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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 22 August 2018 03:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 D8CF6128CB7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 D5ze8cIXuPew for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:11:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22a.google.com (mail-it0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88866130F67 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id s7-v6so1182820itb.4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PVLFkiuxfDr+1UUvOESFYU+mGpMm4KCcgp7ce8+wIYw=; b=1U9cO9LyB6K+Qz2owy42P6g0gg295c/56njtWrp2/tqngzZEtuHFGJLSDyGuKKc67W axvnR+EmBV6kd9pOdP11nBQ5QldKWC1KAyoHDuxtJpUazvwuUcRPL2EGeRUEQf8vhVUF /5SlKANA4yI9ceIKc/7iABM6YYw61idTBXMrH/26Dy8dd58ekgQmCR1goJYfnROVfpzH AHZeOcRYlyEzGX/phUzHNM67SZehn90cUPfD69LAsjnBFaKxdnbi4Qg4Vg3+EAzAXkMI SB2jFqz3zuT0WyXM0JcKLc7WywfDVEmUo9j/BbVrgmkcI4DSSm2k+jMRxQhHk+2tjyEx nBpg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PVLFkiuxfDr+1UUvOESFYU+mGpMm4KCcgp7ce8+wIYw=; b=fZhurrGDAPXzPfARw5HxnLb+Zau6A47BtLXjJsZJbmyjNi5PpkaRKDlIgDmp8m4k/m t2A+54VHfsxOY2mUbgeqLpcE0Ws/Mzl23B7QUl67bsSKEvus4r/aru871oHQ7CD9p8Xv Du9e7VZc28UyDDtKtKdQFGL31e8eo+ayhxV7wH0RHpBq2nYFpiwDMpWPukYy7e0U57+P yp7w+t+giLRFBulyPCCHMlJNHflHeM3ZBnqAafNLwQKw2XMiZ9YQUQ3yq9TQtXPIY6j8 lN/nurXXP34xoJPWlNidabwqoWpVc63nvPWVko9HJouQl5vl7+lJla1MDovXZcKvqQhD NVlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51APj/RG5JJ3x783nKsy7g2hBrAjissprYY9Jks0yTyhFh8i3F4d BlYzL0vDPMWP1Qpg1HPErvCIgZiwB2qqw8A5T3RlRwZY
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYxwr+6A4aQXSTWfUgA5V/2hjZqQDEJid79vt5ojMlUbJeSpQJ4a1DGv9PVkYEk/mA/Ot8yv8hkMRLbaLDIBxI=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:c445:: with SMTP id v66-v6mr1798263itf.110.1534907472762; Tue, 21 Aug 2018 20:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <eda78918-31ee-80dc-ea51-7467d4a8e23a@dougbarton.us>
In-Reply-To: <eda78918-31ee-80dc-ea51-7467d4a8e23a@dougbarton.us>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 23:11:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1nMPo7pd0f_F16svP71dtx5F+2Xez-R9K9FeWkSC+Rnsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ad72e40573fd7ecc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zfiqyuKC_9229OZRMtv0pNnxH8w>
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 03:11:17 -0000

We aren’t even talking about the same thing. I’m talking about figuring out
whether we need to offer guidance for how a host implementation would
handle conflicting information and, if so, what guidance to offer.  You are
talking about one of a number of different ways of configuring DoT.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:04 PM Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>