IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] [Ext] Reviewing Resolver-Associated DOH

"Hewitt, Rory" <rhewitt@akamai.com> Mon, 18 March 2019 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rhewitt@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 9D5FB1311A3 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 14:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.852 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=0.85, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 DGZr4Wwn8L8d for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::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 BD5B1131188 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x2ILq4mG032435; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 21:56:29 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=5RzkTpNz1Rg9Sor4xI76gZsEurdQvG+KfOalIdKXTuk=; b=XybgoaxGhjFwY4qQYV0a383TUdmhI/bJrAc/P0432qx+yDY1R1vnz4weVUZYzGzJ1s78 KGvJL6MDPf+eFT0HeHy95r4WTzzde1JE3yDbGB7asfeMTLjEuT7Uc69VfqxdItznVXSO ZPXrSSNZ8ZahklWY1aYa19WbPMkBNCb6opVw1IgzVIsEjRmw4LX9T59TmQUHA6d6VLid 7/dLGtd/rnumRz9QrWQXAdt/rGbYagiJYIXegY+8JQthauOYnYXOKQ5xToGyb01cCWSI E285CikuRh8ToPpNS6vKtJT4UzrJ/C/P3C93CoSrq0CZoNYgWTVIOPh9jCxmBsRuGbhj eQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2r8sj5tpd7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Mar 2019 21:56:29 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x2ILl2na001597; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:56:28 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2r8vfuuqfw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Mar 2019 17:56:26 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.103) by ustx2ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 14:56:20 -0700
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.27.103]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.27.103]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:56:20 -0500
From: "Hewitt, Rory" <rhewitt@akamai.com>
To: nusenu <nusenu-lists@riseup.net>, "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Doh] [Ext] Reviewing Resolver-Associated DOH
Thread-Index: AQHU3RjEfZ1VPcdKSEuf1fAXMLhziaYRl5QAgACpKQD//6zswA==
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 21:56:20 +0000
Message-ID: <75491a04058f42ef923a01ccc748fad9@ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <CAHbrMsCNyeabhk0sVexOHVedVkgG2dvV9T8wWL++om5juAUvEw@mail.gmail.com> <5690c5b2-65ab-55d4-b3ec-d06d82ebbb26@riseup.net> <7F06A457-58C6-47A0-BDCA-D25FF0C6C062@icann.org> <b5c7f08d-debc-b426-f72d-b5100c476b4f@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <392246eb108b4421b63f0813f71d3b75@ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com> <8d56232b-8933-bf8a-186b-e44597364e14@riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <8d56232b-8933-bf8a-186b-e44597364e14@riseup.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.28.212.170]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-03-18_13:, , 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=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903180151
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-03-18_13:, , 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=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903180152
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/OGmRB9wM6j30VMGzCfBypsTizz4>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] Reviewing Resolver-Associated DOH
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 21:56:32 -0000

I'm firmly in favor of having a naming 'convention' of:

	/.well-known/dns-doh-servers

I think it's critical to have "dns-" as the name prefix, to clearly indicate that this is a DNS-related file. Then "doh-" to indicate that this is a DoH-specific file and so on... Using this convention means that the DoT folks can create their own files as

	/.well-known/dns-dot-servers

While your idea of "/.well-known/dns-over-https-servers" fulfills the first "dns-" part of my convention (and it's also very clear what it is šŸ˜Š), I guess I'm always going to be antsy that there's going to be a new DNS-related 'technology' in the future called e.g. "Carrier-Pigeon DNS" and that team is going to call their file "/.well-known/carrier-pigeon-dns". So it's better (IMHO) to explicitly indicate that it's a series of Three-Letter-Acronyms...

Of course, a naming convention only works if everyone both knows about it and follows it. Even if we decide to use a 'strict' naming convention, unless it's both 'publicized' and 'enforced', it's kinda useless.

Rory

-----Original Message-----
From: nusenu <nusenu-lists@riseup.net> 
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 2:43 PM
To: doh@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] Reviewing Resolver-Associated DOH

Hewitt, Rory:
> I understand that we don't necessarily want a directory structure 
> under /.well-known/ - therefore I would suggest one of the
> following:

let me throw in a 3rd option:

/.well-known/dns-over-https-servers

> I just don't want to end up with a situation where a single-layer 
> structure results in the /.well-known/ folder containing hundreds of 
> poorly-named files.

+1



--
https://twitter.com/nusenu_
https://mastodon.social/@nusenu

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email