DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-00
Network Working Group S. Bortzmeyer
Internet-Draft AFNIC
Obsoletes: 7816 (if approved) P. Hoffman
Intended status: Standards Track ICANN
Expires: March 18, 2019 September 14, 2018
DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy
draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-00
Abstract
This document describes a technique to improve DNS privacy, a
technique called "QNAME minimisation", where the DNS resolver no
longer sends the full original QNAME to the upstream name server. It
obsoletes RFC 7816.
This document is part of the IETF DNSOP (DNS Operations) Working
Group. The source of the document, as well as a list of open issues,
is at <https://framagit.org/bortzmeyer/rfc7816-bis>
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 March 18, 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
Bortzmeyer & Hoffman Expires March 18, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QNAME Minimisation September 2018
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 and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. QNAME Minimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Possible Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Protocol and Compatibility Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Results of the Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Implementation status - RFC EDITOR: PLEASE REMOVE BEFORE
PUBLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. An Algorithm to Perform QNAME Minimisation . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Changes from RFC 7816 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction and Background
The problem statement for this document and its predecessor [RFC7816]
is described in [I-D.bortzmeyer-dprive-rfc7626-bis]. The terminology
("QNAME", "resolver", etc.) is defined in
[I-D.ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis]. This specific solution is not
intended to fully solve the DNS privacy problem; instead, it should
be viewed as one tool amongst many.
QNAME minimisation follows the principle explained in Section 6.1 of
[RFC6973]: the less data you send out, the fewer privacy problems
you have.
Before QNAME minimisation, when a resolver received the query "What
is the AAAA record for www.example.com?", it sent to the root
(assuming a cold resolver, whose cache is empty) the very same
question. Sending the full QNAME to the authoritative name server
was a tradition, not a protocol requirement. In a conversation with
the author in January 2015, Paul Mockapetris explained that this
tradition comes from a desire to optimise the number of requests,
when the same name server is authoritative for many zones in a given
name (something that was more common in the old days, where the same
Show full document text