IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] On today's resolverless DNS meeting

Justin Henck <henck@google.com> Tue, 06 November 2018 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <henck@google.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 DB426130E6A for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 06:45:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 BNMlWoWavzmp for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 06:45:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92c.google.com (mail-ua1-x92c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAFF0130E48 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 06:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92c.google.com with SMTP id n7so4606837uao.7 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 06:45:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fZ85//HAL1u8tGRSWBYUwISmaevkCKDhlUIFuHg5k+w=; b=aZI0WTuCyXrhMe+52Fg6+iauDJnLaLPu34M7ZyctrGnB218nfxOChq2zRwvVuplatm MnPiHHDBzdS40rVuYER83U6r41iEIf18VMb0ZEFdYeBb7oSpwTQ6pp+gIlAn8BDgBqAO Cd7gxiL14in7qvAPgR7HzujT5/0nTVhv7LFKOOCue2BGj704T10dAnGrelwG3M9t5MRY x9ZxJMkUtWn+DkKWBLyZZmz65yL2cqzFbV5tH6SZTk4/v2wpzpm/Lftq6quqhIOR0ooy xescuAVX0d0Nz3P26Vi59jstnK0ugtUZ90ok9gEzmWUzbfPKk14FStstwxaiIHTSDlxT UAPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fZ85//HAL1u8tGRSWBYUwISmaevkCKDhlUIFuHg5k+w=; b=r6yoDSPJVJ7qN4/IeCXHkhx2jLmRdp9Xo0l8wntJfahalfWfx1QSuKo15BiApX2CL/ xC+yC39+3cj5oz4XY05r4+oA+hb2DNZMrjsDyGmezkb6ms+3ZThygo+1OJieW+4ixz0H aI1bFF++ixPCPzXfeR7jV1TgdA9PqOwf4Ylxt4/iixeu5U5gGihrKqh3sUEZPVQqQDWq rkGliu4BWhD+Q4D6XIfbqPNANvhppb7AWOmKf+7AV/hjznKy7qApCTxPUHTPpN8n6jfA DOWIl7wdWKf3t6PKEwyhQpp9yWTe8wHS+iERwqVOD+zsYtRRiqMZJS4Yg+af4/nG19kG gzOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIYfZ8jt0cKkuoW+BvHWgL8M2+dIfPrNXu2QR9aQCUb5Lv2kTFx xx3mccb+R1WlcViE6X6i7tAdQsNgjPQZaAaPjeo8tQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fr7cyx5bq+p3+fxcFMZ2tJsuWRaF17YcFuwfnFuwqjKzotUVQ0FLqi+ViJSwaxb7uLCev8rTtoX8mwZ+XP5Sg=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:550b:: with SMTP id t11mr509297uaa.31.1541515507533; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 06:45:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181106102731.GA5280@naina> <CAJhMdTOnxMbkx0hfbSeBETXeM=AP0Z97ERRhN26dK4sib-2FTA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJhMdTOnxMbkx0hfbSeBETXeM=AP0Z97ERRhN26dK4sib-2FTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Henck <henck@google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 21:44:55 +0700
Message-ID: <CAN-AkJsvrYhLKTKwbqoP+6ig6CSMqD3Km9wYQ0fT+wuddKznFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: jabley@hopcount.ca
Cc: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org>, dnsop@ietf.org, doh@ietf.org, resolverless-dns@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003e71bf057a000cad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/bPKd-8_TOmQeKhspwJbtMd2LMPw>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] On today's resolverless DNS meeting
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: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 14:45:12 -0000

Briefly jumping in to add resolverless-dns@ietf.org, which was set up after
the last meeting for discussion of this specific topic.  Direct link:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/resolverless-dns

I also just sent the notes to that mailing list.

Justin Henck
Product Manager
212-565-9811
google.com/jigsaw

PGP: EA8E 8C27 2D75 974D B357 482B 1039 9F2D 869A 117B


On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 9:39 PM Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:

> > On Nov 6, 2018, at 17:27, Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org> wrote:
> >
> > We talked about DNSSEC and certificate signing and such. If the host
> > serving this webpage to the browser has control over the webpage's
> > content (e.g., the contents of that src attribute), and the webpage's
> > contents are already authenticated by TLS, then why does an address
> > record have to be separately authenticated?
>
> I think this is an easy one. It doesn't.
>
> The names that it is permissible for a server to push information
> about (and the names that a client should be allowed to accept) must
> be constrained such that the names supplied for use in one web
> application can't influence the operation of another.
>
> (For example, it would be bad if some generic and otherwise benign web
> page could feed the browser high-TTL DNS messages for names under
> online retailer domains that accept credit cards or component APIs
> used within genuine web apps.)
>
> The obvious analogy to me is the logic that controls what cookies a
> browser should accept. Maybe exactly the same rules are appropriate. I
> realise that managing those rules using mechanisms like the public
> suffix list is not without challenges.
>
> If we accept that these constraints are necessary, then the presence
> or absence of DNSSEC signatures doesn't matter. The DoH objects are
> within the same security perimeter as the URIs that make use of them
> and don't benefit from additional integrity protection; the transport
> security for all the other objects being sent from server to client
> provides the right coverage.
>
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> Doh@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email