IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] [Ext] Does the HTTP freshness lifetime need to match the TTL?

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Sat, 12 May 2018 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 069C1128954 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2018 16:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 wxm_DKnv6QWf for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2018 16:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1171241F5 for <doh@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 May 2018 16:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Sat, 12 May 2018 16:26:33 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Sat, 12 May 2018 16:26:33 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
CC: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Doh] [Ext] Does the HTTP freshness lifetime need to match the TTL?
Thread-Index: AQHT5mEMbkO3Y2FrSECwXZLZvhlEfaQmC0KAgAAeyoCABw/cAA==
Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 23:26:32 +0000
Message-ID: <DECEAC7B-5287-4E45-A5AF-33DA38ADCCE7@icann.org>
References: <15A1809C-2CA3-4A3B-A5B1-279227C30223@icann.org> <3E34581E-E2DC-48B7-A4AD-6B9FDA418179@icann.org> <31900328-8813-47D3-9F89-0B863CE673B3@mnot.net> <20180508094545.itl6cvpsekzrpxs4@miek.nl> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1805081229550.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1805081229550.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <60560D07A48B0D44872F14D162EED0E7@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/OImf5DIXxnaZ20tGqNeuRYSChIo>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] Does the HTTP freshness lifetime need to match the TTL?
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: Sat, 12 May 2018 23:26:37 -0000

On May 8, 2018, at 4:35 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
> 
> Miek Gieben <miek@miek.nl> wrote:
>> [ Quoting <mnot@mnot.net> in "Re: [Doh] [Ext] Does the HTTP fresh..." ]
>>> 
>>> Cache Interaction {#caching}
>> 
>> I like this text, but is the working-group OK with *not* mentioning DNSSEC?
>> 
>> If you only look a the TTL and not the inception and expiry dates of RRSIGs
>> you can easily serve BAD data.
> 
> Mark's suggestion is pretty comprehensive in other areas, so I think it
> ought to mention RRSIG expiry dates. (The upstream DNS server should have
> fixed up the TTLs, but if you're going through the DNS packet to work out
> an expiry time you might as well do it properly.)

See my previous message about why I don't think discussion of RRSIG expiration time is appropriate for this discussion.

> The other possible addition is a reference to draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale
> alongside the HTTP staleness considerations. But serve-stale is still a
> draft and you probably don't want to make DoH wait for it.

Further, the early discussion of draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale in the DNSOP WG indicates that it is pretty contentious, and we can't predict how the discussion will come out.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email