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

Versions: (draft-hoffman-dns-over-https) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 RFC 8484

Network Working Group                                         P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft                                                     ICANN
Intended status: Standards Track                              P. McManus
Expires: November 25, 2018                                       Mozilla
                                                            May 24, 2018


                      DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)
                    draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-09

Abstract

   This document describes how to make DNS queries over HTTPS.

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 https://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 25, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://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.






Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Non-requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Selection of DNS API Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  The HTTP Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  The HTTP Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       5.1.1.  HTTP Request Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  The HTTP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.2.1.  HTTP Response Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  HTTP Integration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Cache Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  HTTP/2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.3.  Server Push . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.4.  Content Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  DNS Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Registration of application/dns-message Media Type  . . .  11
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Previous Work on DNS over HTTP or in Other Formats  . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   This document defines a specific protocol for sending DNS [RFC1035]
   queries and getting DNS responses over HTTP [RFC7540] using https
   URIs (and therefore TLS [RFC5246] security for integrity and
   confidentiality).  Each DNS query-response pair is mapped into a HTTP
   exchange.

   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, redirection, proxying,
   authentication, and compression.

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



Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


   Two primary uses cases were considered during this protocol's
   development.  They included preventing on-path devices from
   interfering with DNS operations and allowing web applications to
   access DNS information via existing browser APIs in a safe way
   consistent with Cross Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) [CORS].  No
   special effort has been taken to enable or prevent application to
   other use cases.  This document focuses on communication between DNS
   clients (such as operating system stub resolvers) and recursive
   resolvers.

2.  Terminology

   A server that supports this protocol is called a "DNS API server" to
   differentiate it from a "DNS server" (one that only provides DNS
   service over one or more of the other transport protocols
   standardized for DNS).  Similarly, a client that supports this
   protocol is called a "DNS API client".

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Protocol Requirements

   [[ RFC Editor: Please remove this entire section before publication.
   ]]

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

   o  The protocol must use normal HTTP semantics.

   o  The queries and responses must be able to be flexible enough to
      express every DNS query that would normally be sent in DNS over
      UDP (including queries and responses that use DNS extensions, but
      not those that require multiple responses).

   o  The protocol must permit the addition of new formats for DNS
      queries and responses.

   o  The protocol must ensure interoperability by specifying a single
      format for requests and responses that is mandatory to implement.
      That format must be able to support future modifications to the
      DNS protocol including the inclusion of one or more EDNS options
      (including those not yet defined).




Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


   o  The protocol must use a secure transport that meets the
      requirements for HTTPS.

3.1.  Non-requirements

   o  Supporting network-specific DNS64 [RFC6147]

   o  Supporting other network-specific inferences from plaintext DNS
      queries

   o  Supporting insecure HTTP

4.  Selection of DNS API Server

   A DNS API client uses configuration to select the URI, and thus the
   DNS API server, used for resolution.  A client MUST NOT use a DNS API
   server simply because it was discovered, or because the client was
   told to use the DNS API server by an untrusted party.  [RFC2818]
   defines how HTTPS verifies the server's identity.

   This specification does not extend DNS resolution privileges to URIs
   that are not recognized by the DNS API client as trusted DNS API
   servers.  As such, use of untrusted servers is out of scope of this
   document.

5.  The HTTP Exchange

5.1.  The HTTP Request

   A DNS API client encodes a single DNS query into an HTTP request
   using either the HTTP GET or POST method and the other requirements
   of this section.  The DNS API server defines the URI used by the
   request through the use of a URI Template [RFC6570].

   Configuration and discovery of the URI Template is done out of band
   from this protocol.  DNS API Servers MAY support more than one URI.
   This allows the different endpoints to have different properties such
   as different authentication requirements or service level guarantees.

   The URI Template defined in this document is processed without any
   variables when the HTTP method is POST.  When the HTTP method is GET
   the single variable "dns" is defined as the content of the DNS
   request (as described in Section 7), encoded with base64url
   [RFC4648].

   Future specifications for new media types MUST define the variables
   used for URI Template processing with this protocol.




Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


   DNS API servers MUST implement both the POST and GET methods.

   When using the POST method the DNS query is included as the message
   body of the HTTP request and the Content-Type request header
   indicates the media type of the message.  POST-ed requests are
   smaller than their GET equivalents.

   Using the GET method is friendlier to many HTTP cache
   implementations.

   The DNS API client SHOULD include an HTTP "Accept" request header to
   indicate what type of content can be understood in response.
   Irrespective of the value of the Accept request header, the client
   MUST be prepared to process "application/dns-message" (as described
   in Section 7) responses but MAY also process any other type it
   receives.

   In order to maximize cache friendliness, DNS API clients using media
   formats that include DNS ID, such as application/dns-message, SHOULD
   use a DNS ID of 0 in every DNS request.  HTTP correlates the request
   and response, thus eliminating the need for the ID in a media type
   such as application/dns-message.  The use of a varying DNS ID can
   cause semantically equivalent DNS queries to be cached separately.

   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.

5.1.1.  HTTP Request Examples

   These examples use HTTP/2 style formatting from [RFC7540].

   These examples use a DNS API service with a URI Template of
   "https://dnsserver.example.net/dns-query{?dns}" to resolve IN A
   records.

   The requests are represented as application/dns-message typed bodies.

   The first example request uses GET to request www.example.com

   :method = GET
   :scheme = https
   :authority = dnsserver.example.net
   :path = /dns-query?dns=AAABAAABAAAAAAAAA3d3dwdleGFtcGxlA2NvbQAAAQAB
   accept = application/dns-message

   The same DNS query for www.example.com, using the POST method would
   be:




Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


   :method = POST
   :scheme = https
   :authority = dnsserver.example.net
   :path = /dns-query
   accept = application/dns-message
   content-type = application/dns-message
   content-length = 33

   <33 bytes represented by the following hex encoding>
   00 00 01 00 00 01 00 00  00 00 00 00 03 77 77 77
   07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65  03 63 6f 6d 00 00 01 00
   01

   Finally, a GET based query for a.62characterlabel-makes-base64url-
   distinct-from-standard-base64.example.com is shown as an example to
   emphasize that the encoding alphabet of base64url is different than
   regular base64 and that padding is omitted.

   The DNS query is 94 bytes represented by the following hex encoding

   00 00 01 00 00 01 00 00  00 00 00 00 01 61 3e 36
   32 63 68 61 72 61 63 74  65 72 6c 61 62 65 6c 2d
   6d 61 6b 65 73 2d 62 61  73 65 36 34 75 72 6c 2d
   64 69 73 74 69 6e 63 74  2d 66 72 6f 6d 2d 73 74
   61 6e 64 61 72 64 2d 62  61 73 65 36 34 07 65 78
   61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f  6d 00 00 01 00 01

   :method = GET
   :scheme = https
   :authority = dnsserver.example.net
   :path = /dns-query? (no space or CR)
           dns=AAABAAABAAAAAAAAAWE-NjJjaGFyYWN0ZXJsYWJl (no space or CR)
           bC1tYWtlcy1iYXNlNjR1cmwtZGlzdGluY3QtZnJvbS1z (no space or CR)
           dGFuZGFyZC1iYXNlNjQHZXhhbXBsZQNjb20AAAEAAQ
   accept = application/dns-message


5.2.  The HTTP Response

   An HTTP response with a 2xx status code ([RFC7231] Section 6.3)
   indicates a valid DNS response to the query made in the HTTP request.
   A valid DNS response includes both success and failure responses.
   For example, a DNS failure response such as SERVFAIL or NXDOMAIN will
   be the message in a successful 2xx HTTP response even though there
   was a failure at the DNS layer.  Responses with non-successful HTTP
   status codes do not contain DNS answers to the question in the
   corresponding request.  Some of these non-successful HTTP responses




Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


   (e.g., redirects or authentication failures) could mean that clients
   need to make new requests to satisfy the original question.

   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.

   The only response type defined in this document is "application/dns-
   message", but it is possible that other response formats will be
   defined in the future.

   The DNS response for "application/dns-message" in Section 7 MAY have
   one or more EDNS options [RFC6891], depending on the extension
   definition of the extensions given in the DNS request.

   Each DNS request-response pair is matched to one HTTP exchange.  The
   responses may be processed and transported in any order using HTTP's
   multi-streaming functionality ([RFC7540] Section 5).

   Section 6.1 discusses the relationship between DNS and HTTP response
   caching.

   A DNS API server MUST be able to process application/dns-message
   request messages.

   A DNS API server SHOULD respond with HTTP status code 415
   (Unsupported Media Type) upon receiving a media type it is unable to
   process.

5.2.1.  HTTP Response 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 192.0.2.1 and a TTL of 128 seconds.

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

   <64 bytes represented by the following hex encoding>
   00 00 81 80 00 01 00 01  00 00 00 00 03 77 77 77
   07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65  03 63 6f 6d 00 00 01 00
   01 03 77 77 77 07 65 78  61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f
   6d 00 00 01 00 01 00 00  00 80 00 04 C0 00 02 01




Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


6.  HTTP Integration

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

6.1.  Cache Interaction

   A DOH exchange can pass through a hierarchy of caches that include
   both HTTP and DNS specific caches.  These caches may exist beteen the
   DNS API server and client, or on the DNS API client itself.  HTTP
   caches are by design generic; that is, they do not understand this
   protocol.  Even if a DNS API client has modified its cache
   implementation to be aware of DOH semantics, it does not follow that
   all upstream caches (for example, inline proxies, server-side
   gateways and Content Delivery Networks) will be.

   As a result, DNS API servers need to carefully consider the HTTP
   caching metadata they send in response to GET requests (POST requests
   are not cacheable unless specific response headers are sent; this is
   not widely implemented, and not advised for DOH).

   In particular, DNS API servers SHOULD assign an explicit freshness
   lifetime ([RFC7234] Section 4.2) so that the DNS API client is more
   likely to use fresh DNS data.  This requirement is due to HTTP caches
   being able to assign their own heuristic freshness (such as that
   described in [RFC7234] Section 4.2.2), which would take control of
   the cache contents out of the hands of the DNS API server.

   The assigned freshness lifetime of a DOH HTTP response SHOULD be the
   smallest TTL in the Answer section of the DNS response.  For example,
   if a HTTP response carries three RRsets with TTLs of 30, 600, and
   300, the HTTP freshness lifetime should be 30 seconds (which could be
   specified as "Cache-Control: max-age=30").  The assigned freshness
   lifetime MUST NOT be greater than the smallest TTL in the Answer
   section of the DNS response.  This requirement helps assure that none
   of the RRsets contained in a DNS response are served stale from an
   HTTP cache.

   If the DNS response has no records in the Answer section, and the DNS
   response has an SOA record in the Authority section, the response
   freshness lifetime MUST NOT be greater than the MINIMUM field from
   that SOA record (see [RFC2308]).

   The stale-while-revalidate and stale-if-error Cache-Control
   directives ([RFC5861]) could be well suited to a DOH implementation
   when allowed by server policy.  Those mechanisms allow a client, at
   the server's discretion, to reuse a cache entry that is no longer
   fresh.  In such a case, the client reuses all of a cached entry, or
   none of it.



Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


   DNS API servers also need to consider caching when generating
   responses that are not globally valid.  For instance, if a DNS API
   server customizes a response based on the client's identity, it would
   not want to allow global reuse of that response.  This could be
   accomplished through a variety of HTTP techniques such as a Cache-
   Control max-age of 0, or by using the Vary response header ([RFC7231]
   Section 7.1.4) to establish a secondary cache key ([RFC7234]
   Section 4.1).

   DNS API clients MUST account for the Age response header's value
   ([RFC7234]) when calculating the DNS TTL of a response.  For example,
   if a RRset is received with a DNS TTL of 600, but the Age header
   indicates that the response has been cached for 250 seconds, the
   remaining lifetime of the RRset is 350 seconds.

   DNS API clients can request an uncached copy of a response by using
   the "no-cache" request cache control directive ([RFC7234],
   Section 5.2.1.4) and similar controls.  Note that some caches might
   not honor these directives, either due to configuration or
   interaction with traditional DNS caches that do not have such a
   mechanism.

   HTTP conditional requests ([RFC7232]) may be of limited value to DOH,
   as revalidation provides only a bandwidth benefit and DNS
   transactions are normally latency bound.  Furthermore, the HTTP
   response headers that enable revalidation (such as "Last-Modified"
   and "Etag") are often fairly large when compared to the overall DNS
   response size, and have a variable nature that creates constant
   pressure on the HTTP/2 compression dictionary [RFC7541].  Other types
   of DNS data, such as zone transfers, may be larger and benefit more
   from revalidation.

6.2.  HTTP/2

   HTTP/2 [RFC7540] is the minimum RECOMMENDED version of HTTP for use
   with DOH.

   The messages in classic UDP based DNS [RFC1035] are inherently
   unordered and have low overhead.  A competitive HTTP transport needs
   to support reordering, parallelism, priority, and header compression
   to achieve similar performance.  Those features were introduced to
   HTTP in HTTP/2 [RFC7540].  Earlier versions of HTTP are capable of
   conveying the semantic requirements of DOH but may result in very
   poor performance.







Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


6.3.  Server Push

   Before using DOH response data for DNS resolution, the client MUST
   establish that the HTTP request URI may be used for the DOH query.
   For HTTP requests initiated by the DNS API client this is implicit in
   the selection of URI.  For HTTP server push ([RFC7540] Section 8.2)
   extra care must be taken to ensure that the pushed URI is one that
   the client would have directed the same query to if the client had
   initiated the request.

6.4.  Content Negotiation

   In order to maximize interoperability, DNS API clients and DNS API
   servers MUST support the "application/dns-message" media type.  Other
   media types MAY be used as defined by HTTP Content Negotiation
   ([RFC7231] Section 3.4).  Those media types MUST be flexible enough
   to express every DNS query that would normally be sent in DNS over
   UDP (including queries and responses that use DNS extensions, but not
   those that require multiple responses).

7.  DNS Wire Format

   The data payload is the DNS on-the-wire format defined in [RFC1035].
   The format is for DNS over UDP.  Note that this is different than the
   wire format used in [RFC7858].  Also note that while [RFC1035] says
   "Messages carried by UDP are restricted to 512 bytes", that was later
   updated by [RFC6891].  This protocol allows DNS on-the-wire format
   payloads of any size.

   When using the GET method, the data payload MUST be encoded with
   base64url [RFC4648] and then provided as a variable named "dns" to
   the URI Template expansion.  Padding characters for base64url MUST
   NOT be included.

   When using the POST method, the data payload MUST NOT be encoded and
   is used directly as the HTTP message body.

   DNS API clients using the DNS wire format MAY have one or more EDNS
   options [RFC6891] in the request.

   The media type is "application/dns-message".

8.  IANA Considerations








Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


8.1.  Registration of application/dns-message Media Type

   To: ietf-types@iana.org
   Subject: Registration of MIME media type
            application/dns-message

   MIME media type name: application

   MIME subtype name: dns-message

   Required parameters: n/a

   Optional parameters: n/a

   Encoding considerations: This is a binary format. The contents are a
   DNS message as defined in RFC 1035. The format used here is for DNS
   over UDP, which is the format defined in the diagrams in RFC 1035.

   Security considerations:  The security considerations for carrying
   this data are the same for carrying DNS without encryption.

   Interoperability considerations:  None.

   Published specification:  This document.

   Applications that use this media type:
     Systems that want to exchange full DNS messages.

   Additional information:

   Magic number(s):  n/a

   File extension(s):  n/a

   Macintosh file type code(s):  n/a

   Person & email address to contact for further information:
      Paul Hoffman, paul.hoffman@icann.org

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Restrictions on usage:  n/a

   Author:  Paul Hoffman, paul.hoffman@icann.org

   Change controller:  IESG





Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


9.  Security Considerations

   Running DNS over HTTPS relies on the security of the underlying HTTP
   transport.  This mitigates classic amplification attacks for UDP-
   based DNS.  Implementations utilizing HTTP/2 benefit from the TLS
   profile defined in [RFC7540] Section 9.2.

   Session level encryption has well known weaknesses with respect to
   traffic analysis which might be particularly acute when dealing with
   DNS queries.  HTTP/2 provides further advice about the use of
   compression ([RFC7540] Section 10.6) and padding ([RFC7540]
   Section 10.7 ).  DNS API Servers can also add DNS padding [RFC7830]
   if the DNS API requests it in the DNS query.

   The HTTPS connection provides transport security for the interaction
   between the DNS API server and client, but does not provide the
   response integrity of DNS data provided by DNSSEC.  DNSSEC and DOH
   are independent and fully compatible protocols, each solving
   different problems.  The use of one does not diminish the need nor
   the usefulness of the other.  It is the choice of a client to either
   perform full DNSSEC validation of answers or to trust the DNS API
   server to do DNSSEC validation and inspect the AD (Authentic Data)
   bit in the returned message to determine whether an answer was
   authentic or not.  As noted in Section 5.2, different response media
   types will provide more or less information from a DNS response so
   this choice may be affected by the response media type.

   Section 6.1 describes the interaction of this protocol with HTTP
   caching.  An adversary that can control the cache used by the client
   can affect that client's view of the DNS.  This is no different than
   the security implications of HTTP caching for other protocols that
   use HTTP.

   In the absence of DNSSEC information, a DNS API server can give a
   client invalid data in response to a DNS query.  A client MUST NOT
   use arbitrary DNS API servers.  Instead, a client MUST only use DNS
   API servers specified using mechanisms such as explicit
   configuration.  This does not guarantee protection against invalid
   data but reduces the risk.

10.  Operational Considerations

   Local policy considerations and similar factors mean different DNS
   servers may provide different results to the same query: for instance
   in split DNS configurations [RFC6950].  It logically follows that the
   server which is queried can influence the end result.  Therefore a
   client's choice of DNS server may affect the responses it gets to its




Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


   queries.  For example, in the case of DNS64 [RFC6147], the choice
   could affect whether IPv6/IPv4 translation will work at all.

   The HTTPS channel used by this specification establishes secure two
   party communication between the DNS API client and the DNS API
   server.  Filtering or inspection systems that rely on unsecured
   transport of DNS will not function in a DNS over HTTPS environment.

   Some HTTPS client implementations perform real time third party
   checks of the revocation status of the certificates being used by
   TLS.  If this check is done as part of the DNS API server connection
   procedure and the check itself requires DNS resolution to connect to
   the third party a deadlock can occur.  The use of OCSP [RFC6960]
   servers or AIA for CRL fetching ([RFC5280] Section 4.2.2.1) are
   examples of how this deadlock can happen.  To mitigate the
   possibility of deadlock, DNS API servers SHOULD NOT rely on DNS based
   references to external resources in the TLS handshake.  For OCSP the
   server can bundle the certificate status as part of the handshake
   using a mechanism appropriate to the version of TLS, such as using
   [RFC6066] Section 8 for TLS version 1.2.  AIA deadlocks can be
   avoided by providing intermediate certificates that might otherwise
   be obtained through additional requests.  Note that these deadlocks
   also need to be considered for server that a DNS API server might
   redirect to.

   A DNS API client may face a similar bootstrapping problem when the
   HTTP request needs to resolve the hostname portion of the DNS URI.
   Just as the address of a traditional DNS nameserver cannot be
   originally determined from that same server, a DNS API client cannot
   use its DNS API server to initially resolve the server's host name
   into an address.  Alternative strategies a client might employ
   include making the initial resolution part of the configuration, IP
   based URIs and corresponding IP based certificates for HTTPS, or
   resolving the DNS API server's hostname via traditional DNS or
   another DNS API server while still authenticating the resulting
   connection via HTTPS.

   HTTP [RFC7230] is a stateless application level protocol and
   therefore DOH implementations do not provide stateful ordering
   guarantees between different requests.  DOH cannot be used as a
   transport for other protocols that require strict ordering.

   A DNS API server is allowed to answer queries with any valid DNS
   response.  For example, a valid DNS response might have the TC
   (truncation) bit set in the DNS header to indicate that the server
   was not able to retrieve a full answer for the query but is providing
   the best answer it could get.  A DNS API server can reply to queries
   with an HTTP error for queries that it cannot fulfill.  In this same



Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


   example, a DNS API server could use an HTTP error instead of a non-
   error response that has the TC bit set.

   Many extensions to DNS, using [RFC6891], have been defined over the
   years.  Extensions that are specific to the choice of transport, such
   as [RFC7828], are not applicable to DOH.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2308]  Andrews, M., "Negative Caching of DNS Queries (DNS
              NCACHE)", RFC 2308, DOI 10.17487/RFC2308, March 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2308>.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.

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

   [RFC6570]  Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
              and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.




Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


   [RFC7232]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests", RFC 7232,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7232, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7232>.

   [RFC7234]  Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
              Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
              RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.

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

   [RFC7541]  Peon, R. and H. Ruellan, "HPACK: Header Compression for
              HTTP/2", RFC 7541, DOI 10.17487/RFC7541, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7541>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [CORS]     "Cross-Origin Resource Sharing", n.d.,
              <https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#http-cors-protocol>.

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.

   [RFC5861]  Nottingham, M., "HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale
              Content", RFC 5861, DOI 10.17487/RFC5861, May 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5861>.

   [RFC6066]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>.





Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.

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

   [RFC6950]  Peterson, J., Kolkman, O., Tschofenig, H., and B. Aboba,
              "Architectural Considerations on Application Features in
              the DNS", RFC 6950, DOI 10.17487/RFC6950, October 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6950>.

   [RFC6960]  Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A.,
              Galperin, S., and C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key
              Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP",
              RFC 6960, DOI 10.17487/RFC6960, June 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6960>.

   [RFC7828]  Wouters, P., Abley, J., Dickinson, S., and R. Bellis, "The
              edns-tcp-keepalive EDNS0 Option", RFC 7828,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7828, April 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7828>.

   [RFC7830]  Mayrhofer, A., "The EDNS(0) Padding Option", RFC 7830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7830, May 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7830>.

   [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.

Acknowledgments

   This work required a high level of cooperation between experts in
   different technologies.  Thank you Ray Bellis, Stephane Bortzmeyer,
   Manu Bretelle, Sara Dickinson, Tony Finch, Daniel Kahn Gilmor, Olafur
   Guomundsson, Wes Hardaker, Rory Hewitt, Joe Hildebrand, David
   Lawrence, Eliot Lear, John Mattson, Alex Mayrhofer, Mark Nottingham,
   Jim Reid, Adam Roach, Ben Schwartz, Davey Song, Daniel Stenberg,
   Andrew Sullivan, Martin Thomson, and Sam Weiler.






Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        DNS Queries over HTTPS (DOH)              May 2018


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: mcmanus@ducksong.com





















Hoffman & McManus       Expires November 25, 2018              [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/