Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 02 February 2018 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 B64761242EA; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:57:38 -0800 (PST)
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] 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 bu0WoDM6MgqR; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:57:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C4A61243FE; Fri, 2 Feb 2018 13:57:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [169.254.45.1] (50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w12LvF6P079371 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Feb 2018 14:57:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 50-1-51-141.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.51.141] claimed to be [169.254.45.1]
From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Cc: dnssd@ietf.org, doh@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2018 13:57:32 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.10r5443)
Message-ID: <91E3DCED-7A40-4454-9809-EBF68E942DB0@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+GsU9dL8D58Eko0w9mVRMMTZ7f9NQKx3a0XS7oUGHjniQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADyWQ+GsU9dL8D58Eko0w9mVRMMTZ7f9NQKx3a0XS7oUGHjniQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/rqNR4vqQnaNgaUCnjWySh6U0MKw>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call - draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal
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, 02 Feb 2018 21:57:39 -0000

The current draft is hand-wavy when it comes to which transports DSO can 
run on.

Section 2 says "such as":
    The term "connection" means a bidirectional byte stream of reliable,
    in-order messages, such as provided by using DNS over TCP
    [RFC1035][RFC7766] or DNS over TLS [RFC7858].
Section 4.1 says "are suitable":
    Standard DNS over TCP [RFC1035][RFC7766], and DNS over TLS [RFC7858]
    are suitable protocols.

The document should explicitly list which protocols are currently 
acceptable, and say that the list can change in the future based on 
standards-track documents. Proposed wording for both of these above are:

Section 2:
    The term "connection" means a bidirectional byte stream of reliable,
    in-order messages.
Section 4.1 says "are suitable":
    DSO MUST be run as standard DNS over TCP [RFC1035][RFC7766]
    or DNS over TLS [RFC7858]. This list might expand in the future, 
such
    an expansion MUST be in standards-track RFCs.

Having developers know exactly which protocols can be used is important 
so that they do not use protocols that they accidentally think are 
reliable and in-order. For example, the DOH WG is working on a protocol 
that might initially seem attractive, but it does *not* qualify for DSO.

--Paul Hoffman