IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] [Ext] WGLC on draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Fri, 04 May 2018 15:42 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 69563127136 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 08:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 WKZqP3tnrE-W for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 08:42:14 -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 0824512D872 for <doh@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2018 08:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
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 Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Fri, 4 May 2018 08:42:08 -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; Fri, 4 May 2018 08:42:08 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Alexander Mayrhofer <alex.mayrhofer.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Doh] [Ext] WGLC on draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https
Thread-Index: AQHT45667P1vxvsH+EeLZtDuOPL5QaQgKwWA
Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 15:42:07 +0000
Message-ID: <09B39ED1-52A7-4579-8A7C-5679A0D3CE16@icann.org>
References: <EB0551FD-B7D6-4834-9979-75D162FC5A62@sinodun.com> <DBFFE98A-972D-44BE-AD20-5F3C7B378312@sinodun.com> <9452C542-6F2F-4167-AE71-7A48C8C8055C@icann.org> <2A0E3E8D-2D0C-4164-9EAC-6535686725DB@sinodun.com> <CAHXf=0ofCcig6cHJSpK+Ph0zOtaUtqB82ahiSt1JsLKQM_2K7w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHXf=0ofCcig6cHJSpK+Ph0zOtaUtqB82ahiSt1JsLKQM_2K7w@mail.gmail.com>
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="utf-8"
Content-ID: <9095F9EDB02ACF428AE485C04786E960@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/p3rOr8Siwc10IzqzkoQDEq4L4UM>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] WGLC on draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https
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: Fri, 04 May 2018 15:42:15 -0000

On May 4, 2018, at 4:54 AM, Alexander Mayrhofer <alex.mayrhofer.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> [comments inline on Padding]
> 
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 1:42 PM, Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure why there are "problems" with these. For padding, the server can use it or not.
>> 
>> For me the issue is simply that HTTP padding is specifically mentioned in the draft (several times) but that EDNS(0) isn’t mentioned at all. A simple statement in Section 6 to the effect that ‘DNS API clients and servers may use EDNS(0) padding [RFC7830] in the DNS wire format independently of whether or not HTTP padding is used.’ would suffice I think.
> 
> I do agree with Sara on this. It seems incomplete to mention HTTP
> padding a few times, but not mention DNS padding at all, given that
> the protocol is a "mixture" of both worlds.
> 
> And remembering a few discussions i had with fellow encryption gurus,
> it seems preferrable to perform padding at the "innermost" level,
> where the application has the greatest extent of control over whether
> or not padding has been performed, and to what extent. Looking at the
> layering of DOH, that probably means that EDNS padding gives an app
> more control than HTTP padding, and HTTP padding gives an application
> more control than padding on the TLS layer.
> 
> Therefore, i do suggest that we do mention EDNS padding as at least an
> equal choice to HTTP padding.  I can prepare text (or a pull request
> if that is preferred).

I have created Pull Request #173 to add this.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email