Re: [OPSAWG] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12: (with COMMENT)
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 05 March 2024 23:26 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E149DC14F618; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 15:26:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MYkAcPtSS8Vn; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 15:26:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0104AC14F5E6; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 15:26:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E13938995; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:26:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4ym1G3mUNfeL; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:26:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA9F938994; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:26:16 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1709681176; bh=hDp2I/hy6dUZ+rV0koAv7FjbehTp1dQwKCOkEIbljao=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=QU0f2UlbxXADA0nkZlKm9KaGtLLyyHJgK4QI9I5FmjHoLsbiwjwpUyQ9qUQ5pFK6b JPwlgy+CM3m8O8EWo0DMBCvCRP22Gk0k3RJGKTJtZYO3mLa7utt1LF4gd5Fa9ysMmR 2Kwckqpz1oqap7L52sdJB3peVPqyPZr6Ln0W2l2ot2r/EGizqMPMAxwt/LeddWQDr4 K+HwL0WnfgP5+Zsi27jboz34diMP3Af/4LbSDWXAOj0wCZjWMlT4bSlqz0LJKBfApx svSr8xy7TQPg4pcA47PqUNRvEUpBeAfKZOJumlydBQHe+2Z66T6gjF2oI1ad6z+h8K /grawxDHfvofw==
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A531A5; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:26:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, opsawg@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAMGpriVZLZ957sDKP90MYgk9aDwERDZo_TR1fSJiKoAt3Au95Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <170942228535.2806.6250850997238862489@ietfa.amsl.com> <22291.1709571190@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CAMGpriVZLZ957sDKP90MYgk9aDwERDZo_TR1fSJiKoAt3Au95Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 18:26:16 -0500
Message-ID: <8147.1709681176@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/fows3wwXDdqHtqPGSFL5fYJygPI>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 23:26:26 -0000
Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > I asked on a DNS directorate + wg chairs sync earlier today and nobody > seemed to have in mind either (a) a single good reference nor (b) a > single good definition for a "geofenced name". > Perhaps we can begin by clarifying what it means to you? In mind there > were two alternatives; roughly: > [a] a name for which a DNS authoritative will hand out different > RRs depending on the client src IP (conceptual proxy for geolocation), > or > [b] a name for which a DNS authoritative will either hand out some > RRs **or** return NODATA or some kind of error to others, as a function > of client IP. > Are either of those close to what you mean? Both are intended. Is my term "geofenced" wrong perhaps? Is this just a geolocation DNS? Looking around at some documents, I found: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pauly-httpbis-geoip-hint/ and: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7871.html RFC7871 speaks alot about the behaviour of the authoritative server without ever calling it geolocation :-) "Tailored response" is the closest I can gleam from that document, which I agree is a more general term. I could use that term and reference 7871. here is how I would use it: https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations/pull/15 I found the discussion in RFC7871 concerning DNSSEC a bit concerning. It seems that the entire RRset needs to always be returned (so that DNSSEC can verify), but if that is done, how is the reply tailored, since A/AAAA records are not intended to be ordered (and bind9 is about to remove that option). Here is my proposed text, in case you haven't used the link above yet: -Due to the problems with different answers from different DNS servers, described above, a strong recommendation is to avoid using geofenced names. +## Do Not Use Tailored Responses to answer DNS Names + +{{?RFC7871}} defines the edns-client-subnet (ECS) EDNS0 option, and explains +how authoritative servers sometimes answer queries differently based upon the +IP address of the end system making the request. +Ultimately, the decision is based upon some topological notion of closeness. +This is often used to provide tailored responses to clients, providing them +with a geographically advantageous answer. + +When the MUD controller makes it's DNS query, it is critical that it receive +an answer which is based upon the same topological decision as when the IoT +device makes its query. + +There are probably ways in which the MUD controller could use the +edns-client-subnet option to make a query that would get the same treatment +as when the IoT device makes its query. If this worked then it would receive +the same answer as the IoT device. + +In practice it could be quite difficult if the IoT device uses a different +Internet connection, a different firewall, or a different recursive DNS +server. +The edns-client-server might be ignored or overridden by any of the DNS infrastructure. + +Some tailored responses might only re-order the replies so that the most +preferred address is first. +Such a system would be acceptable if the MUD controller had a way to know +that the list was complete. + +But, due to the above problems, a strong recommendation is to avoid using +tailored responses as part of the names in the MUD file. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
- [OPSAWG] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Erik Kline via Datatracker
- Re: [OPSAWG] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-i… Michael Richardson
- Re: [OPSAWG] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-i… Erik Kline
- Re: [OPSAWG] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-i… Michael Richardson
- Re: [OPSAWG] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-i… Erik Kline
- Re: [OPSAWG] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-i… Michael Richardson