Re: [DNSOP] Draft for dynamic discovery of secure resolvers

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Wed, 22 August 2018 03:03 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 EBB0F130DE2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dougbarton.us
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 HnGNqaSngDD6 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dougbarton.us (dougbarton.us [IPv6:2607:f2f8:ab14::2]) (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 2E3071277D2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.247] (71-9-84-238.dhcp.snbr.ca.charter.com [71.9.84.238]) by dougbarton.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A19CE79C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:03:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dougbarton.us; s=dkim; t=1534907017; bh=ta+ZeQcgXy+ER9izlCgbVrbYJSMlcUTfUcASUYmJy0o=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=eWDW2QI9L9U8oumNumC27FRZfU3niu6YQtPvOw2DE1J7dDnWyn2GMRManMfsMUA/W oLX4n3MTv/AmIZcWF98g8LIjGj/kHY5oiZURPYS3373Cvn2fansX2jxO5J2O0ssVM2 YryWQQqMmKKaxgPqyHWBU6Q9qIqxoSMvqZJVAq90=
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CAC=TB13mUH2SDxFb4c3rOz0-Z6PE_r9i84_xK=dmLxiVr45+tA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808201720060.3596@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <23C2BA0B-B4A7-49F2-9FFD-90B90E2928B5@bangj.com> <56B7EA81-A840-4320-BDD0-781E9D999904@vpnc.org> <39906e2a-8c20-1a5e-c31b-baf5c3f7d7c4@dougbarton.us> <CAPt1N1nAm62ckNQjii3N6Df1ByQTo+d8Tmc9ifuBMVBmeDkj2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Message-ID: <eda78918-31ee-80dc-ea51-7467d4a8e23a@dougbarton.us>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:03:36 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1nAm62ckNQjii3N6Df1ByQTo+d8Tmc9ifuBMVBmeDkj2w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nig-6zNCkz3Epk3bh1Oc1TRWqqY>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft for dynamic discovery of secure resolvers
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 03:03:40 -0000

On 08/21/2018 05:48 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us 
> <mailto:dougb@dougbarton.us>> wrote:
> 
>     You, like Ted, are looking at the problem the wrong way 'round.
> 
> And this, in a nutshell, is why this discussion has gone on so long.  
>   If you just caricature what the people you're conversing with say, 
> then it's inevitably going to go like this:

[ Snipped a bunch of arguments I didn't make ]

> This is why discussions balloon in the IETF.   So now I have the choice 
> of either being silenced, or continuing to be Person A in this charade.  
>   I think I've spoken my peace.   If you want to proceed with this work, 
> please do not be surprised if, when the call for adoption comes, I come 
> in and say "I raised substantive objections to this, which were not 
> addressed, so please do not take this on as a working group item."

Ted,

While I'm not concerned about the issues you raised in your caricature, 
I feel that I have tried to engage you in your discussion of different 
security models. My understanding is that your models devolve down to 
two. Either the user configures a resolver themselves (whether it's 
DOH/DOT or not), and user doesn't configure a resolver themselves. I 
recognize the distinction you made between your models 1 and 3, and 
further recognize that it's extremely important to some people. My point 
is that *from the standpoint of a DHCP option for DOH/DOT* it's not 
relevant.

 From our discussion, it seems that you're in agreement with me that if 
a user isn't configuring a resolver explicitly that they are no worse 
off with DOH/DOT than they are without it. Am I right so far?

Meanwhile, you've also voiced an opinion that the presence of a DHCP 
option implies some sort of endorsement by the IETF. I (and others) 
replied that we've never heard of this, and disagree strongly with your 
position.

So other than the fact that we disagree on the endorsement issue, what 
am I missing here?

Doug