most useful in the DoH discussion is "local
> resolver" (i.e. the one provided on/by the local network the user connects
> to) vs "remote resolver" (i.e. any other resolver, requiring traffic to go
> beyond the Internet access provider's network). Some of the issues happen,
> and already happen today, as soon as the user adopts a remote resolver,
> even with plain old DNS.
>
>
I agree with you that this is the important logical distinction. My only
quibble is that local and remote can have varied (and multiple) scopes - so
its a little hard to apply the terms concretely.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Access Network Resolver and Network
Independent Resolver to capture the same idea.

[I originally sent this note by accident to Vittoria without a cc to the
list. Sorry Vittorio for the dup!]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 9:39 AM Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=
40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:

> > Il 24 marzo 2019 alle 7.42 Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>; ha
> scritto:
> >
> >
> > Greetings again. As y'all have seen over the past few weeks, the
> discussion of where DNS resolution should happen and over what transports
> has caused some people to use conflicting terms. As a possible solution to
> the terminology problems, I am proposing a few abbreviations that people
> can use in these discussions. The draft below, if adopted by the DNSOP WG,
> would update RFC 8499 with a small set of abbreviations.
>
> I don't know if these terms are already defined somewhere else, but the
> distinction that I've found most useful in the DoH discussion is "local
> resolver" (i.e. the one provided on/by the local network the user connects
> to) vs "remote resolver" (i.e. any other resolver, requiring traffic to go
> beyond the Internet access provider's network). Some of the issues happen,
> and already happen today, as soon as the user adopts a remote resolver,
> even with plain old DNS.
>
> I agree that another set of problems derives instead from applications
> using a resolver different than the one configured in the operating system,
> which may or may not be the local resolver. So it's fine to define a couple
> of terms like "DaT" and "DaO", though I don't really like these two
> acronyms :-) In my draft I introduce the terms "network-level name
> resolution", "application-level name resolution" and "application-level
> resolver selection". They are not acronyms, but I think they would be more
> understandable in a discussion than more and more acronyms.
>
> (I don't even like "Do53", I think "unencrypted DNS" or "plain DNS" is
> just clearer.)
>
> Ciao,
> --
>
> Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
> vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com
> Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>