Re: [Doh] Request for the DOH WG to adopt draft-hoffman-resolver-associated-doh

"A. Schulze" <sca@andreasschulze.de> Wed, 16 January 2019 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <sca@andreasschulze.de>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC76130E91 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:46:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=andreasschulze.de header.b=swkw+Orh; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=andreasschulze.de header.b=mq/QCXX+
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 yUqCqCb0hAPY for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:46:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta.somaf.de (mta.somaf.de [IPv6:2001:470:77b3:103::25]) (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 63C7B130E8E for <doh@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:46:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=andreasschulze.de; i=@andreasschulze.de; q=dns/txt; s=ed25519; t=1547664375; h=subject : to : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : from : date; bh=TaIBUPQcTw/qH0DypwPCktMNtIb2a4isSdELDuYFIQQ=; b=swkw+OrhtK1/L607CBXrY4QH8TH8ylJUYP40q3IpdyNJsa/1z3QX8w7O bPZelE/92ZVXdWtoAf4FrVyXEx6CCQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=andreasschulze.de; s=20181220-DFA7; t=1547664375; x=1552664375; bh=TaIBUPQcTw/qH0DypwPCktMNtIb2a4isSdELDuYFIQQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:from:reply-to:subject:date:to:cc:content-type: message-id; b=mq/QCXX+p1QtK+seAtZ/ROTFEJjUfBg7avbNV4clF4dK5PACO5ooofkMId4PLO2k8 u0b+NF5ueUrGpfv7DT+EkXQFbb8KwFXDHII3NRV9MHLSt6y9yeC5uWAe0y1vb763A+ GjIYq2FB7QtdAM8F+UHO0XiOxvzQiW9E2EOcOzqEGjBY+Lm/K54aMH1YXWiYdwZ7zD Zo1FOBNIwHbrQ1O/d5Vvkt4DBk8udwCeaFBOtP/4/PgK/jusHavvNYUUMxzdH2jWgU l5ysU9ykhb7XOaLWgFNDafqMZ6HUeJTW+zPuTI3HLreGW1QapKcvG7lEE+436MvYCv kOKHMl3Xmxv7A==
To: doh@ietf.org
References: <8999D6F3-600E-4F1A-903C-10F8CAA6E4F3@icann.org> <6f2860bd-2a7f-01b5-2ec9-9667d71e3f38@andreasschulze.de> <CAHbrMsAB4GaUJXY1VyQVc0QonY9afGUzWdT5znPw+K4M2V=kNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "A. Schulze" <sca@andreasschulze.de>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <2d1f4c8b-d157-d775-d4fa-8414257170b6@andreasschulze.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 19:45:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsAB4GaUJXY1VyQVc0QonY9afGUzWdT5znPw+K4M2V=kNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/0lA891DpuIJaN6KhNiBiGo6W9TI>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Request for the DOH WG to adopt draft-hoffman-resolver-associated-doh
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:46:19 -0000


Am 16.01.19 um 19:28 schrieb Ben Schwartz:
> DNS over TLS already supports a way for clients to upgrade from unencrypted DNS, by probing port 853 on the server's IP address.  I presume that's why DNS over TLS discovery was not mentioned in this draft.  Is probing port 853 sufficient for your use case?

Ah! right!
port probing is _the_ obvious option I failed to see.
A short sentence in the spec shouldn't hurt...

Andreas