Re: [Doh] Dedicated DoH port

Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> Thu, 11 April 2019 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <bkaduk@akamai.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 5145312030F for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.339
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, KHOP_DYNAMIC=1.363, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 Fx1yq6vvHYkY for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 012C9120086 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x3BIHWEH005525; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 19:23:00 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=jan2016.eng; bh=rAFxyl0cu7X6bJV2RdLXYOt4oaUUW+1GpfBldesCjGs=; b=MH/5DCdg5fE9wUHCCPPByM7HmxOl7335P+N2EaY2CLK5TN4ZrdGyN7oCj8gEJHJgIWWP ChutoXsg043n/rP3qJZQdgdi3V4qibMwYSQf8q94A+scBvLxe8vmXTDifU6Tv8CDMYnR PI+pcSIHT9hGd50DaUTz6uz/DYwmHpGeaaJLtqaiqLRID+/yiSmQwTgN5rVH3Op4gQsC RuaFnB7Ad0P1JsURbUGccatIrLtm3DUTpJvY0yUnOqChs2EEAbPYmQF/tWbYwRTXMop5 zZcBZeILDgFIV7k1f64G/uKv3rgrgXWUfs6YbgUhuXJxlWxqMB55Ev1LQUnVPU84ql+I Ug==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint4 (a96-6-114-87.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [96.6.114.87] (may be forged)) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2rspuq4b15-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 19:23:00 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x3BIIsIA024667; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:22:59 -0400
Received: from prod-mail-relay14.akamai.com ([172.27.17.39]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2rpqevh17n-1; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:22:59 -0400
Received: from bos-lpczi.kendall.corp.akamai.com (bos-lpczi.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.19.17.86]) by prod-mail-relay14.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F683817EC; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 18:22:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from bkaduk by bos-lpczi.kendall.corp.akamai.com with local (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <bkaduk@akamai.com>) id 1hEeLi-0002zL-H1; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 13:22:58 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 13:22:58 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
To: nusenu <nusenu-lists@riseup.net>
Cc: doh@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190411182257.GG6282@akamai.com>
References: <d74add8f-8964-1c0f-cd2e-f10867390883@nic.cz> <631dbbb0-99e4-8828-9451-870b19f0a184@riseup.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <631dbbb0-99e4-8828-9451-870b19f0a184@riseup.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-04-11_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=932 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904110122
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-04-11_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=952 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904110122
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/Cc5NmVuL8WlHyu0CoHK8w3fGyk0>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Dedicated DoH port
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, 11 Apr 2019 18:23:03 -0000

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 06:17:00PM +0000, nusenu wrote:
> 
> 
> Tomas Krizek:
> > If an admin is already running an https service on the machine, the
> > clash with DoH resolver can be quite problematic. In best case scenario,
> > the admin runs into an error (not able to bind to port 443 - quite
> > cryptical for someone trying to run DNS resolver who's not up to date
> > about DoH development). 
> 
> I assume knot-resolver will not enable DoH by default anyway and so
> it is an explicit step by the administrator to enable DoH, right?
> In that case the administrator will read your documentation on how 
> to enable the DoH listener and that could say that it uses HTTPS
> and HTTPS is on 443.
> 
> > Since there is currently no IANA assigned DoH port, I've filed the
> > following user port request with IANA to establish a common default that
> > could be used among DNS vendors.
> > 
> > Service Name:         [domain-doh]
> > Desired Port Number:  [44353]
> > Description:          [DNS query-response protocol over HTTPS]
> Since DNS-over-HTTPS is specified to use HTTPS as transport
> and 443 has been assigned for HTTPS, I think it would cause more confusion
> to assign an additional port since it is still HTTPS.

(My understanding is that the current expert for the port registry takes
a very similar stance to this.)

-Ben