On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 14:07, Thomas Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
> If a mechanism that facilitates certificate validation is important then > the only two options I believe we have are: > > A: Providing a host name only within the option, and expect clients to > use Do53 to resolve it, performing host name validation against the > certificate CommonName or SubjectAltName. > FWIW, this is what Android "Private DNS" does: bootstrap using network-assigned nameservers and then do the usual validation dance. If there were some URL-ish representation of DoT vs DoH then a list of UTF8 strings might suffice. B: Using IP address(es) only, with either Do53 option or this option > providing the IP addresses, in addition to a non-DNS related identifier > to facilitate certificate validation - perhaps the Serial Number, > Subject Key Identifier or some other field or a derived field of data. > Having an option with both a host name and IP addresses makes no real > sense to me. > > It seems the first option is probably the most appropriate and I should > rewrite the draft accordingly, would you agree? > > Regards > > On 06/05/2019 05:25, Martin Thomson wrote: > > So the plan is: > > > > 1. new option has > 0 entries: use those IP addresses with DoT. > > > > 2. new option has 0 entries: use the other entry, but you can use DoT > with confidence. > > > > 3. no new option: you are left guessing, but you might be stuck with > Do53. > > > > No mention here of how you get the name for certificate validation > still. That's still important. > > > > On Sat, May 4, 2019, at 02:29, Thomas Peterson wrote: > >> Thanks Martin. > >> > >> I believe there's a trade off decision between providing multiple IP > >> addresses and de-duplicating with Do53 options, offering host names, and > >> complexity. I've updated my version[0] with an attempt to solve the > >> de-duplication, one way we could implement host name support is to > >> either include another field designating the DNS server field as a > >> single host name, or mandate it be such and not have the field. > >> > >> Your opinions and those of others on the list appreciated. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> > >> 0: > >> > https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-peterson-dot-dhcp.txt&url2=https://thpts.github.io/draft-peterson-dot-dhcp/draft-peterson-dot-dhcp.txt > >> > >> On 29/04/2019 01:50, Martin Thomson wrote: > >>> For DoT and Do53 are similar enough that they can use the same IP > address and the DoT configuration only contains a target name. There is a > problem with the first in terms of signaling that DoT is present, but that > the server will be using an IP certificate. I don't know what the answer > is there. I'd first try to see if requiring a name works. > >>> > >>> I certainly think that one name is sufficient. Multiple IP addresses > might be useful, but they can all answer to the same name (at least for the > same provisioning domain). > >>> > >>> DoH is different, and I think that your other draft is right in saying > that you just have to use Do53 (or even DoT, though why you would...) to > find the IP address for that name. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2019, at 21:12, Thomas Peterson wrote: > >>>> Thank you for the feedback. > >>>> > >>>> I agree with your suggestion around having host names and pins present > >>>> in the response and I'll have a think what it might look like - > >>>> suggestions here or on Github[0] welcome. > >>>> > >>>> However I disagree that combining both DoT and DoH is appropriate - to > >>>> me they are different protocols and I am concerned around complexity > and > >>>> size limitations (particularly for DHCPv4) that would be needed. > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 0: https://github.com/thpts/draft-peterson-dot-dhcp > >>>> > >>>> On 2019/04/28 4:12, nusenu wrote: > >>>>> Thomas Peterson: > >>>>>> In a recent discussion in the DoH mailing list around a draft that > >>>>>> describes resolver discovery, Martin Thomson made the suggestion[0] > >>>>>> to use DHCP and RA options instead to transmit both DNS over HTTP > >>>>>> resolver addresses, but more relevant to this WG also DNS over TLS > >>>>>> endpoints as well. I have published draft-peterson-dot-dhcp, which > >>>>>> describe the relevant DHCPv4, DHCPv6, and RA options to support > >>>>>> this. > >>>>> [...] > >>>>>> 0: > >>>>>> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/A2YthHjFwwwpC3d0MrOm1-syH48 > >>>>> Thanks for starting this I-D. > >>>>> > >>>>> from the I-D: > >>>>>> Length: Length of the DNS Servers list in octects > >>>>>> > >>>>>> DNS Servers: One or more IPv4 addresses of DNS servers > >>>>> The I-D currently only contains IP addresses, not names as > >>>>> proposed by Martin: > >>>>> > >>>>> To quote Martin Thomson's email: > >>>>>> 2. We add a field to DHCP and RA that carries the "DoT resolver". > >>>>>> When this is present, the client resolves this name using the > >>>>>> resolver. This resolution is unsecured. The client then connects > to > >>>>>> the resulting IP address and validates the certificate it presents > >>>>>> using this name. This enables easier deployment of DoT because a > >>>>>> certificate for a name is easier to get than an IP certificate (it > >>>>>> also enables use of 1918 address and the like). > >>>>> So I'd suggest to have multiple fields: > >>>>> - IP address (optional) > >>>>> - name (for PKIX verification) (optional) > >>>>> - SPKI pins? (optional) > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd like to see a single document covering DoT and DoH > >>>>> DHCP/RA options (as Martin Thomson suggested) > >>>>> instead of two documents doing the same thing > >>>>> for each protocol separately. > >>>>> > >>>>> kind regards, > >>>>> nusenu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
_______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
