Re: [Doh] operational considerations

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 17 November 2017 10:09 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 879E9126C25 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 02:09:26 -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 IonGCGwzN92p for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 02:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95A87120724 for <doh@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 02:09:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2703; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1510913363; x=1512122963; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=SMa01Jhiv5IQxajwAtkv1OZCREKMZTfAM4iopLdXOI4=; b=fnyDsH0JpqEj+R6SBs/DHYhTlpdcgzxc1i1NJTfIJVgXHNARZ7mFGLCN toKRpv4nvByhW9XabyPOcBQKQ+26EPXbqcDX5JV3e2YqHpx4pS+mmTqXI 0uUQE93xYjY7mnYXGyyJZjQwHwKglmFGXeDR1kFYZixPIv/2vgVzfc/Zc o=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0COAQBPtA5a/xbLJq1cDgsBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEHAQEBAQGFDoQmixOPfwkmlmKCEQcDhTsCGoULFwEBAQEBAQEBAWsohR8?= =?us-ascii?q?BBSNmCQIYKgICAlUGAQwIAQGKIYwrnWiCJ4sCAQEBAQEBAQECAQEBAQEBARIPg?= =?us-ascii?q?zSFbguCd4UFLYJ+gmMBBKI+hEmCKI4bjASHSJYygTohATaBdDQhCB0Vgy6EH0B?= =?us-ascii?q?AiwwBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,408,1505779200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="328520"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Nov 2017 10:09:21 +0000
Received: from [10.61.227.56] ([10.61.227.56]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAHA9L2q030191; Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:09:21 GMT
To: "=?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J._D=c3=bcrst?=" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>
References: <60b879b8-d107-ec79-b2f1-357e354702e4@cisco.com> <22166e53-71e4-8787-08f4-7528559076d2@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <6cba7182-3ffb-2155-7df5-2557a2aa6a60@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:09:11 +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: <22166e53-71e4-8787-08f4-7528559076d2@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="iJgCeBdmltt2dQQrt3ExqK2MDs2SWCdLR"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/x3E0YFr8xqDY6tCIpHjGhQoiGCk>
Subject: Re: [Doh] operational considerations
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, 17 Nov 2017 10:09:26 -0000

Hi Martin,

The sentence needs work.  See below:


On 11/17/17 8:15 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> Hello Eliot,
>
> On 2017/11/16 17:31, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
>>    * When used, split-horizon DNS provides different answers based on
>> the
>>      source of a query [RFC6950].  The common case of this is an
>>      enterprise that does not expose the existence of internal services
>>      to the outside world.
>
>>                             If a DOH server residing on the Internet
>> may,
>>      therefore, provide an inconsistent answer than an internal resolver
>>      would.
>
> This sentence doesn't make sense for me. I suggest a rewrite.

A DOH server residing on the Internet may, therefore, respond with an
answer that is
inappropriate for internal hosts.

Better?

Eliot