Re: [Doh] Authentication in draft-ietf-doh-resolver-associated-doh-03.txt

Ben Schwartz <> Mon, 25 March 2019 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556B41203E3 for <>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.501 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, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z0vX98jUV98F for <>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E41A11203D6 for <>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i207so5699356vsd.10 for <>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fzuPmq/RESWsUmF1fBcW+WD0B5zpvGflJUq/fx+lFkY=; b=MTjKxu8ja+l9R73Lh7FsCkHuRTx9nW/nk+08RUULxVnMDNXpiK/6blN1cp6+gb0gvu kV+99gmPWRGAQSFo4KVMh0IO/J9IuqAWE+DDXfFSYJ9RFqUXkoodPE/CfZJHx/fKy3ko fLnz7pT2IdgvIfLCW87RLD1mJhwRPLB9N956erKfGRtNjkfAhjUaidgqoiexnyymhoOY hJP132ONHL+hKKzMXeaMm/LnFNQOynA96ulyxgOuXxa6Dmj4jwev81fRSj8dAzmuyhL7 tpOX7yPrX8ODYKUPZMEANm3TxRpQaMxLikNh3NnVQBjcf1BjDSBjnAGEAtcWP0VBYJd+ QKuw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fzuPmq/RESWsUmF1fBcW+WD0B5zpvGflJUq/fx+lFkY=; b=S27SYOcNYuTyqCy26CSDI4GaQChZpRR6DUBVGAwyaH1ucjqCaQLvM6YVxr2zXDqNbU Y97N7jSnfuXGzFiUemGQ1J24FHsoC1oqJOHjR3QyGgv5n0IbsGCnPlu167t42dPCAtwY isXv5DYFaFSyGvULCXnzUB+7QIpUxdGQome9hhv9M7Axj0NQnVRJPo+2mIgg7wSq40fM Ws7+B4nrAlHA2j3dhuPgdJragpnEIJTL3uvGRLmdDPe5VJLR+0zHs4DsIbm0ohqLFI7u gJH4Mz32qIRR2xblWDCF7LfFZejlWObv5dcfpR9vLnpCYawY0AToQLoxqBXODOZA2Ycy tXXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUR1BODG9e4viArHRcR0cQQP3HoTdqjTIUkXGdCVj2+aCp+Nefk kej5HU46vLsppqcbaMRDapQ1P9biZL+F48x9GhX8HQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwynJIZYCaOlMHx2nffp61neRWEK5AoEUmOLUfDKEXOCCZXaYwMWIJqV5O8yhfNSs5gqWd6sn4xJ9RPCF/umLI=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:f790:: with SMTP id j16mr15436696vso.232.1553530240698; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ben Schwartz <>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:10:29 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Cc: DoH WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="0000000000002b07f90584ed7204"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Authentication in draft-ietf-doh-resolver-associated-doh-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:10:44 -0000

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 7:37 AM Paul Hoffman <> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Stéphane Bortzmeyer <>
> wrote:
> > Otherwise, even after reading the whole thread "Reviewing
> > Resolver-Associated DOH", I don't understand why https is required in
> > section 2. We don't require DNSSEC in section 3, so why having
> > stronger requirments for HTTP? Since having certificates for IP
> > addresses will be difficult in practice, why not just accepting http
> > as well as https? (Or, <horror>https without cert. checking</horror>.)
> The reason I didn't drop down to http: is that doing so evokes the
> <horror> response, even though you are quite correct that the other two
> methods given in this document do not offer any authentication. So, let me
> ask the WG:
> Would this document be better off with all three methods being equally
> unauthenticated? Doing so would remove the "but you can't get IP address
> certificates!" argument that keeps coming up (even though that is
> overstated). Doing so would simplify the security considerations by making
> all three protocols have the same obvious weakness.
> An alternative is to have two URI, one with https: and one with http:, and
> explain that trying the first might be a good idea but to fall back to the
> second if authentication fails.
> Thoughts?

Given that the protocol is called "DNS over HTTPS", running it over
unencrypted HTTP seems like a contradiction.  It also complicates any
security status indication by introducing a mode that no longer offers any
confidentiality benefit over standard DNS.

Apart from security issues, insecure HTTP is generally restricted to
HTTP/1.1.  DoH implementations are strongly encouraged to use HTTP/2,
because HTTP/1.1 requires in-order responses.  Running DoH over HTTP/1.1
increases the likelihood of performance problems.

--Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list