Re: [OPSAWG] [Add] 🔔 WG LC: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Wed, 12 October 2022 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bemasc@google.com>
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 B1026C14F73E for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -22.608
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 zr2R3ZPhI0sW for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe35.google.com (mail-vs1-xe35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 EAB12C14CF1B for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe35.google.com with SMTP id h4so18176216vsr.11 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9KwOAPqvS6NJlTa52KHrfREjhwmOIoFNZkpF3zS20ww=; b=ks+vAIJCZD42815qCFN8FMM8woqlOq8r0DhYhnUaTD1EMzN9VCvBUY+mJKC7VZk3oW rtaJaTYjbQ63MFXSXKywzN4ModjvjQPofmg/+ejbMjon5hDoYlEVZSZwdfpMhmy6dHsn MiiOGIQof6t2nLIXtXUjO4a6HYuU+J+gqbsF7uPjULL1sthtw+c3N1K9M8H29EY+DhtV pvDCBl6sT9Fx8b3eRdYWftBOvXRA0gWQbxeu7ywUi26O0jSRLQcBOfMFqUoCNVRkwJUV tSqDVs1ipDd89WbSqRbe/Ax0KKMIQGv/asL6mlWGbJYfWj3EUQs35BfXmnJZGRoV1C00 S2vw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=9KwOAPqvS6NJlTa52KHrfREjhwmOIoFNZkpF3zS20ww=; b=hJ+F/JxmmHWuzOi7JzghFyqUKNpXXF+4tAVEAGibE/VVDxeqa8iwZEUf+Q3lG5pn+a t5pw1xQY2gv0ntesSFLfJTSnXN6HiqGM6xorkj6BbtWnElEX8kLfoEdtdir/SlT9Brr/ +JFxeWaTHKNY3SmyfarL1FO4gzTt48hiWNhXDd3n8jWl5S7RZAfgqetUH4IdA2mxaKXO aLpNVJQrbdi/fbo44etY1FDZWuUorOIdjNAooomdt6uiB0lJRO335luMs8LgugmgTLZm dOTdAuUmdgBmO/tC+EPCrorvbpyKigm2milBtDO7DkAqeZDLS34dJyFGzZ98sbpS5z54 9tJg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2SG3uK2IAyTI6Jh8n5YVqwvFGfCSQM2gwml7v0/6i7DGOtUdZu v6ZPWUnb3ZatsZw5UDODdL9+pPuGShNgsBs+U7KFggq8h6k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5Fq+ClrTWzdzjocDnghYEcNXNlKvDbJqo/OJ2S9KEWJonrqn4VfkpXlecfjKMVTRVG+HUAR03lmAW3lzlEn7c=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:f12:b0:3a6:d942:7d08 with SMTP id v18-20020a0561020f1200b003a6d9427d08mr15002584vss.44.1665597231571; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BN9PR11MB53717C0ECBFE57C8932F1888B8229@BN9PR11MB5371.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BN9PR11MB5371B8A7880B24F4455EE107B8229@BN9PR11MB5371.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAHbrMsAri9uSxfWp28=2o2bCwqoGg_AoqdWk5huduD7E=KoBSw@mail.gmail.com> <1D504D41-55EA-47E4-AD3F-DF90A61E86AF@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <1D504D41-55EA-47E4-AD3F-DF90A61E86AF@deployingradius.com>
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:53:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsAzQ+W5hyz3QiVJAdnf=cAfzHcDpja3VvBWxyAUbhbqtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
Cc: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "radext@ietf.org" <radext@ietf.org>, "add@ietf.org" <add@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="00000000000059d1ef05eada1301"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/ypinVO7AodF9TFDltzSHPdddmAU>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [Add] 🔔 WG LC: RADIUS Extensions for Encrypted DNS
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: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:53:56 -0000

A practical limit of around 4000 octets for SvcParams seems likely to be
fine.  A hard limit of 250 octets has a real chance of becoming a practical
problem.  I would encourage you to reconsider the format.

As a concrete example, SvcParams are used to deliver public keys for ECH.
Currently, only elliptic-curve keys are used, but if a future iteration
relied on RSA public keys, they would not fit within this limit.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 1:41 PM Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
wrote:

> On Oct 12, 2022, at 1:32 PM, Ben Schwartz <bemasc=
> 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > The Encrypted-DNS-SvcParams TLV seems to be limited to 253 octets.  This
> is a problem, since it is meant to hold a SvcParams object that is allowed
> to be much larger (up to ~65000 octets in principle).
>
>   The length is less than 253 octets, as it is encapsulated inside of
> another attribute "wrapper".  So the practical limit is probably 250 or
> less.
>
>   RADIUS provides for encoding more than 253 octets in an attribute.  See
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8044#section-3.16
>
>   However, this capability exists only for "top level" attributes, and
> cannot be used here.
>
>   Further, RADIUS packets are generally limited to 4K octets total.  So
> even if the limits on this attribute are removed, then there's still a
> practical limit of around 4000 octets.
>
>   Alan DeKok.
>
>