Re: [Doh] operational considerations

Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Mon, 20 November 2017 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jim@rfc1035.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 13F1812EAB5 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:07:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Qk-QandRg-MN for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:07:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaun.rfc1035.com (shaun.rfc1035.com [93.186.33.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0E78129B46 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:07:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gromit.rfc1035.com (gromit.rfc1035.com [195.54.233.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shaun.rfc1035.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB91E2420D43; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:07:13 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>
In-Reply-To: <C67D2FEF-1C37-4382-9CBC-4ADBD5F6F3C2@rfc1035.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:07:13 +0000
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, DoH Working Group <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2C5054E6-DA90-43DE-BD7B-02136F74A09C@rfc1035.com>
References: <60b879b8-d107-ec79-b2f1-357e354702e4@cisco.com> <CAOdDvNpuNhZF+966qUY8Sq4cfdrC-j_vFYoE9LT_jMRnWozgaQ@mail.gmail.com> <e1292551-21b7-802c-aec0-81eb7988fb80@cisco.com> <CAOdDvNqxytTf_Vf1QeKzi1D8qBi5VdxgeuZcFnEjefxNuLbfXg@mail.gmail.com> <468958c4-36b0-9567-4207-6c4ab4c48249@cisco.com> <CAOdDvNrp2_kgmvXhBqWTX-1e2jCZ8rQMSC6GSDbd1RKR4L1gsw@mail.gmail.com> <C67D2FEF-1C37-4382-9CBC-4ADBD5F6F3C2@rfc1035.com>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/NhMj9k83dJr3R_fdCL5hOiII0UY>
Subject: Re: [Doh] operational considerations
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:07:16 -0000

> On 20 Nov 2017, at 22:01, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
> Local policy considerations and similar factors mean different DNS servers may provide different results to the same query: for instance in split DNS configurations [RFC6950]. It logically follows that the server which is queried can influence the end result. Therefore a client’s choice of resolving server may affect the responses it gets to its queries.

Replying to myself, eh? The above is a bit clunky. Try this instead:

Local policy considerations and similar factors mean a DNS server can sometimes provide different results to the same query: for instance in split DNS configurations [RFC6950]. It logically follows that the server which is queried can influence the end result. Therefore a client’s choice of DNS server may affect the responses it gets to its queries.