I was not aware of the error code draft – seems like a great idea!

Jason

From: Kenji Baheux <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 7:41 PM
To: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Campling <[email protected]>, "Livingood, Jason" 
<[email protected]>, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]>, 
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dns-privacy] Trying to understand DNS resolver 
'discovery'



On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 8:05 PM Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 
wrote:
In addition, with the extended error codes defined in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-08<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-08__;!rx_L75ITgOQ!Vv9arb-84qRPL_HZNwsjOJMHqbm5VUHarDC9sqa3OZ1zo4mKZ9DgGRQJphmIJ3F9QQaDUg$>,
 client would know the reason for blocking access to a domain, solves the user 
experience problem and, DoT/DoH ensures the error response is not spoofed.

Spot on.

A big part of the problem is that the DNS modifications for legit use cases or 
legal reasons are done in a non-transparent way, with potential 
security/privacy side-effects (e.g. application left in the dark, forced custom 
page), and without strong guarantees that this was indeed the original intent. 
That said, I understand the need for ISP or service operators to explain what 
happened to the user and how to act on it (e.g. request whitelisting in a 
parental control situation).

So, I'd love to hear feedback from ISPs in particular, on the extended DNS 
error draft in conjunction with DoH.
An alternative would be to use/repurpose HTTP status code such as 451 or 450 in 
DoH, and also define something for the explanation needs.



-Tiru

From: dns-privacy 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf 
Of Andrew Campling
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2019 3:39 AM
To: Livingood, Jason 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Stephane 
Bortzmeyer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Trying to understand DNS resolver 'discovery'


CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you 
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


________________________________
+1 to Jason's comment - suggesting all DNS modification is bad indicates a 
misunderstanding of some real-world use cases.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Livingood, Jason 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: 27 November 2019 16:06
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [dns-privacy] Trying to understand DNS resolver 'discovery'

On 11/27/19, 9:29 AM, "dns-privacy on behalf of Stephane Bortzmeyer" 
<[email protected] on behalf of 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]%20on%20behalf%20of%[email protected]>>
 wrote:

>    For instance, if your access provider has a lying resolver

I just wanted to take a moment to note that choosing to use the term 'lying' 
when describing resolver behavior is unnecessarily negative and seems designed 
to be intentionally divisive. This does not IMO contribute to a productive 
discussion and exchange of views at the IETF.

As has been long demonstrated here and in DNSOP, not all DNS modification can 
be considered 'lying' - given that lying obviously implies it is a negative 
thing that is counter to user preferences. For example, an opt-in parental 
control service that modifies responses is not a negative use case from the 
perspective of that user/parent. Similarly, a DNS modification in an enterprise 
that blocks malware C2 FQDNs is also from the enterprise's perspective a good 
thing.

It seems a better approach is to simply use a neutral term and call this DNS 
modification. Whether that is good or bad will depend on the particular use 
case or situation or other factors.

Thanks
Jason



_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy__;!rx_L75ITgOQ!Vv9arb-84qRPL_HZNwsjOJMHqbm5VUHarDC9sqa3OZ1zo4mKZ9DgGRQJphmIJ3GY77Abgg$>


--
Kenji BAHEUX
Product Manager - Chrome
Google Japan
_______________________________________________
dns-privacy mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy

Reply via email to