Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] New: draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Tue, 12 March 2019 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 9B1421224E8; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 nQNgAxMjcHDX; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C9671200D7; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linux-9daj.localnet (vixp1.redbarn.org [24.104.150.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FA38892C6; Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:51:03 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "dns-privacy@ietf.org" <dns-privacy@ietf.org>, "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 22:51:01 +0000
Message-ID: <7128698.bmqQpDD1M4@linux-9daj>
Organization: Vixie Freehold
In-Reply-To: <92a3c1c1-0e0b-50c4-252f-94755addf971@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <1700920918.12557.1552229700654@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <2356055.DoC3vY7yXE@linux-9daj> <92a3c1c1-0e0b-50c4-252f-94755addf971@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/vb4LCbdHmexProGF6sIIBLAMk_c>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] [dns-privacy] New: draft-bertola-bcp-doh-clients
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, 12 Mar 2019 22:51:06 -0000

On Tuesday, 12 March 2019 21:38:44 UTC Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 12/03/2019 21:11, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > ...
> 
> There are reasons to want confidentiality for DNS queries
> and answers, and access patterns, for which the IETF has
> achieved consensus. (See RFC7626) (*)

i have no qualms about confidentiality, for traffic allowed by a network 
operator. it's the inability to interefere (as called for in RFC 8484) and not 
the inability to observe (as called for in RFC 7626) that's at issue here.

> DoT is one way to tackle those problems. DoH is another.

DoT does not intend to place itself beyond interference by on-path entities, 
and as such, my choice as a network operator is either to allow it through 
even though i can't see the contents, or disallow it. and that's all fine.

DoH intends "to prevent on-path interference with DNS operations", and that's 
well beyond the remit of RFC 7626, and is therefore not spoken to one way or 
another by IETF consensus. i do not believe that a non-interference objective 
would reach broader IETF consensus. perhaps we can test that one day.

vixie