[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation

Network Working Group                                      S. Bortzmeyer
Internet-Draft                                                     AFNIC
Intended status: Informational                              May 19, 2014
Expires: November 20, 2014


             DNS query name minimisation to improve privacy
               draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation-02

Abstract

   This document describes one of the techniques that could be used to
   improve DNS privacy (see [I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy]), a
   technique called "qname minimisation".

   Discussions of the document should currently take place on the dns-
   privacy mailing list [dns-privacy].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.












Bortzmeyer             Expires November 20, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             Qname minimisation                   May 2014


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction and background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Qname minimisation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Operational considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Other advantages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  An algorithm to find the zone cut  . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction and background

   The problem statement is exposed in
   [I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy].  The terminology ("qname",
   "resolver", etc) is also defined in this companion document.  This
   specific solution is not intended to completely solve the problem,
   far from it.  It is better to see it as one tool among a toolbox.

   It follows the principle explained in section 6.1 of [RFC6973]: the
   less data you send out, the less privacy problems you'll get.

2.  Qname minimisation

   The idea is to minimise the amount of data sent from the DNS
   resolver.  When a resolver receives the query "What is the AAAA
   record for www.example.com?", it sends to the root (assuming a cold
   resolver, whose cache is empty) the very same question.  Sending
   "What are the NS records for .com?"  would be sufficient (since it
   will be the answer from the root anyway).  To do so would be
   compatible with the current DNS system and therefore could be easily
   deployable, since it is an unilateral change to the resolvers.

   If "minimisation" is too long, you can write it "m12n".




Bortzmeyer             Expires November 20, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             Qname minimisation                   May 2014


   To do such minimisation, the resolver needs to know the zone cut
   [RFC2181].  There is not a zone cut at every label boundary.  If we
   take the name www.foo.bar.example, it is possible that there is a
   zone cut between "foo" and "bar" but not between "bar" and "example".
   So, assuming the resolver already knows the name servers of .example,
   when it receives the query "What is the AAAA record of
   www.foo.bar.example", it does not always know if the request should
   be sent to the name servers of bar.example or to those of example.
   [RFC2181] suggests a method to find the zone cut (section 6), so
   resolvers may try it.

   Note that DNSSEC-validating resolvers already have access to this
   information, since they have to find the zone cut (the DNSKEY record
   set is just below, the DS record set just above).

   It can be noted that minimising the amount of data sent also
   partially addresses the case of a wire sniffer, not just the case of
   privacy invasion by the servers.

   One should note that the behaviour suggested here (minimising the
   amount of data sent in qnames) is NOT forbidden by the [RFC1034]
   (section 5.3.3) or [RFC1035] (section 7.2).  Sending the full qname
   to the authoritative name server is a tradition, not a protocol
   requirment.

3.  Operational considerations

   The administrators of the forwarders, and of the authoritative name
   servers, will get less data, which will reduce the utility of the
   statistics they can produce (such as the percentage of the various
   qtypes).  On the other hand, it will decrease their legal
   responsability, in many cases.

   Some broken name servers do not react properly to qtype=NS requests.
   As an example, look at www.ratp.fr (not ratp.fr), which is delegated
   to two name servers that reply properly to "A www.ratp.fr" queries
   but send REFUSED to queries "NS www.ratp.fr".  This behaviour is a
   gross protocol violation and there is no need to stop improving the
   DNS because of such brokenness.  However, qname minimisation may
   still work with such domains since they are only leaf domains (no
   need to send them NS requests).

   Another way to deal with such broken name servers would be to try
   with A requests (A being choosen because it is the most common and
   hence the least revealing qtype).  Instead of querying name servers
   with a query "NS example.com", we could use "A _.example.com" and see
   if we get a referral.




Bortzmeyer             Expires November 20, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             Qname minimisation                   May 2014


4.  Other advantages

   The main goal of qname minimisation is to improve privacy, by sending
   less data.  However, it may have other advantages.  For instance, if
   a root name server receives a query from some resolver for A.CORP
   followed by B.CORP followed by C.CORP, the result will be three
   NXDOMAINs, since .CORP does not exist in the root zone.  Under query
   minimization, the root name servers would hear only one question (for
   .CORP itself) to which they could answer NXDOMAIN, thus opening up a
   negative caching opportunity in which the full resolver could know a
   priori that neither B.CORP or C.CORP could exist.  Thus in this
   common case the total number of upstream queries under query
   minimisation would be counter-intuitively less than the number of
   queries under the traditional iteration (as described in the DNS
   standard).

5.  Security considerations

   Under study.  TODO: better handling of phantom domains?

6.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Olaf Kolkman, Mark Andrews and Francis Dupont for the
   interesting discussions on this qname minimisation.  Thanks to Mohsen
   Souissi for proofreading.  Thanks to Tony Finch for the zone cut
   algorithm in Appendix A.  Thanks to Paul Vixie for pointing out that
   there are practical advantages (besides privacy) to qname m12n.
   Thanks to Phillip Hallam-Baker for the fallback on A queries, to deal
   with broken servers.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
              2013.




Bortzmeyer             Expires November 20, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             Qname minimisation                   May 2014


   [I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy]
              Bortzmeyer, S., "DNS privacy problem statement", draft-
              bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy-01 (work in progress),
              December 2013.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2181]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
              Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.

   [dns-privacy]
              IETF, , "The dns-privacy mailing list", March 2014.

Appendix A.  An algorithm to find the zone cut

   Although a validating resolver already has the logic to find the zone
   cut, other resolvers may be interested by this algorithm to follow in
   order to locate this cut:

      (0) If the query can be answered from the cache, do so, otherwise
      iterate as follows:

      (1) Find closest enclosing NS RRset in your cache.  The owner of
      this NS RRset will be a suffix of the QNAME - the longest suffix
      of any NS RRset in the cache.  Call this PARENT.

      (2) Initialize CHILD to the same as PARENT.

      (3) If CHILD is the same as the QNAME, resolve the original query
      using PARENT's name servers, and finish.

      (4) Otherwise, add a label from the QNAME to the start of CHILD.

      (5) If you have a negative cache entry for the NS RRset at CHILD,
      go back to step 3.

      (6) Query for CHILD IN NS using PARENT's name servers.  The
      response can be:

         (6a) A referral.  Cache the NS RRset from the authority section
         and go back to step 1.

         (6b) An authoritative answer.  Cache the NS RRset from the
         answer section and go back to step 1.

         (6c) An NXDOMAIN answer.  Return an NXDOMAIN answer in response
         to the original query and stop.




Bortzmeyer             Expires November 20, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             Qname minimisation                   May 2014


         (6d) A NOERROR/NODATA answer.  Cache this negative answer and
         go back to step 3.

Author's Address

   Stephane Bortzmeyer
   AFNIC
   1, rue Stephenson
   Montigny-le-Bretonneux  78180
   France

   Phone: +33 1 39 30 83 46
   Email: bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr
   URI:   http://www.afnic.fr/




































Bortzmeyer             Expires November 20, 2014                [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/