Internet DRAFT - draft-pauly-add-deer
draft-pauly-add-deer
Network Working Group T. Pauly
Internet-Draft E. Kinnear
Intended status: Standards Track Apple Inc.
Expires: 6 May 2021 C.A. Wood
Cloudflare
P. McManus
Fastly
T. Jensen
Microsoft
2 November 2020
Discovery of Equivalent Encrypted Resolvers
draft-pauly-add-deer-00
Abstract
This document defines Discovery of Equivalent Encrypted Resolvers
(DEER), a mechanism for DNS clients to use DNS records to discover a
resolver's encrypted DNS configuration. This mechanism can be used
to move from unencrypted DNS to encrypted DNS when only the IP
address of an encrypted resolver is known. It can also be used to
discover support for encrypted DNS protocols when the name of an
encrypted resolver is known. This mechanism is designed to be
limited to cases where equivalent encrypted and unencrypted resolvers
are operated by the same entity.
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 6 May 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Pauly, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DEER November 2020
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. DNS Service Binding Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Discovery Using Resolver IP Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Authenticated Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Opportunistic Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Discovery Using Resolver Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Caching Forwarders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Certificate Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Special Use Domain Name "resolver.arpa" . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Rationale for using SVCB records . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
When DNS clients wish to use encrypted DNS protocols such as DNS-
over-TLS (DoT) [RFC7858] or DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484], they
require additional information beyond the IP address of the DNS
server, such as the resolver's hostname, non-standard ports, or URL
paths. However, common configuration mechanisms only provide the
resolver's IP address during configuration. Such mechanisms include
network provisioning protocols like DHCP [RFC2132] and IPv6 Router
Advertisement (RA) options [RFC8106], as well as manual
configuration.
This document defines two mechanisms for clients to discover
equivalent resolvers using DNS server Service Binding (SVCB,
[I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https]) records:
Pauly, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DEER November 2020
1. When only an IP address of an Unencrypted Resolver is known, the
client queries a special use domain name to discover DNS SVCB
records associated with the Unencrypted Resolver (Section 4).
2. When the hostname of an encrypted DNS server is known, the client
requests details by sending a query for a DNS SVCB record. This
can be used to discover alternate encrypted DNS protocols
supported by a known server, or to provide details if a resolver
name is provisioned by a network (Section 5).
Both of these approaches allow clients to confirm that a discovered
Encrypted Resolver is equivalent to the originally provisioned
resolver. "Equivalence" in this context means that the resolvers are
operated by the same entity; for example, the resolvers are
accessible on the same IP address, or there is a certificate that
claims ownership over both resolvers.
1.1. Specification of Requirements
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.
2. Terminology
This document defines the following terms:
DEER: Discovery of Equivalent Encrypted Resolvers. Refers to the
mechanisms defined in this document.
Encrypted Resolver: A DNS resolver using any encrypted DNS
transport. This includes current mechanisms such as DoH and DoT
as well as future mechanisms.
Equivalent Encrypted Resolver: An Encrypted Resolver which is
considered to provide answers equivalent to a given resolver.
This equivalency can be authenticated with TLS certificates.
Unencrypted Resolver: A DNS resolver using TCP or UDP port 53.
3. DNS Service Binding Records
DNS resolvers can advertise one or more Equivalent Encrypted
Resolvers that offer equivalent services over encrypted channels and
are controlled by the same entity.
Pauly, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DEER November 2020
When a client discovers Equivalent Encrypted Resolvers, it learns
information such as the supported protocols, ports, and server name
to use in certificate validation. This information is provided in
Service Binding (SVCB) records for DNS Servers, defined by
[I-D.schwartz-svcb-dns].
The following is an example of an SVCB record describing a DoH
server:
_dns.example.net 7200 IN SVCB 1 . (
alpn=h2 dohpath=/dns-query{?dns} ipv4hint=x.y.z.w )
The following is an example of an SVCB record describing a DoT
server:
_dns.example.net 7200 IN SVCB 1 dot.example.net (
alpn=dot port=8530 ipv4hint=x.y.z.w )
If multiple Equivalent Encrypted Resolvers are available, using one
or more encrypted DNS protocols, the resolver deployment can indicate
a preference using the priority fields in each SVCB record
[I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https].
This document focuses on discovering DoH and DoT Equivalent Encrypted
Resolvers. Other protocols can also use the format defined by
[I-D.schwartz-svcb-dns]. However, if any protocol does not involve
some form of certificate validation, new validation mechanisms will
need to be defined to support validating equivalence as defined in
Section 4.1.
4. Discovery Using Resolver IP Addresses
When a DNS client is configured with an Unencrypted Resolver IP
address, it SHOULD query the resolver for SVCB records for
"dns://resolver.arpa" before making other queries. Specifically, the
client issues a query for "_dns.resolver.arpa" with the SVCB resource
record type (64) [I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https].
If the recursive resolver that receives this query has one or more
Equivalent Encrypted Resolvers, it will return the corresponding SVCB
records. When responding to these special queries for
"dns://resolver.arpa", the SVCB records SHOULD contain at least one
"ipv4hint" and/or "ipv6hint" keys. These address hints indicate the
address on which the corresponding Encrypted Resolver can be reached
and avoid additional DNS lookup for the A and AAAA records of the
Encrypted Resolver name.
Pauly, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DEER November 2020
4.1. Authenticated Discovery
In order to be considered an authenticated Equivalent Encrypted
Resolver, the TLS certificate presented by the Encrypted Resolver
MUST contain both the domain name (from the SVCB answer) and the IP
address of its equivalent Unencrypted Resolver within the
SubjectAlternativeName certificate field. The client MUST check the
SubjectAlternativeName field for both the Unencrypted Resolver's IP
address and the advertised name of the Equivalent Encrypted Resolver.
If the certificate can be validated, the client SHOULD use the
discovered Equivalent Encrypted Resolver for any cases in which it
would have otherwise used the Unencrypted Resolver. If the
Equivalent Encrypted Resolver has a different IP address than the
Unencrypted Resolver and the TLS certificate does not cover the
Unencrypted Resolver address, the client MUST NOT use the discovered
Encrypted Resolver. Additionally, the client SHOULD suppress any
further queries for Equivalent Encrypted Resolvers using this
Unencrypted Resolver for the length of time indicated by the SVCB
record's Time to Live (TTL).
If the Equivalent Encrypted Resolver and the Unencrypted Resolver
share an IP address, clients MAY choose to opportunistically use the
Encrypted Resolver even without this certificate check (Section 4.2).
4.2. Opportunistic Discovery
There are situations where authenticated discovery of encrypted DNS
configuration over unencrypted DNS is not possible. This includes
Unencrypted Resolvers on non-public IP addresses whose identity
cannot be confirmed using TLS certificates.
Opportunistic Privacy is defined for DoT in Section 4.1 of [RFC7858]
as a mode in which clients do not validate the name of the resolver
presented in the certificate. A client MAY use information from the
SVCB record for "dns://resolver.arpa" with this "opportunistic"
approach (not validating the names presented in the
SubjectAlternativeName field of the certificate) as long as the IP
address of the Encrypted Resolver does not differ from the IP address
of the Unencrypted Resolver, and that IP address is a private address
(such as those defined in [RFC1918]). This approach can be used for
DoT or DoH.
If the IP addresses of the Encrypted and Unencrypted Resolvers are
not the same, or the shared IP address is not a private IP address,
the client MUST NOT use the Encrypted Resolver opportunistically.
Pauly, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DEER November 2020
5. Discovery Using Resolver Names
A DNS client that already knows the name of an Encrypted Resolver can
use DEER to discover details about all supported encrypted DNS
protocols. This situation can arise if a client has been configured
to use a given Encrypted Resolver, or if a network provisioning
protocol (such as DHCP or IPv6 Router Advertisements) provides a name
for an Encrypted Resolver alongside the resolver IP address.
For these cases, the client simply sends a DNS SVCB query using the
known name of the resolver. This query can be issued to the named
Encrypted Resolver itself or to any other resolver. Unlike the case
of bootstrapping from an Unencrypted Resolver (Section 4), these
records SHOULD be available in the public DNS.
For example, if the client already knows about a DoT server
"resolver.example.com", it can issue an SVCB query for
"_dns.resolver.example.com" to discover if there are other encrypted
DNS protocols available. In the following example, the SVCB answers
indicate that "resolver.example.com" supports both DoH and DoT, and
that the DoH server indicates a higher priority than the DoT server.
_dns.resolver.example.com 7200 IN SVCB 1 . (
alpn=h2 dohpath=/dns-query{?dns} )
_dns.resolver.example.com 7200 IN SVCB 2 . (
alpn=dot )
Often, the various supported encrypted DNS protocols will be
accessible using the same hostname. In the example above, both DoH
and DoT use the name "resolver.example.com" for their TLS
certficates. If a deployment uses a different hostname for one
protocol, but still wants clients to treat the DNS servers as
equivalent, the TLS certificates MUST include both names in the
SubjectAlternativeName fields. Note that this name verification is
not related to the DNS resolver that provided the SVCB answer.
For example, being able to discover an Equivalent Encrypted Resolver
for a known Encrypted Resolver is useful when a client has a DoT
configuration for "foo.resolver.example.com" but is on a network that
blocks DoT traffic. The client can still send a query to any other
accessible resolver (either the local network resolver or an
accessible DoH server) to discover if there is an equivalent DoH
server for "foo.resolver.example.com".
6. Deployment Considerations
Resolver deployments that support DEER are advised to consider the
following points.
Pauly, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DEER November 2020
6.1. Caching Forwarders
If a caching forwarder consults multiple resolvers, it may be
possible for it to cache records for the "resolver.arpa" Special Use
Domain Name (SUDN) for multiple resolvers. This may result in
clients sending queries intended to discover Equivalent Encrypted
Resolvers for resolver "foo" and receiving answers for resolvers
"foo" and "bar".
A client will successfully reject unintended connections because the
authenticated discovery will fail or the resolver addresses do not
match. Clients that attempt unauthenticated connections to resolvers
discovered through SVCB queries run the risk of connecting to the
wrong server in this scenario.
To prevent unnecessary traffic from clients to incorrect resolvers,
DNS caching resolvers SHOULD NOT cache results for the
"resolver.arpa" SUDN other than for Equivalent Encrypted Resolvers
under their control.
6.2. Certificate Management
Resolver owners that support authenticated discovery will need to
list valid referring IP addresses in their TLS certificates. This
may pose challenges for resolvers with a large number of referring IP
addresses.
7. Security Considerations
Since client can receive DNS SVCB answers over unencrypted DNS, on-
path attackers can prevent successful discovery by dropping SVCB
packets. Clients should be aware that it might not be possible to
distinguish between resolvers that do not have any Equivalent
Encrypted Resolver and such an active attack.
While the IP address of the Unencrypted Resolver is often provisioned
over insecure mechanisms, it can also be provisioned securely, such
as via manual configuration, a VPN, or on a network with protections
like RA guard [RFC6105]. An attacker might try to direct Encrypted
DNS traffic to itself by causing the client to think that a
discovered Equivalent Encrypted Resolver uses a different IP address
from the Unencrypted Resolver. Such an Encrypted Resolver might have
a valid certificate, but be operated by an attacker that is trying to
observe or modify user queries without the knowledge of the client or
network.
Pauly, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DEER November 2020
If the IP address of an Equivalent Encrypted Resolver differs from
that of an Unencrypted Resolver, clients MUST validate that the IP
address of the Unencrypted Resolver is covered by the
SubjectAlternativeName of the Encrypted Resolver's TLS certificate
(Section 4.1).
Opportunistic use of Encrypted Resolvers MUST be limited to cases
where the Unencrypted Resolver and Equivalent Encrypted Resolver have
the same IP address (Section 4.2).
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Special Use Domain Name "resolver.arpa"
This document calls for the creation of the "resolver.arpa" SUDN.
This will allow resolvers to respond to queries directed at
themselves rather than a specific domain name. While this document
uses "resolver.arpa" to return SVCB records indicating equivalent
encrypted capability, the name is generic enough to allow future
reuse for other purposes where the resolver wishes to provide
information about itself to the client.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https]
Schwartz, B., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Service binding
and parameter specification via the DNS (DNS SVCB and
HTTPS RRs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
dnsop-svcb-https-01, 13 July 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https-01.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-tls-esni]
Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. Wood, "TLS
Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-tls-esni-08, 16 October 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tls-esni-
08.txt>.
[I-D.schwartz-svcb-dns]
Schwartz, B., "Service Binding Mapping for DNS Servers",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-schwartz-svcb-dns-
01, 10 August 2020, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-schwartz-svcb-dns-01.txt>.
Pauly, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DEER November 2020
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.
J., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private
Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918,
February 1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[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>.
[RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
(DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.schinazi-httpbis-doh-preference-hints]
Schinazi, D., Sullivan, N., and J. Kipp, "DoH Preference
Hints for HTTP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
schinazi-httpbis-doh-preference-hints-02, 13 July 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schinazi-
httpbis-doh-preference-hints-02.txt>.
[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>.
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, DOI 10.17487/RFC2132, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2132>.
[RFC5507] IAB, Faltstrom, P., Ed., Austein, R., Ed., and P. Koch,
Ed., "Design Choices When Expanding the DNS", RFC 5507,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5507, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5507>.
[RFC6105] Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J.
Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>.
[RFC8106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.
Pauly, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DEER November 2020
[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>.
Appendix A. Rationale for using SVCB records
This mechanism uses SVCB/HTTPS resource records
[I-D.ietf-dnsop-svcb-https] to communicate that a given domain
designates a particular Equivalent Encrypted Resolver for clients to
use in place of an Unencrypted Resolver (using a SUDN) or another
Encrypted Resolver (using its domain name).
There are various other proposals for how to provide similar
functionality. There are several reasons that this mechanism has
chosen SVCB records:
* Discovering encrypted resolver using DNS records keeps client
logic for DNS self-contained and allows a DNS resolver operator to
define which resolver names and IP addresses are related to one
another.
* Using DNS records also does not rely on bootstrapping with higher-
level application operations (such as
[I-D.schinazi-httpbis-doh-preference-hints]).
* SVCB records are extensible and allow definition of parameter
keys. This makes them a superior mechanism for extensibility as
compared to approaches such as overloading TXT records. The same
keys can be used for discovering Equivalent Encrypted Resolvers of
different transport types as well as those advertised by
Unencrypted Resolvers or another Encrypted Resolver.
* Clients and servers that are interested in privacy of names will
already need to support SVCB records in order to use Encrypted TLS
Client Hello [I-D.ietf-tls-esni]. Without encrypting names in
TLS, the value of encrypting DNS is reduced, so pairing the
solutions provides the largest benefit.
* Clients that support SVCB will generally send out three queries
when accessing web content on a dual-stack network: A, AAAA, and
HTTPS queries. Discovering an Equivalent Encrypted Resolver as
part of one of these queries, without having to add yet another
query, minimizes the total number of queries clients send. While
[RFC5507] recommends adding new RRTypes for new functionality,
SVCB provides an extension mechanism that simplifies client
behavior.
Pauly, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DEER November 2020
Authors' Addresses
Tommy Pauly
Apple Inc.
One Apple Park Way
Cupertino, California 95014,
United States of America
Email: tpauly@apple.com
Eric Kinnear
Apple Inc.
One Apple Park Way
Cupertino, California 95014,
United States of America
Email: ekinnear@apple.com
Christopher A. Wood
Cloudflare
101 Townsend St
San Francisco,
United States of America
Email: caw@heapingbits.net
Patrick McManus
Fastly
Email: mcmanus@ducksong.com
Tommy Jensen
Microsoft
Email: tojens@microsoft.com
Pauly, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 11]
