Hello, This is a follow-up / redirection from a discussion thread[1] on the dnsext mailing list regarding a proposal for an additional DNS RR type. Feedback received there indicates that instead of a distinct record type, a ServiceParamKey for use with the RFC 9460 HTTPS record type could potentially cater to the requirements.
In short summary of the previous thread: the request is for addition of an integrity record, in a similar or identical format to that specified by W3C HTML SubResource Integrity specification[2], to be available alongside existing A/AAAA records for domains containing webservers. The contents of the record would be used by web browser clients to validate whether the response they receive from an initial request to the root URI path from any of the hosts in the domain matches an expected hash value. The motivation of the request is to provide an optional out-of-HTTP-band integrity check for web clients that download a single-page web application from a fixed URI path on a domain name. The risk that it intends to mitigate is that one or more hosts within the domain could have become compromised to respond with web content that does not match that intended by the domain owner, regardless of the presence of TLS during the web requests. I have two questions about this in relation to RFC 9460: * Would it seem valid to suggest an HTTPS ServiceParamKey to contain an integrity record of this kind? * Given a desire to deliver content using _either_ plaintext HTTP _or_ TLS-enabled HTTPS (traditionally TCP ports 80, 443 respectively) - would Section 9.5 of RFC 9460 (footnote three) conflict with the plaintext HTTP delivery mechanism? Thank you, James [1] - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsext/vtbGXqBKSKzBqYAAE1VMhATiuw4/ [2] - https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/REC-SRI-20160623/ [3] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9460.html#section-9.5 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
