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

Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> Tue, 21 August 2018 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <pusateri@bangj.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 DD5FF130E67 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 p7rhet19-GKn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oj.bangj.com (amt0.gin.ntt.net [129.250.11.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CFCF130E4F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.244.195.212] (unknown [71.69.162.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by oj.bangj.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5CA323DF; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:35:55 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com>
In-Reply-To: <5B7C683A.9010209@redbarn.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:39:57 -0400
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DD5A4679-3D7E-4C65-A0C5-5F13AAA845A6@bangj.com>
References: <CAC=TB13mUH2SDxFb4c3rOz0-Z6PE_r9i84_xK=dmLxiVr45+tA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kj7Y0dPLeDk=PMqQEpAd-Mvds6VLT8XUC1BYOfdyUbJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC=TB125M81nwiCTNr8Vbee+Z7Fh_3L+6EdZ8evXVzP-2ji4fg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1n9hDUZQ-Ltvs73T20=fpG-FR_j-t4m0kMapDiv2Us1kw@mail.gmail.com> <5B78BFB9.40103@redbarn.org> <47508D79-0D49-4F31-9BA6-6DC80C38F1DE@cable.comcast.com> <ad1f6dff-ebcc-97a9-6f4b-1ed683827cc7@dougbarton.us> <1313743534.13562.1534765718802@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <9AFE57A7-1D27-4F86-9013-E3C63E63C582@hopcount.ca> <5B7AE322.3020201@redbarn.org> <CAPt1N1m-Xd-7rvgmk8GOsx34=1hsu76nmTgW-8krC3JF7i57KQ@mail.gmail.com> <265867956.15518.1534783313366@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <CAPt1N1myrdOywur35rXRab2QCrhFiJ0vS4wnT_Pof0epdOPz7A@mail.gmail.com> <471139805.18285.1534847636363@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <FBE862C5-6999-4D2F-A877-4ACDF1F5FBF1@virtualized.org> <5B7C5FDF.9040501@redbarn.org> <384B3B82-8423-45AA-8CC8-14C5D8DE9678@bangj.com> <5B7C683A.9010209@redbarn.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/vq4DMrGKe1M6cEZ_xrC2IliUkUM>
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: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:40:01 -0000

> On Aug 21, 2018, at 3:30 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
> 
> this, joyfully, is a very good question.
> 
> Tom Pusateri wrote:
> ....
>> Ok, so as Vladimír said, getting back to DHCP…
>> 
>> 1. You obviously don’t need a DoH URI option for DHCP. 2. You’re
>> comfortable with DNS over UDP/53 as long as DNS Cookies are present
>> and using the existing DHCP DNS options 3. You seem happy with the
>> Android approach of just trying DoT with the IP address learned via
>> standard DHCP DNS options
>> 
>> Why do you care about additional DHCP options?
> 
> in my previous explaination as to the security model i follow, i noted that the network paths to my dhcp server and my rdns servers were different, and that in the dhcp case i have far more observability and control than in the rdns case.
> 
> it should follow therefore that i do NOT want to use UDP/53 + Cookies unless there is no alternative. DoT will be preferred. (DTLS or SCTP would be even better, but i'm only picking from items now-on-menu.)

Since you can already do DoT today without an additional DHCP DNS option and adding that option will indisputably also come with a DoH URI option too, I would think you would be arguing against any new DHCP options for consistency.

Tom