Re: [Doh] Seeking input on draft-03

[manu tman <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Justin Henck <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am more in favor of a set of simple requirements, so simple client and
>> server implementation can exist and provide the basics of DOH
>> functionality.
>> Optionally, discovery can be used to be more fancy and provide
>> extensibility, but at the core of it, I would expect that knowing a domain
>> and optionally an IP (to avoid the chicken and egg issue of being able to
>> resolve the DOH server IP ) should be enough to be able to access DNS over
>> HTTPS using GET at a well known endpoint.
>
>
> I may be misunderstanding, but doesn't this imply either a fixed path, or
> a discoverable path via another (e.g. .well-known/dns)?
>

Yes, I mean to have a fixed well-known path that provides DOH service (as
in actual DNS queries) that can be used universally. So, any clients, given
a domain, can use DOH without having to go through the steps of service
discovery indirections.
What I understood from you original comment was to use this as an entry
point to discover alternate locations, delegation... I think it is worth it
but should be optional.

At the end of the day, either accessing a discovery endpoint or DOH service
endpoint, the client will need to be told where to get it. Having a
predefined entry point would make this easier.


>
>
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:22 PM Hewitt, Rory <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Additionally, using /.well-known/ would allow for URI Template discovery,
>> if required - client retrieves URI Template from e.g.
>> /.well-known/doh.template and then uses that to build DNS request URI.
>>
>>
>>
>> See https://github.com/dohwg/draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https/issues/74 for
>> @mnot's suggestion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *Rory Hewitt*
>>
>> Senior Solutions Architect
>>
>> Global Services & Support
>>
>> Akamai Technologies
>>
>> Tel: [phone]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Justin Henck [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2018 11:17 AM
>> *To:* [e-mail]
>> *Cc:* Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* Re: [Doh] Seeking input on draft-03
>>
>>
>>
>> That would work for the situation I specified, but I think that a
>> .well-known pointer provides the additional benefit of serving more
>> technical users with an advanced configuration. (It is also in-line with
>> the intended use of .well-known as I understand RFC 5785.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Specifically, if an implementer creates an advanced setting whereby you
>> can configure a DOH server with both a domain and an IP (to eliminate the
>> need for bootstrapping) then you have made the user's life easier. And,
>> although a URI is not supposed to change, a .well-known/dns pointer
>> requirement would ensure that capricious servers don't break
>> manually-configured clients.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Justin Henck*
>> Product Manager
>>
>> 212-565-9811 <(212)%20565-9811>
>>
>> google.com/jigsaw
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__google.com_jigsaw&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=h4goE6gK_ZaRrvwi4Hglaq0NyaBCb3I3XALyazxKb6w&m=KrH6cYm-gcGpqevreKzpdpsMm-hErKTCNEthg2TBsTU&s=N-RLQbYhldj1naDovU3jQQtWdiNb5pbKuxXJJ3p663Y&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> PGP: EA8E 8C27 2D75 974D B357 482B 1039 9F2D 869A 117B
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:59 PM Erik Kline <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like you might want a (TXT) record at the zone cut level?
>>
>> On 8 February 2018 at 10:55, Justin Henck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > I would like to see a way for clients to discover a DNS server hosted
>> on a
>> > certain domain.  Perhaps a .well-known/dns path that contains a relative
>> > pointer and other metadata.  I'm imagining a use case whereby the user
>> could
>> > choose to rely upon an organization that they find trustworthy which is
>> > offering DNS, without needing to do a significant amount of discovery
>> (e.g.
>> > "maybe known.tld has a DNS server?").  You could of course also have an
>> > absolute pointer, but then you have to account for the situation whereby
>> > known.tld might delegate to unknown.tld.
>> >
>> > Justin Henck
>> > Google
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:21 PM Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I’m inclined to think this is a positive change.  We’re trying to do
>> >>> something better than the current world of “trust the local DNS server
>> >>> because unauthenticated DHCP says so”, and promiscuous trust just
>> because a
>> >>> server claims it support DOH via a .well-known endpoint isn’t really
>> any
>> >>> better.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> To be clear, the draft never proposed promiscuous trust, which would
>> >> indeed be highly problematic.  However, draft-03 does include
>> additional
>> >> language clarifying this point.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> The client should know the hostname(s) of the DOH server(s) it wants
>> to
>> >>> use
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In draft-03, "knowing the hostname" is not sufficient, because there
>> is no
>> >> default path for DOH.  This is the change on which I am seeking input.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> , and it should authenticate the DOH server against that hostname.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, definitely.  (I believe the draft is clear on this point, but feel
>> >> free to suggest improvements.)
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>   If a server hosts content and also wants to also serve DOH, there
>> are
>> >>> ways to present a hostname that covers both names (or present two
>> >>> certificates) on an HTTP connection.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> From: Doh [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ben Schwartz
>> >>> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 10:05 AM
>> >>> To: [e-mail]
>> >>> Subject: [Doh] Seeking input on draft-03
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi all,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The authors of draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https have been making good
>> >>> progress, and a draft-03 is now ready with several changes and
>> >>> clarifications.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> One important difference is that draft-03 no longer proposes a
>> >>> ".well-known" entry.  In draft-02 and prior, clients could check for
>> the
>> >>> presence of a DOH service at the default path, given only the domain
>> name of
>> >>> a server.  In draft-03, there is no default path, so clients must be
>> >>> configured with the full URL of the DOH endpoint.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Is this change compatible with your use cases?  Would this alter the
>> way
>> >>> users interact with your systems?  How do you think DOH client
>> configuration
>> >>> should work?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Please respond with your thoughts,
>> >>>
>> >>> Ben Schwartz
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Doh mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_doh&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=h4goE6gK_ZaRrvwi4Hglaq0NyaBCb3I3XALyazxKb6w&m=KrH6cYm-gcGpqevreKzpdpsMm-hErKTCNEthg2TBsTU&s=T69zw0O8NFcgM07c8aK0knaf9RoDeSYGFdN_MXSy4a4&e=>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Doh mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_doh&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=h4goE6gK_ZaRrvwi4Hglaq0NyaBCb3I3XALyazxKb6w&m=KrH6cYm-gcGpqevreKzpdpsMm-hErKTCNEthg2TBsTU&s=T69zw0O8NFcgM07c8aK0knaf9RoDeSYGFdN_MXSy4a4&e=>
>> >
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>
>