Re: [Driu] [DNSOP] [Doh] Resolverless DNS Side Meeting in Montreal

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 10 July 2018 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: driu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: driu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DD8130FDB; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 0wMBNtbPAd-Q; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 E00E4130FE5; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 08:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41Q5Td07l5zDm5; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:19:33 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1531235973; bh=gH0uXzuqvfQnwfwAXQpXHYCcNJM8y9nIzygp41ElniQ=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=n8/KpKmsUW8YI4np3XFjkn6DRBNkHqgPwZ2VXlTGe+0X8dZNsNe1AolZObcXxrx7o YtTdImHDRmBc+VLl8J6PCs6EWZ8KROSb3D1oIzFGwxi4PcprYZn9apnEE4auioH1mO /Ih0WCV8KtsxWip9QNQV4nm7otULAah47jp7hI/g=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tZDyKNojmzR8; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:19:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:19:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E256739A6A8; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca E256739A6A8
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CC441682B5; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
cc: Philip Homburg <pch-dnsop-3@u-1.phicoh.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, dnsop@ietf.org, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>, driu@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-Reply-To: <4a845808-5348-d6e4-dda2-59aaf0e85c14@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1807101111540.5219@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <m1fcoe5-0000GuC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1807101056140.5219@bofh.nohats.ca> <4a845808-5348-d6e4-dda2-59aaf0e85c14@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/driu/fEFtrGdmIIy3f8zWho7ktxhjKfY>
Subject: Re: [Driu] [DNSOP] [Doh] Resolverless DNS Side Meeting in Montreal
X-BeenThere: driu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: "DNS Resolver Identification and Use \(DRIU\)." <driu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/driu>, <mailto:driu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/driu/>
List-Post: <mailto:driu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:driu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/driu>, <mailto:driu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:19:40 -0000

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018, Adam Roach wrote:

> On 7/10/18 9:59 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>  It seems more like an extension of the Public Suffix. Which domains can
>>  make claims about other domains. 
>
> Based on the conversation that took place in DoH in Singapore, I think it's 
> mostly *not* about this. The questions that have come up so far include: (a) 
> If the record that is pushed to me is DNSSEC signed, is that sufficient to 
> trust it? (b) If the record that is pushed to me is not DNS signed, but I'm 
> using it in a context that requires TLS (e.g., HTTPS), and the thing that I 
> connect to when I use the record can present a cert that proves its identity, 
> is that okay?

I see. I guess I agree more now with the previous poster that this is
more like yet another kind of "transparancy" workaround for not wanting
to deploy dnssec :)

I understand that having a WebPKI and a DANE PKI leads to an unwanted
mixture of trust models. It might be useful to talk about that, especially
in light of tls-dnssec-chain where it seems that some proposals result
in a preventative block of a DANE PKI for no apparent other gain.

Paul