IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] [Ext] security goals

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 19 March 2019 02:13 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 9C2F612796B for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 jn9t_zlZ8W_I for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB0B71277D0 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:13:23 -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 15.0.1367.3; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:13:21 -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 15.00.1367.000; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 19:13:21 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: nusenu <nusenu-lists@riseup.net>
CC: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [Doh] security goals
Thread-Index: AQHU3flTujxaXMgiLUG8zrnVWyjlKQ==
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:13:21 +0000
Message-ID: <4EE8D24D-1CC4-4E57-87B2-BEC9DC465E12@icann.org>
References: <CAHbrMsCNyeabhk0sVexOHVedVkgG2dvV9T8wWL++om5juAUvEw@mail.gmail.com> <b3c252eb-f8de-42f7-bedd-ef23375b5325@www.fastmail.com> <4de48a75-955d-89e3-7da3-4a1876edc53a@riseup.net> <bc485de8-0fa9-44a9-96ff-2a694e45f7b3@www.fastmail.com> <72a7be2c-918a-c2ab-0df8-dab6253532e5@riseup.net> <CAHbrMsCJz8s=B9pvvKmXhe+iGUUDPhW067JabyLnXsJNMUJT8w@mail.gmail.com> <dbd3b19e-69c6-160d-4e43-be5a947cd516@riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <dbd3b19e-69c6-160d-4e43-be5a947cd516@riseup.net>
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: <3A5777F31A5C934C9A3A69B968F7ECAC@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/pI0dFwDTg6tl4XOH9r6bnF7TsyY>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] security goals
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, 19 Mar 2019 02:13:26 -0000

On Mar 18, 2019, at 4:24 PM, nusenu <nusenu-lists@riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> Ben Schwartz:
>> DoT is currently discovered by probing port 853 on the resolver's IP
>> address.  Is this sufficient for your use case?
> 
> that is the current status quo with no specification that defines
> DoT discovery mechanisms (or is it?). In an I-D I'd include:
> 
> - a mechanism that does not force the operator to use the same IP for Do53 and DoT 
> (other than just for the initial discovery mechanism)
> - allows multiple DoT endpoints for increased redundancy
> - allows the Do53 resolver operator to support DoT without running DoT
> servers themselves
> - running DoT on non-853 ports (i.e. 443)

If you want to update RFC 7858, that's great, but this would all be work for the DPRIVE WG, which is the one that standardized DoT. 

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email