IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] [Ext] Re: Associating a DoH server with a resolver

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 25 October 2018 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 6CDBA1277D2 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 n7QBbTQUNeUo for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8965E126F72 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2332; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540490288; x=1541699888; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=TxG/mTEIaK4K0hMOqdViNOx+8zquJWBTJCCvXBwQcwI=; b=gM2vr2XdXo9Tf1577fu39Ak7G9xu6L9URj5F6VK4cwKKbUSPX/EsEi89 dBJg8u7nen6zLoNGIqXBag9QzBAfsdZv/8fiW6sCtnL42tAH9sHr7CTdH /VcjwY6MN1BrzkdejA0ad6Wg77SmZ35lnKvrnEzPejdoqzbB9tHkWowVn 0=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BUAAAeA9Jb/xbLJq1jGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBZQKDaIQdiHeNRpkWCAWEbAKDMjgWAQMBAQIBAQJtKEIBDgGEaQEFI08HEAsYKgICVwYBDAgBAYMdAYIBp2mBLooOD4JtiRCCAIE4gj0uhGiDGYJXAp52CYQUgW+KdAYYgUOHeocGlwmBWiGBVTMaCBsVgyiQWD2FN4c8AQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.54,425,1534809600"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="7536177"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Oct 2018 17:58:06 +0000
Received: from [10.61.168.239] ([10.61.168.239]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w9PHw5ZQ003739; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:58:06 GMT
To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
Cc: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <02C39DFD-9550-447D-B00E-702B441A88BE@icann.org> <CABkgnnV2YMtcdOyMfE2NMH4L1ZbK4dcp1KQt3FttCfz-nfQd6A@mail.gmail.com> <C82FBB08-8DAA-4C50-8934-576596C2532F@icann.org> <CAOdDvNoPL0FB2s9MbLPOU1LneYsHrW39E24g+1U8hkcdgNBLaw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=lear@cisco.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBFMe1UQBCADdYOS5APDpIpF2ohAxB+nxg1GpAYr8iKwGIb86Wp9NkK5+QwbW9H035clT lpVLciExtN8E3MCTPOIm7aITPlruixAVwlBY3g7U9eRppSw9O2H/7bie2GOnYxqmsw4v1yNZ 9NcMLlD8raY0UcQ5r698c8JD4xUTLqybZXaK2sPeJkxzT+IwupRSQ+vXEvFFGhERQ88zo5Ca Sa1Gw/Rv54oH0Dq2XYkO41rhxQ60BKZLZuQK1d9+1y3I+An3AJeD3AA31fJZD3H8YRKOBgqe ILPILbw1mM7gCtCjfvFCt6AFCwEsjITGx55ceoQ+t5B5XGYJEppMWsIFrwZsfbL+gP31ABEB AAHNJUVsaW90IExlYXIgPGxlYXJAb2Zjb3Vyc2VpbXJpZ2h0LmNvbT7CwJEEEwECADsCGwMC HgECF4ACGQEWIQSY0L2QRh2wkqeyYR2HtmtG2dJ6MwUCWxJwMwULCQgHAgYVCAkKCwIEFgID AQAKCRCHtmtG2dJ6MyMyCACXvtFjAYGMtOkD9MD4nI3ifFpkrj8xTMbXjrv5hdqmzRmQ0wqA 1U/OlZux+P/NaVMiZNZc8zw0nsx/INAqDOVd4/tLWF+ywTkeRFR0VnaUxLwCReZAZOaRS+md +52u/6ddoFja2RnjZ43qbbuvVUARQVIyMJz+GbR6mEZQHR0psD7dDYZDyrpivCxm8zHQwmB6 AZUlO7OJgljDvVPVDCabg/ZnJw1qS0OzSiNb0MySk1D5A7FdwDgeKxuMYUOOoVVTTMWNWcME UkRX9LxElswEt0PQWiz/j3FYXTxiFfl/1vKcHx4pM+E5C5mhTbrdFUFLJC3Y5fLID7stK/Ch aEaBzsBNBFMe1UQBCAC0WV7Ydbv95xYGPhthTdChBIpPtl7JPCV/c6/3iEmvjpfGuFNaK4Ma cj9le20EA5A1BH7PgLGoHOiPM65NysRpZ96RRVX3TNfLmhGMFr5hPOGNdq+xcGHVutmwPV9U 7bKeUNRiPFx3YdEkExddqV2E8FltT0x2FSKe2xszPPHB6gVtMckX5buI9p1K3fbVhXdvEkcY Y/jB0JEJGyhS5aEbct5cHUvDAkT81/YFK5Jfg8RRwu1q1t1YuIJSOWAZQ9J9oUsg6D9RpClU +tIFBoe3iTp1AUfJcypucGKgLYKtpu/aygcpQONHYkYW5003mPsrajFhReVF5veycMbHs4u5 ABEBAAHCwF8EGAECAAkFAlMe1UQCGwwACgkQh7ZrRtnSejOSuQgA27p2rYB7Kh20dym6V8c6 2pWpBHHTgxr/32zevxHSiXl6xvUCg5T8WUwfUk8OvgDcBErK/blDAMXQzSg3sp450JhR8RnX HXF5Zz2T04X7HnlIVJGwf2CjnwyEAJCqMzaCmI+g3Imvg/8L4nyBFvhlFHDv+kIvMiujyycj PAu7xxKplBs1/IEwmDoAMjneFmawvfeQnwdMhSKK8PjKSuzGU5uUmxj3GBfRqvTM0qpmhMPF OmDhJSmH55HLAky2MlmqJYXJPt/9EfSEhFiua1M6gLiuNEuPkp+8jcnHQqKr0IeHt8UqcwLt 2mGfIyl0FVdF9hvWPjNRzGbgqoT1Di03RQ==
Message-ID: <f1f96e74-9d84-2f7a-7d06-732e8985d058@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:58:04 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNoPL0FB2s9MbLPOU1LneYsHrW39E24g+1U8hkcdgNBLaw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tu92tlw787BN5dRCGrXuiSETYPbzcQ494"
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.168.239, [10.61.168.239]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/60TThBzg5wiFCPh8ulRPWmzWLVQ>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] Re: Associating a DoH server with a resolver
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: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:58:11 -0000

On 24.10.18 18:09, Patrick McManus wrote:
>
> However I disagree with the premise of the work - browsers I have
> spoken with do not seek to find a DoH version of a resolver that was
> discovered from a broadcast address over a network that wasn't
> authenticated in the first place and has an unknown trust relationship
> with the user in the second case.

If you're referring to DHCP, I think it's worth stepping through the
entire trust model and comparing before we get to sweeping generalizations.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email