Just to be clear, I agree with Eric and the text proposed is clear, I do not want either to delay this document
My intervention in this email thread was simply to give support to Paul Vixie and give real world information vs some of the statements I was reading in the email thread. Let’s move on Arnaud Taddei Global Security Strategist | Enterprise Security Group mobile: +41 79 506 1129 Geneva, Switzerland arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com <mailto:arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com> | broadcom.com > On 4 Oct 2024, at 20:32, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:30 AM Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io > <mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 10:06 AM Ben Schwartz <bem...@meta.com >> <mailto:bem...@meta.com>> wrote: >>> I've updated PR#16 to reframe this paragraph as a statement of fact: >>> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech/pull/16/files >>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech/pull/16/files&source=gmail-imap&ust=1728671580000000&usg=AOvVaw3PRTPi_JZgPXIiBwX9bXBb> >> Speaking as individual, >> >>> >>> It seems strange to me to describe a vulnerability without explaining how >>> to mitigate it, but I'm willing to move forward if this is all we have >>> consensus for. >> >> I also find it a bit odd that we don't warn people the entire purpose of the >> draft would be in vain, if one did not use a properly secured DNS transport >> to a DNS server with a compatible privacy policy. > > I think the text I proposed makes this clear. > >> >> Perhaps a short Operational Considerations section could be added explaining >> the use of ECH at the Enterprise network and networks deploying DNS filter >> security services could be blocked for security reasons at the cost of >> privacy loss to the network? And that the enduser might not have a choice >> based on the DNS constrains within those networks. > > I would not be in favor of this. This is been intensely controversial and I > want the document done. > > -Ekr > >> >> Of course I myself am now thinking I want a DNS module that pulls these DNS >> records based on previous queries and stashes these in my own DNS resolver >> so that I can move onto these kind of networks and use ECH without requiring >> to do further DNS lookups :P >> >> Maybe just an aggressive prefetch of ECH related records :P >> >> Which makes me wonder if it makes sense to advise long TTLs on these records >> so that they move along on your phone/laptop even if you enter these kind of >> networks. >> >> Paul W >> >>> >>> --Ben >>> From: Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com <mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> >>> Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 8:07 AM >>> To: Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com <mailto:rs...@akamai.com>> >>> Cc: Arnaud Taddei <arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com >>> <mailto:arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com>>; Ben Schwartz <bem...@meta.com >>> <mailto:bem...@meta.com>>; Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org >>> <mailto:p...@redbarn.org>>; Paul Wouters <paul.wout...@aiven.io >>> <mailto:paul.wout...@aiven.io>>; draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech.auth...@ietf.org >>> <mailto:draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech.auth...@ietf.org> >>> <draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech.auth...@ietf.org >>> <mailto:draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech.auth...@ietf.org>>; TLS@ietf.org >>> <mailto:TLS@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org <mailto:tls@ietf.org>>; dn...@ietf.org >>> <mailto:dn...@ietf.org> WG <dn...@ietf.org <mailto:dn...@ietf.org>> >>> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Re: [TLS] Re: Re: Re: AD review draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech >>> >>> I don't really think it's helpful to re-litigate the broader topic of the >>> merits of ECH; nothing we say in security considerations will make a >>> material difference there. >>> >>> With that said, I don't love the last sentence as we know users don't >>> really choose their resolvers. How about simply stating the facts: >>> >>> "This specification does not effectively conceal the target domain name >>> from an untrusted resolver." >>> >>> >>> -Ekr >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 9:41 AM Salz, Rich >>> <rsalz=40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40akamai....@dmarc.ietf.org>> >>> wrote: >>> I do not think this conflict of views can be resolved. The draft is >>> intended to show how it ECH should be used to preserve it’s security >>> guarantees, and there are groups in the DNS community who say this prevents >>> their normal course of operation, and providing the features that they >>> provide. I apologize in advance if anyone finds my wording clumsy or, >>> worse, offensive. I was trying to use neutral words throughout. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think we just acknowledge that in the security considerations and declare >>> the issue closed. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> DNSOP mailing list -- dn...@ietf.org <mailto:dn...@ietf.org> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org >>> <mailto:dnsop-le...@ietf.org> -- This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and destroy any printed copy of it.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
