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

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                      M. Nottingham
Internet-Draft                                             July 02, 2018
Intended status: Informational
Expires: January 3, 2019

                              DOH Digests


   The lack of flexible configuration and selection mechanisms for DOH
   servers is identified as suboptimal for privacy and performance in
   some applications.

   This document makes a straw-man proposal for an improvement.

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 January 3, 2019.

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.

Nottingham               Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 DOH Digests                     July 2018

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  DOH's Additional Benefits for Associated Services . . . .   2
     1.2.  Achieving DOH's Privacy Goals through Diversity . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  DOH Digests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Using DOH Digests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  The DOH Digest Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Hostname Normalisation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   One of the core motivations for DOH [I-D.ietf-doh-dns-over-https] is
   to improve end-user privacy by obfuscating the stream of DNS requests
   that the DOH client makes.  It does this by mixing DOH requests into
   a stream of "normal" HTTP requests to a configured Web server; for
   example, a large Web site or a Content Delivery Network.

   However, DOH intentionally avoids defining a mechanism for
   configuring a particular DOH server for a given application or host.
   So far, the most common way to do so is to select one from a pre-
   configured list of services in an application, such as a Web browser.

   Typically, the list of available DOH services is vetted by the
   application's vendor to assure that they will honour the
   application's requirements for handling of sensitive data (i.e., the
   client's DNS request stream) and similar concerns.

   This document proposes a means of selecting a DOH server that
   encourages the deployment of DOH servers by sharing some of its
   additional benefits with servers that are good candidates for serving
   DOH traffic.

1.1.  DOH's Additional Benefits for Associated Services

   When a DOH server is colocated with (or closely coordinated with)
   other network services - especially HTTP services - those associated
   services enjoy a few additional benefits beyond those seen by
   adopting DOH in the first place.

Nottingham               Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 DOH Digests                     July 2018

   o  Associated services have an additional privacy benefit; there is
      one less party involved in the interaction, whereas "normal" DNS
      and DOH to an unassociated HTTP server require a third party to
      resolve names.

   o  Removing a third party also removes a separate point of potential
      failure, improving control over service quality and availability.
      See [fragile] for further discussion.

   o  Finally, the DOH server can use DNS to optimise the provision of
      associated services.  For example, DNS results can be optimised
      based on the client's request stream with a higher degree of

   In the future, a DOH server might might use Secondary Certificates
   [I-D.ietf-httpbis-http2-secondary-certs] to further optimise
   performance of associated services, by using the information in the
   DNS request stream to aggregate all of its traffic into a small
   number of connections (possibly only one), thereby allowing greater
   coordination of congestion control and avoiding connection setup

1.2.  Achieving DOH's Privacy Goals through Diversity

   Overall, a major goal for deployment of DOH is to assure that DNS
   connectivity is robust and private.  Arguably, this is best served by
   having a diverse set of available DOH servers that are colocated with
   popular HTTP content, so that it's more difficult to discriminate DOH
   from "regular" HTTP, and so the it's more difficult to block DOH
   services, due to the high impact of blocking a popular site.

   One way to encourage the development of such a set is to offer the
   additional benefits above to parties that are good candidates for
   serving such traffic.  When clients can direct their DOH queries to
   the HTTP server which will eventually serve their traffic, it
   provides both better privacy properties and better performance and
   availability to a broader set of servers.

   This is a marked improvement over the static configuration mechanism
   commonly in place now; accruing such privacy, availability, and
   performance benefits to whatever DOH server the application or user
   selects means that only parties who have a relationship with that
   service will realise these benefits.

   This document proposes one way to achieve this.

Nottingham               Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 DOH Digests                     July 2018

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "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.  DOH Digests

   A DOH Digest is a Bloom filter indicating the set of hosts a given
   DOH server should be used for.

3.1.  Using DOH Digests

   When an application has a valid DOH digest for a given DOH server, it
   tests the digest for each DNS request it makes by hostname; if the
   hostname (after normalisation) is found in the digest, all DNS
   requests regarding that hostname SHOULD be sent to the corresponding
   DOH server.  If multiple DOH digests match a given hostname, any
   matching DOH server MAY be used; the client SHOULD select one of the
   candidates randomly.

   If the DOH service is unavailable, produces errors (HTTP or DNS), or
   the application otherwise fails to obtain an answer from it, the
   application MAY (but is not required to) fall back to using another
   configured DOH server, or to using "normal" DNS.

   Likewise, hosts that do not match any configured bloom filter SHOULD
   be sent to a randomly selected DOH server that is available.

   The means of discovering a DOH digest for a given DOH server is out
   of scope for this document, but generally it will be pre-arranged
   between the application and the DOH server.

   The nature of this arrangment is highly dependent upon the
   application and its desired properties.  That said, a number of
   requirements are placed upon this arrangement.

   o  The digest MUST be conveyed in a manner that is secure and
      authenticated; e.g., TLS with appropriate certificate checks.
      Clients MUST enforce this.

   o  The application MUST consider the DOH service as meeting whatever
      criteria it deems fit for configuring a "catch-all" DOH service
      (e.g., in terms of privacy, service availability, etc.), since
      false positives might be sent to the service, and hosts not
      matched by any configured bloom filter might be sent to it.

Nottingham               Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 DOH Digests                     July 2018

   o  The digest MUST be updated on a periodic basis; e.g., once a day.
      Clients SHOULD NOT use stale digests.

3.2.  The DOH Digest Format

   TBD - likely just a bloom filter.

3.3.  Hostname Normalisation


4.  Security Considerations

   Because a DOH digest allows a DOH server to claim traffic from an
   arbitrary hostname, applications need to take extreme care in
   selecting the DOH servers they will be accepted from, as well as
   assuring that their integrity and authentication have not been

   Applications might mitigate this by monitoring DOH servers for such
   abuse and terminating their ability to use DOH digests when it is

   TBD - more advanced mitigations

   A hostname is effectively captured by a DOH server until the digest
   that reflects any change in its status is updated in the application.
   This delay should not result in any loss of functionality, since the
   "old" configuration will still direct requests to a functional DOH

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document currently has no IANA actions, but may grow some as the
   document progresses.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [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>.

Nottingham               Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                 DOH Digests                     July 2018

6.2.  Informative References

   [fragile]  Kashaf, A., Zarate, C., Wang, H., Agarwal, Y., and V.
              Sekar, "Oh, What a Fragile Web We Weave: Third-party
              Service Dependencies In Modern Webservices and
              Implications", June 2018,

              Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
              (DoH)", draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-12 (work in
              progress), June 2018.

              Bishop, M., Sullivan, N., and M. Thomson, "Secondary
              Certificate Authentication in HTTP/2", draft-ietf-httpbis-
              http2-secondary-certs-02 (work in progress), June 2018.

Author's Address

   Mark Nottingham

   Email: mnot@mnot.net
   URI:   https://www.mnot.net/

Nottingham               Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 6]

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