Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 09 May 2021 18:26 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 9F1973A198F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 May 2021 11:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-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 behcrUIYSZZj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 May 2021 11:26:33 -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 0C9443A198E for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 May 2021 11:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FdXh13vKcz5LB; Sun, 9 May 2021 20:26:25 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1620584785; bh=b2uUji4UzvgBqwFPR8A659xQ0ynsd8XJZ9P80ZhhyxA=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=ZQYBGNM8TYqJouRYTz8TjfY8ZplpI9isqFOvsELb5GgRRYmr2kmjiMb6bj7klZ9jx VwqYnODNQpls6VqE73AKbeRHbFQsJiF2QNKbOtztAKx+ExHD8wbKB6qQ7Fq4sJc+4C i1f3g/5hIqqubFMfpXtmgT2y5nCv2GNJW54rhfDQ=
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 G4Mlz7DWG-dm; Sun, 9 May 2021 20:26:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 9 May 2021 20:26:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [193.110.157.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1DED565D2; Sun, 9 May 2021 14:26:22 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 09 May 2021 14:26:21 -0400
Message-Id: <0822E56B-E118-4BB9-964A-822750EBD6A1@nohats.ca>
References: <CAKW6Ri4EwbH8fNgXZtSot4mU9Y4K3ktX7sRoAOxhmndpRUeBNg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, Pieter Lexis <pieter.lexis@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKW6Ri4EwbH8fNgXZtSot4mU9Y4K3ktX7sRoAOxhmndpRUeBNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dick Franks <rwfranks@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18E212)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/pb3t9BVydsR1JPTyiyC0siq4_-E>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-05.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: Sun, 09 May 2021 18:26:38 -0000

On May 9, 2021, at 08:02, Dick Franks <rwfranks@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>    $ORIGIN example.com
>    @   SVCB   1 foo
> key6="\032\001\013\184\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\\\\,\000"
>    ; a.k.a.   ipv6hint=2001:db8::5c5c:2c00

This is all pretty terrible. I agree with Tim that we should not inflict this onto the users. Or perhaps we can already pre-allocate some CVE numbers for the security issues this will generate.

Keep the record simple, we are not going for Turing complete here. I recommend to authors take this discussion as advise to improve / simplify this aspect of the draft.

Paul