Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] New I-D: draft-reid-doh-operator

[Matthew Pounsett <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 07:38, Joe Abley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> [There is actually a proposal at the bottom of this e-mail. Bear with me.]
>

And it's a good proposal!


>
> Standardise this privacy mechanism, and specify (with reasoning) that it
> should be implemented such that the existence of the channel (but not the
> content) can be identified as distinct from other traffic by third parties.
> Maybe specify use of a different port number, as was done with DoT.
>

I think this would alleviate most people's concerns... certainly it deals
wth mine.  I have difficulty believing it is acceptable to pro-DoH
community though, considering the first of the two use-cases defined in the
Introduction of RFC8484: "... preventing on-path devices from interfering
with DNS operations..."

I eagerly welcome the -bis document that removes this statement, and
defines a new port number which DoH traffic SHOULD use.

Those who choose to ignore that direction and create a covert channel using
> port 443 instead will do so. Nothing much we can do to stop that today (I
> guarantee it is already happening). The future is not really different.
>

Indeed.  If everyone above-board is using port 5443 (to pull a number out
of the air) for their DoH traffic, the below-board usage should be about as
visible as any such usage is today.

Of course when people shift the focus of the conversation from DoH in
> general to resolverless DNS, and want to interleave DNS messages with HTML
> and cat GIFs over the same HTTPS bundles, the pitchforks will need to come
> out again. So keep them handy.
>

I don't actually own a pitchfork, but I'll keep my Woodsman's Pal sharp. :)

>
>