[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https

Network Working Group                                         P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft                                                     ICANN
Intended status: Standards Track                              P. McManus
Expires: November 4, 2017                                        Mozilla
                                                            May 03, 2017


                         DNS Queries over HTTPS
                    draft-hoffman-dns-over-https-00

Abstract

   DNS queries sometimes experience problems with end to end
   connectivity at times and places where HTTPS flows freely.

   HTTPS provides the most practical mechanism for reliable end to end
   communication.  Its use of TLS provides integrity and confidentiality
   guarantees and its use of HTTP allows it to interoperate with
   proxies, firewalls, and authentication systems where required for
   transit.

   This document describes how to run DNS service over HTTP using
   https:// URIs.

   [ This paragraph is to be removed when this document is published as
   an RFC ] Comments on this draft can be sent to the DNS over HTTP
   mailing list at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsoverhttp .

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 4, 2017.







Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 4, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           DNS Queries over HTTPS                 May 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Non-requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  The HTTP Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  The HTTP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  HTTP Integration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Appendix A.  Previous Work on DNS over HTTP or in Other Formats .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   The Internet does not always provide end to end reachability for
   native DNS.  On-path network devices may spoof DNS responses, block
   DNS requests, or just redirect DNS queries to different DNS servers
   that give less-than-honest answers.

   Over time, there have been many proposals for using HTTP and HTTPS as
   a substrate for DNS queries and responses.  To date, none of those
   proposals have made it beyond early discussion, partially due to
   disagreement about what the appropriate formatting should be and
   partially because they did not follow HTTP best practices.



Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 4, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           DNS Queries over HTTPS                 May 2017


   This document defines a specific protocol for sending DNS [RFC1035]
   queries and getting DNS responses over modern versions of HTTP
   [RFC7540] using https:// (and therefore TLS [RFC5246] security for
   integrity and confidentiality).

   The described approach is more than a tunnel over HTTP.  It
   establishes default media formatting types for requests and responses
   but uses normal HTTP content negotiation mechanisms for selecting
   alternatives that endpoints may prefer in anticipation of serving new
   use cases.  In addition to this media type negotiation, it aligns
   itself with HTTP features such as caching, proxying, and compression.

   The integration with HTTP provides a transport suitable for both
   traditional DNS clients and native web applications seeking access to
   the DNS.

   A server that supports this protocol is called a "DNS API server" to
   differentiate it from a "DNS server" (one that uses the regular DNS
   protocol).  Similarly, a client that supports this protocol is called
   a "DNS API client".

2.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].

3.  Use Cases

   There are two primary use cases for this protocol.

   The primary one is to prevent on-path network devices from
   interfering with native DNS operations.  This interference includes,
   but is not limited to, spoofing DNS responses, blocking DNS requests,
   and tracking.  HTTP authentication and proxy friendliness are
   expected to make this protocol function in some environments where
   DNS directly on TLS ([RFC7858]) would not.

   A secondary use case is web applications that want to access DNS
   information.  Standardizing an HTTPS mechanism allows this to be done
   in a way consistent with the cross-origin resource sharing [CORS]
   security model of the web and also integrate the caching mechanisms
   of DNS with those of HTTP.  These applications may be interested in
   using a different media type than traditional clients.

   [ This paragraph is to be removed when this document is published as
   an RFC ] Note that these use cases are different than those in a



Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 4, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           DNS Queries over HTTPS                 May 2017


   similar protocol described at [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http].
   The use case for that protocol is proxying DNS queries over HTTP
   instead of over DNS itself.  The use cases in this document all
   involve query origination instead of proxying.

4.  Protocol Requirements

   The protocol described here bases its design on the following
   protocol requirements:

   o  The protocol must use normal HTTP semantics.

   o  The query format must be able to be flexible enough to express
      every normal DNS query.

   o  The protocol must allow implementations to use HTTP's content
      negotiation mechanism.

   o  The protocol must ensure interoperable media formats through a
      mandatory to implement format wherein a query must be able to
      contain one or more EDNS extensions, including those not yet
      defined.

   o  The protocol must use a secure transport that meets the
      requirements for modern https://.

4.1.  Non-requirements

   o  Supporting network-specific DNS64 [RFC6147]

   o  Supporting other network-specific inferences from plaintext DNS
      queries

   o  Supporting insecure HTTP

   o  Supporitng legacy HTTP versions

5.  The HTTP Request

   The URI scheme MUST be https.

   The path SHOULD be "/.well-known/dns-query" but a different path can
   be used if the DNS API Client has prior knowledge about a DNS API
   service on a different path at the origin being used.  (See Section 8
   for the registration of this in the well-known URI registry.)  Using
   the well-known path allows automated discovery of a DNS API Service,
   and also helps contextualize DNS Query requests pushed over an active
   HTTP/2 connection.



Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 4, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           DNS Queries over HTTPS                 May 2017


   Some forms of the request may also include a HTTP query as defined by
   [RFC3986].

   A DNS API Client encodes the DNS query into the HTTP request in one
   of two different methods:

   GET:  Using the on-the-wire representation of a DNS message defined
      in [RFC1035] as the query string portion of the URI, encoded as
      necessary with [RFC3986], using the GET HTTP method.  This is the
      preferred approach because it is friendlier to HTTP caches.

   POST:  Including the DNS query as the message body of the HTTP
      request, with the request using the POST method.  The body MUST
      use a media type selected by the DNS API Client, and that media
      type MUST be indicated by the request's Content-Type header.

   The DNS request MAY have one or more EDNS(0) extensions [RFC6891].

   The DNS API Client SHOULD include an HTTP "Accept:" request header to
   say what type of content can be understood in response.  The client
   MUST be prepared to process "application/dns-udpwireformat" responses
   but MAY process any other type it receives.

   In order to maximize cache friendliness, DNS API Clients SHOULD use
   the same ID (the first two bytes of the header) for every DNS
   request.  The exact mechanism for doing so is dependent on the media
   type in use.  HTTP semantics correlate the request and response which
   eliminates the need for the ID in a media type such as application/
   dns-udpwireformat.  Using a constant value greatly increases the
   opportunity for successful caching.

   DNS API clients can use HTTP/2 padding and compression in the same
   way that other HTTP/2 clients use (or don't use) them.

5.1.  Example

   For example, assume a DNS API server is following this specification
   on origin https://dnsserver.example.net/ and the well-known path.
   The example uses HTTP/2 formatting from [RFC7540].

   A query for the IN A records for "www.example.com" with recursion
   turned on using the GET approach would be:









Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 4, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           DNS Queries over HTTPS                 May 2017


   :method = GET
   :scheme = https
   :authority = dnsserver.example.net
   :path = /.well-known/dns-query?%ab%cd%01%00%00%01%00%00%00%00 (no CR)
                            %00%00%03www%07example%03com%00%00%01%00%01
   accept = application/dns-udpwireformat, application/dns-futureJsonDns

   The same DNS query, using the second method of HTTP encoding would
   be:

   :method = POST
   :scheme = https
   :authority = dnsserver.example.net
   :path = /.well-known/dns-query
   accept = application/dns-udpwireformat, application/dns-futureJsonDns
   content-type = application/dns-udpwireformat
   content-length = 33

   <33 bytes represented by the following hex encoding>
   abcd 0100 0001 0000 0000 0000 0377 7777
   0765 7861 6d70 6c65 0363 6f6d 0000 0100
   01

6.  The HTTP Response

   Different response media types will provide more or less information
   from a DNS response.  For example, one response type might include
   the information from the DNS header bytes while another might omit
   it.  The amount and type of information that a media type gives is
   solely up to the format, and not defined in this protocol.

   At the time this is published, the response types are works in
   progress.  The only known response type is "application/dns-
   udpwireformat", but it is likely that at least one JSON-based
   response format might be defined in the future.

   The DNS response MAY have one or more EDNS(0) extensions, depending
   on the extension definition of the extensions given in the DNS
   request.

   Native HTTP methods are used to correlate requests and responses.
   Responses may be returned in a different temporal order than requests
   were made using the protocols native multistreaming functionality.

   In the HTTP responses, the HTTP cache headers SHOULD be set to expire
   at the same time as the shortest DNS TTL in the response.  Because
   DNS provides only caching but not revalidation semantics, DNS over




Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 4, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           DNS Queries over HTTPS                 May 2017


   HTTP responses should not carry revalidation response headers (such
   as Last-Modified: or Etag:) or return 304 responses.

   A DNS API Server MUST be able to process application/dns-
   udpwireformat request messages.

   A DNS API Server SHOULD respond with HTTP status code 415 upon
   receiving a media type it is unable to process.

   This document does not change the definition of any HTTP response
   codes or otherwise proscribe their use.

6.1.  Example

   This is an example response for a query for the IN A records for
   "www.example.com" with recursion turned on.  The response bears one
   record with an address of 93.184.216.34 and a TTL of 128 seconds.

   :status = 200
   content-type = application/dns-udpwireformat
   content-length = 64
   cache-control = max-age=128

   <64 bytes represented by the following hex encoding>
   abcd 8180 0001 0001 0000 0000 0377 7777
   0765 7861 6d70 6c65 0363 6f6d 0000 0100

   0103 7777 7707 6578 616d 706c 6503 636f
   6d00 0001 0001 0000 0080 0004 5Db8 d822

7.  HTTP Integration

   In order to satisfy the security requirements of DNS over HTTPS, this
   protocol MUST use HTTP/2 [RFC7540] or its successors.  HTTP/2
   enforces a modern TLS profile necessary for achieving the security
   requirements of this protocol.

   This protocol MUST be used with https scheme URI [RFC7230].

   The messages in classic UDP based DNS [RFC1035] are inherently
   unordered and have low overhead.  A competitive HTTP transport needs
   to support reordering, priority, parallelism, and header compression.
   For this additional reason, this protocol MUST use HTTP/2 [RFC7540]
   or its successors.







Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 4, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           DNS Queries over HTTPS                 May 2017


8.  IANA Considerations

   This specification registers a Well-Known URI [RFC5785]:

   o  URI Suffix: dns-query

   o  Change Controller: IETF

   o  Specification Document(s): [this specification]

   (Note for the -00 draft: a request for the media type application/
   dns-udpwireformat has already been submitted separately from this
   draft because it may be useful for other documents as well.  That
   application is pending approval.)

9.  Security Considerations

   Running DNS over https:// relies on the security of the underlying
   HTTP connection.  By requiring at least [RFC7540] levels of support
   for TLS this protocol expects to use current best practices for
   secure transport.

   Session level encryption has well known weaknesses with respect to
   traffic analysis which might be particularly acute when dealing with
   DNS queries.  Sections 10.6 (Compression) and 10.7 (Padding) of
   [RFC7540] provide some further advice on mitigations within an HTTP/2
   context.

10.  Acknowledgments

   Joe Hildebrand contributed lots of material for a different iteration
   of this document.  Helpful early comments were given by Ben Schwartz
   and Mark Nottingham.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.





Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 4, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           DNS Queries over HTTPS                 May 2017


   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [RFC5785]  Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known
              Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5785, April 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5785>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.

   [RFC7858]  Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
              and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
              2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [CORS]     W3C, "Cross-Origin Resource Sharing", 2014,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/cors/>.

   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http]
              Song, L., Vixie, P., Kerr, S., and R. Wan, "DNS wire-
              format over HTTP", draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http-01
              (work in progress), March 2017.

   [RFC6147]  Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
              Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
              Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.






Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 4, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           DNS Queries over HTTPS                 May 2017


   [RFC6891]  Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
              for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.

Appendix A.  Previous Work on DNS over HTTP or in Other Formats

   The following is an incomplete list of earlier work that related to
   DNS over HTTP/1 or representing DNS data in other formats.

   The list includes links to the tools.ietf.org site (because these
   documents are all expired) and web sites of software.

   o  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mohan-dns-query-xml

   o  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daley-dnsxml

   o  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dulaunoy-dnsop-passive-dns-cof

   o  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-json

   o  https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/projects/dnssec-trigger/

Authors' Addresses

   Paul Hoffman
   ICANN

   Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org


   Patrick McManus
   Mozilla

   Email: pmcmanus@mozilla.com
















Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 4, 2017               [Page 10]


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