On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:14 AM Mohit Sethi M <mohit.m.sethi= 40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Hi Sara, > > I understand the desire to get this done with. However, I have some > further comments in-line: > On 1/24/20 5:29 PM, Sara Dickinson wrote: > > Mohit, > > I’m out of the office next week so in order to try to move the draft along > I have published an -08 version which I think addresses most of your > comments (there were a few questions in my response below). Please let me > know if any are still outstanding. > > Best regards > > Sara. > > On 17 Jan 2020, at 15:33, Sara Dickinson <s...@sinodun.com> wrote: > > > On 29 Dec 2019, at 13:50, Mohit Sethi via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Mohit Sethi > Review result: On the Right Track > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-07 > Reviewer: Mohit Sethi > Review Date: 2019-12-29 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-01-02 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > This draft discusses privacy challenges for recursive DNS resolvers. It > then > describes policy and security considerations that DNS service providers > can use > for enhanced user privacy. The draft is 'On the Right Track' but not yet > ready. > > > Many thanks for the detailed review! Ben, Rob I hope theses fixes also > address your comments. > > > Major issues: > > I wonder if section 5.1.2.1/5.1.3.1 should also talk about recommending > OCSP > stapling (RFC 6066)? I looked at RFC 8310 and it mentions RFC 7525. Do you > want > to mention it here in section 5.1.2.1/5.1.3.1? > > > What exactly are you thinking of here - something that just says “Server > operators should also follow the best practices with regard to OCSP as > described in RFC7525”? If something more could you please suggest text? > > I was hoping that the text would be more precise rather than a cursory > reference to another RFC. You could say something along the lines: 'The TLS > client and server MUST use Certificate Status Requests [RFC6066] for the > server's certificate chain and the client MUST treat a CertificateEntry > (except the trust anchor) without a valid CertificateStatus extension as > invalid and abort the handshake with an appropriate alert.'. In the same > vein, I would expect that you would strongly mandate the use of TLS 1.3 > with DoH and DNS over TLS? > Mohit: I actually don't think we should require OCSP at all. For instance, most browsers are moving away from it. We should require or at least strongly encourage revocation checking. -Ekr > > In section 5.1.2.1, what is meant by 'authentication domain names'? Later, > the > text says 'authentication name for the service'. I guess you are implying > the > authentic domain name of the DNS resolver service that the client software > should verify through the common name (CN) in the certificate? Some more > explanation here would be beneficial. > > > It is defined in the terminology section of RFC8310: > > "Authentication domain name: A domain name that can be used to > authenticate a privacy-enabling DNS server. Sources of authentication > domain names are discussed in Section 7." > > I have added a reference for RFC8310 after the first use of > ‘authentication domain name’ and made sure every instance of > 'authentication name' is updated to 'authentication domain name' for > clarity. > > Personally, I find the phrase 'Authentication domain name' very unclear. > From the phrase, it doesn't look like it has anything to do with DNS? On > first reading, I interpreted it as the domain name where I should > authenticate. Since the IESG let this through for RFC 8310, I guess we will > have to live with this (poor) choice. > > > > In section 5.1.4, should 'DNS Roadblock avoidance' be 'DNSSEC Roadblock > avoidance'? And please add a reference to RFC 8027 here if that is the > case. > > > Yes, good catch - will do. > > > Section 5.1.7 says "discussion on the use of Bloom Filters in Appendix A".. > It > is pointing to the wrong appendix. > > > Fixed - thanks. > > Also, this section talks about implementing > traffic monitoring by the DNS service provider. I would argue that in most > deployments, the traffic monitoring is required (and implemented) by a > different entity. Think of a home network router that has a parental > control. > Or an enterprise restricting employees from visiting certain sites (to > prevent > insider attacks)? The impact of encryption is more serious for them and > less so > for a DNS service provider. What is the BCP advice for them? > > > You are correct that the there are differing concerns but I don’t believe > this document should tackle that - the audience of the document is > specifically operators of DNS privacy services, typically monitoring to > prevent DDoS or similar, not network operators in general (although they > may be both in some cases). For the more general case I think the impact is > covered in RFC8404 'Effects of Pervasive Encryption on Operators’? > > I do notice a couple of places where just ‘operators’ is used in the text > so could add ‘DNS Privacy Service’ before that to clarify? > > I leave it to Alissa and IESG to decide what they want here. > > > Also, is it fair > to say that this is a best current practice? It feels that we need more > experience before we start recommending it as an optimization. > > > Given the specific scope discussed above I think it is fair. The privacy > policies of most of the public resolver operators and ISPs that offer > encrypted DNS are pretty good today in terms of how they try to minimise > the user data retained and I’m sure they all still have monitoring in > place… > > My question was specifically about using Bloom filters? Which DNS > operators are currently using it? Do we have sufficient evidence other than > the research publication that this is 'Best Current Practice'? > > > > This comment applies to all 5.1.1-5.1.8. Each subsection starts rather > abruptly > by discussing threats. It would be nice if you add a sentence at the > beginning > of each sub-section telling the reader what are they heading into. This is > probably most obvious from section 5.1.8. Without even telling the reader > what > is a pure TLS proxy, you start listing the DNS privacy threats. Only later > on > you mention option that operators may implement DNS-over-TLS using a TLS > proxy. > > > If we go down this road then I think to be consistent we would need to add > text for all 16 sections 5.1.1 to 5.3.3. I could do this but I have a > feeling it would be come quite repetitive with respect to the section title > text and I think if we could get the titles correct (and possibly add more > text to section 5) this might be unnecessary. I suggest: > > Section 5: Add a first paragraph: > “In the following sections we first outline the threats relevant to the > specific topic and then discuss the potential actions that can be taken to > mitigate them.”thorita > > And for section 5.1.8 change the title to “Limitations of fronting a DNS > Privacy Service with a pure TLS proxy”. > Happy to update any other headers you thought too vague. > > Would that address the issue or do you still think additional text is > required? > > > In section 5.3.2 'way and OUGHT obfuscate'. OUGHT is not part of RFC > 2119/8174. > Why is it capitalized? And, 'ought' ought to be followed by a 'to’. > > > I was confused by this and then realised it is a hangover from a much > earlier version of the draft that used EXPECTED/OUGHT/MIGHT keywords > defined in the draft to described the various levels of actions…. so as you > suggest: > > OLD: “For example, a resolver with a very small community of users risks > exposing data in this way and OUGHT obfuscate this...” > > NEW: “For example, a resolver with a very small community of users risks > exposing data in this way and ought to obfuscate this..." > > > At the beginning of section 5, you describe three classes of actions. > However, > none of the subsections contain clear "Additional options" that operators > need > to follow for "maximal compliance”? > > > Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 do have them. In earlier versions several more > sections but they have been removed. thorita > > Okay. Thanks. I hadn't seen this. I have a question related to the > following text: > > o Aggressive Use of DNSSEC-Validated Cache [RFC8198 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8198>] and [RFC8020 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8020>] > (NXDOMAIN: There Really Is Nothing Underneath) to reduce the > number of queries to authoritative servers to increase privacy. > > Suppose I own the domain mydomain.com? My application requires clients to > lookup for non-existent sub domains. So if a client sends a query to the > local resolver for non-existent1.mydomain.com and > non-existent2.mydomain.com, will both be sent to the authoritative server > for mydomain.com? > > > > The document seems focused on TLS 1.2 (and does not talk about TLS 1.3). In > fact, RFC 8446 is not even in the list of references even though section > 5.1.3.1 mentions it. Similarly, Appendix A.2 mentions TLS session > resumption > without server-side state. How about servers using TLS 1.3 and PSK > resumption? > RFC 8446 has text on client tracking in appendix C.4: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446#appendix-C.4. > > > A slight hangover from the fact the DNS-over-TLS spec was published in > 2015 before TLS 1.3 was standardised (so it just says TLS 1.2 or later) and > so most of the early DoT services used just TLS 1.2. > > Section 5.1.3.1 had the text ‘RFC8446’ but it wasn’t actually a reference > so I’ve fixed that - thanks. > > I’ve added a bullet point to Appendix A.2 > “RFC8446 Appendix C.4 describes Client Tracking Prevention in TLS 1.3" > > > There is something wrong about the last sentence of Appendix A.2 'Note that > depending on the specifics of the implementation [RFC8484] may also provide > increased tracking'. You already mention RFC 8484 in Appendix A.1 as a > means to > increase privacy. Perhaps you wanted to cite a different RFC here? > > > The point is that the use of HTTP headers in DoH can add additional > privacy concerns over the other DNS transports, but that RFC8484 leaves > that as an implementation decision. I suggest replacing the text with > > “Note that Section 8 of RFC8484 outlines the privacy considerations of > DoH. Depending on the specifics of a DoH implementation there may be > increased identification and tracking compared to other DNS transports." > > Think of the reader of this document. Appendix A.1 says that DoH can > increase privacy. The Appendix A.2 says that with DoH 'identification and > tracking may be increased' Should I use DoH or not? I recommend to > re-phrase the text in A.2 along the lines 'While DoH can increase privacy, > section 8 of RFC 8484 outlines potential mechanisms that can nonetheless be > used by on-path adversaries for correlation and tracking. As recommended in > RFC 8484, DNS resolvers that offer DoH need to consider the benefit and > privacy impact of these features, and their deployment context when > deciding what features are enabled. Resolver implementations are advised to > expose the minimal set of data needed to achieve the desired feature set.' > > > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > There is mixed usage of Anonymisation (in Table 1) vs Anonymization. The > same > with Pseudoanonymisation (in Table 1) vs pseudonymization in text. Please > check > with the RFC editor on what is expected and use that consistently. Also > noticed > optimisation. > > > Thanks - have fixed. I have now used the American English forms (z not s) > throughout. > > > In Table 1, Crytpographic should be Cryptographic. > > > Ack. > > > Maybe you could use an Oxford comma when using lists of items. > > > Had it some places, but not all - should be fixed now. > > > In section 5.1.2.1, there is stray space character at the end of the > bullet on > "Follow the guidance in Section 6.5 of [RFC7525] with regards to > certificate > revocation .” > > > Perhaps expand DNSSEC on first usage: Domain Name System Security > Extensions > (DNSSEC). > > In section 5.1.6 'in terms of such options as filtering' should instead be > 'in > terms of options such as filtering'. > > In section 5.1.8 'a DNS aware proxy such as [dnsdist] which offer custom > (similar to that proposed in'. Consider using 'offers' instead of 'offer' > and > 'similar to those proposed in' instead of 'similar to that proposed in'. > > In section 5.2.2 'presents and overview' should be 'presents an overview'.. > Consider rephrasing 'the better to resist brute force'. Also, in 'agreed > solution or any Standards to inform', why is standards capitalized? > > In section 5.2.4 'queries on multiple TCP session' should be 'queries on > multiple TCP sessions'. Please expand CPE on first usage. > > In section 6.3 'This is by analogy with e.g. several TLS or website' could > instead be 'This is analogous to several TLS or website'. > > In Appendix A.1 'documents apply to recursive to authoritative DNS' > shouldn't > there be an 'and’? > > > All fixed - thanks. > > > In Appendix C.1, consider changing the format for the sub bullets of '2. > Data > collection and sharing.'. Instead of numbering them with 1/2/3, perhaps use > a/b/c. > > > I’m currently using markdown which won’t let me do that…. :-( I do think > that would be better so I suggest adding a note that this is done at RFC > editor time….? > > Yes, please do. It will help with readability. > > Thanks for the rest of the changes. > > --Mohit > > > > In Appendix C.1 'of use of system' could be 'of system use'. Also why is > there > a line break between 'items that are' and 'included'? There is an > extraneous > 'the' in 'available with the our threat intelligence'. Consider re-wording > parts of paragraph '3. Sharing of data. '. At one place you say 'with our > threat intelligence partners' and a few words later you say 'with its > threat > intelligence partners’. > > > Fixed. > > > In Appendix C.1 'In the event of events or observed behaviors' is a bit > hard to > parse. Consider rephrasing the 'event of events' part. > > > Replaced events with actions. > > Best regards > > Sara. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dns-privacy mailing list > dns-priv...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art