Re: [Doh] Servers offering responses for domaines they are not responsible for

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Mon, 06 November 2017 07:25 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 6A8D113FB02 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Nov 2017 23:25:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 hsP9mRTpeT4p for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Nov 2017 23:25:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB50A13F963 for <doh@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Nov 2017 23:25:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1946; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1509953132; x=1511162732; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=FJbZ10muS70xzKVsSmjLvfrpsIdMtMMVw9oCyhpI+U4=; b=V55HLLwGETioMDJUB6nQicog+qsQwM/jWv7zah6N2WNQ9sS+O80dG/ac Re7E8nsordy4KKyL+GvzQyzpu4DntszAbpMJ8vyFBQt1n99Tm2LPLeFRG 1Bd9jwhdg3JbPzIerZHeSeb4vg7+6GVGuJceLYNYOAvMPxT4EUWh2kVCh c=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BxAQBNDQBa/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBhQaEJIsTkCGYVwcDhTsChRwVAQEBAQEBAQEBayiFHwEFI1YQCw4?= =?us-ascii?q?KKgICVwYBDAgBAYofqlCCJ4sFAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEQ+DLoE1hA4pg?= =?us-ascii?q?i5TiCaCYgWiDoRCgiOOF4F8AYl7hzyWFoE5NSKBbDQhCB0Vgy6EX0CNGAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,351,1505779200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="35969"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Nov 2017 07:25:30 +0000
Received: from [10.61.96.180] (dhcp-10-61-96-180.cisco.com [10.61.96.180]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vA67PTZ8027482; Mon, 6 Nov 2017 07:25:29 GMT
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Cc: doh@ietf.org
References: <16B93F04-FE24-4C61-94F3-87EF7707F10E@vpnc.org> <E304CB00-95E6-4868-B3C4-FDF4049F6492@mnot.net>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <202fca9c-d9e3-7a11-3cc7-2cc61b59a84f@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 08:25:17 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E304CB00-95E6-4868-B3C4-FDF4049F6492@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0vQnaeV74jJim0nLiP4qV0vtFkUETVWAJ"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/m1baGRuEktLDVbiXtAFo590u9CA>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Servers offering responses for domaines they are not responsible for
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, 06 Nov 2017 07:25:33 -0000

Hi Mark,


On 11/6/17 1:15 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I'd think the remedy here would be RFC7871 (EDNS client subnet) support.

It is a *a* remedy, and could certainly be mentioned.  However,
precisely because of the warnings in that document, it probably
shouldn't be listed on its own as the sole recommended approach.

Eliot