Skip to main content

DNS Privacy Considerations

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9076.
Author Tim Wicinski
Last updated 2020-10-08 (Latest revision 2020-09-23)
Replaces draft-bortzmeyer-dprive-rfc7626-bis
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Brian Haberman
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2020-02-04
IESG IESG state Became RFC 9076 (Informational)
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Has enough positions to pass.
Responsible AD Éric Vyncke
Send notices to Brian Haberman <>,
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
dprive                                                  T. Wicinski, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                        September 22, 2020
Obsoletes: 7626 (if approved)
Intended status: Informational
Expires: March 26, 2021

                       DNS Privacy Considerations


   This document describes the privacy issues associated with the use of
   the DNS by Internet users.  It is intended to be an analysis of the
   present situation and does not prescribe solutions.  This document
   obsoletes RFC 7626.

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

   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 26, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   ( 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.

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Risks in the DNS Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  The Alleged Public Nature of DNS Data . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Data in the DNS Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.2.1.  Data in the DNS Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Cache Snooping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Risks On the Wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Unencrypted Transports  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Encrypted Transports  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Risks in the Servers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  In the Recursive Resolvers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.1.1.  Resolver Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.1.2.  Active Attacks on Resolver Configuration  . . . . . .  14
       6.1.3.  Blocking of User Selected DNS Resolution Services . .  14
       6.1.4.  Encrypted Transports and Recursive Resolvers  . . . .  15
     6.2.  In the Authoritative Name Servers . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  Other risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  Re-identification and Other Inferences  . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.2.  More Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   8.  Actual "Attacks"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Legalities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   12. Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   14. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     15.3.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28

1.  Introduction

   This document is an analysis of the DNS privacy issues, in the spirit
   of Section 8 of [RFC6973].

   The Domain Name System (DNS) is specified in [RFC1034], [RFC1035],
   and many later RFCs, which have never been consolidated.  It is one
   of the most important infrastructure components of the Internet and
   often ignored or misunderstood by Internet users (and even by many
   professionals).  Almost every activity on the Internet starts with a
   DNS query (and often several).  Its use has many privacy implications
   and this document is an attempt at a comprehensive and accurate list.

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   Let us begin with a simplified reminder of how the DNS works (See
   also [RFC8499]).  A client, the stub resolver, issues a DNS query to
   a server, called the recursive resolver (also called caching resolver
   or full resolver or recursive name server).  Let's use the query
   "What are the AAAA records for" as an example.  AAAA
   is the QTYPE (Query Type), and is the QNAME (Query
   Name).  (The description that follows assumes a cold cache, for
   instance, because the server just started.)  The recursive resolver
   will first query the root name servers.  In most cases, the root name
   servers will send a referral.  In this example, the referral will be
   to the .com name servers.  The resolver repeats the query to one of
   the .com name servers.  The .com name servers, in turn, will refer to
   the name servers.  The name server will then
   return the answer.  The root name servers, the name servers of .com,
   and the name servers of are called authoritative name
   servers.  It is important, when analyzing the privacy issues, to
   remember that the question asked to all these name servers is always
   the original question, not a derived question.  The question sent to
   the root name servers is "What are the AAAA records for", not "What are the name servers of .com?".  By
   repeating the full question, instead of just the relevant part of the
   question to the next in line, the DNS provides more information than
   necessary to the name server.  In this simplified description,
   recursive resolvers do not implement QNAME minimization as described
   in [RFC7816], which will only send the relevant part of the question
   to the upstream name server.

   DNS relies on caching heavily, so the algorithm described above is
   actually a bit more complicated, and not all questions are sent to
   the authoritative name servers.  If a few seconds later the stub
   resolver asks the recursive resolver, "What are the SRV records of", the recursive resolver will remember
   that it knows the name servers of and will just query
   them, bypassing the root and .com.  Because there is typically no
   caching in the stub resolver, the recursive resolver, unlike the
   authoritative servers, sees all the DNS traffic.  (Applications, like
   web browsers, may have some form of caching that does not follow DNS
   rules, for instance, because it may ignore the TTL.  So, the
   recursive resolver does not see all the name resolution activity.)

   It should be noted that DNS recursive resolvers sometimes forward
   requests to other recursive resolvers, typically bigger machines,
   with a larger and more shared cache (and the query hierarchy can be
   even deeper, with more than two levels of recursive resolvers).  From
   the point of view of privacy, these forwarders are like resolvers,
   except that they do not see all of the requests being made (due to
   caching in the first resolver).

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   At the time of writing, almost all this DNS traffic is currently sent
   in clear (i.e., unencrypted).  However there is increasing deployment
   of DNS-over-TLS (DoT) [RFC7858] and DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484],
   particularly in mobile devices, browsers, and by providers of anycast
   recursive DNS resolution services.  There are a few cases where there
   is some alternative channel encryption, for instance, in an IPsec VPN
   tunnel, at least between the stub resolver and the resolver.

   Today, almost all DNS queries are sent over UDP [thomas-ditl-tcp].
   This has practical consequences when considering encryption of the
   traffic as a possible privacy technique.  Some encryption solutions
   are only designed for TCP, not UDP and new solutions are still
   emerging [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] [I-D.huitema-quic-dnsoquic].

   Another important point to keep in mind when analyzing the privacy
   issues of DNS is the fact that DNS requests received by a server are
   triggered by different reasons.  Let's assume an eavesdropper wants
   to know which web page is viewed by a user.  For a typical web page,
   there are three sorts of DNS requests being issued:

   o  Primary request: this is the domain name in the URL that the user
      typed, selected from a bookmark, or chose by clicking on an
      hyperlink.  Presumably, this is what is of interest for the

   o  Secondary requests: these are the additional requests performed by
      the user agent (here, the web browser) without any direct
      involvement or knowledge of the user.  For the Web, they are
      triggered by embedded content, Cascading Style Sheets (CSS),
      JavaScript code, embedded images, etc.  In some cases, there can
      be dozens of domain names in different contexts on a single web

   o  Tertiary requests: these are the additional requests performed by
      the DNS system itself.  For instance, if the answer to a query is
      a referral to a set of name servers, and the glue records are not
      returned, the resolver will have to do additional requests to turn
      the name servers' names into IP addresses.  Similarly, even if
      glue records are returned, a careful recursive server will do
      tertiary requests to verify the IP addresses of those records.

   It can be noted also that, in the case of a typical web browser, more
   DNS requests than strictly necessary are sent, for instance, to
   prefetch resources that the user may query later or when
   autocompleting the URL in the address bar.  Both are a big privacy
   concern since they may leak information even about non-explicit
   actions.  For instance, just reading a local HTML page, even without
   selecting the hyperlinks, may trigger DNS requests.

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   For privacy-related terms, we will use the terminology from

2.  Scope

   This document focuses mostly on the study of privacy risks for the
   end user (the one performing DNS requests).  We consider the risks of
   pervasive surveillance [RFC7258] as well as risks coming from a more
   focused surveillance.

   This document does not attempt a comparison of specific privacy
   protections provided by individual networks or organizations, it
   makes only general observations about typical current practices.

   Privacy risks for the holder of a zone (the risk that someone gets
   the data) are discussed in [RFC5936] and [RFC5155].

   Privacy risks for recursive operators (including access providers and
   operators in enterprise networks) such as leakage of private
   namespaces or blocklists are out of scope for this document.

   Non-privacy risks (e.g security related considerations such as cache
   poisoning) are also out of scope.

   The privacy risks associated with the use of other protocols that
   make use of DNS information are not considered here.

3.  Risks

   The following four sections outline the privacy considerations
   associated with different aspects of the DNS for the end user.  When
   reading these sections it needs to be kept in mind that many of the
   considerations (for example, recursive resolver and transport
   protocol) can be specific to the network context that a device is
   using at a given point in time.  A user may have many devices and
   each device might utilize many different networks (e.g. home, work,
   public or cellular) over a period of time or even concurrently.  An
   exhaustive analysis of the privacy considerations for an individual
   user would need to take into account the set of devices used and the
   multiple dynamic contexts of each device.  This document does not
   attempt such a complex analysis, instead it presents an overview of
   the various considerations that could form the basis of such an

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

4.  Risks in the DNS Data

4.1.  The Alleged Public Nature of DNS Data

   It has long been claimed that "the data in the DNS is public".  While
   this sentence makes sense for an Internet-wide lookup system, there
   are multiple facets to the data and metadata involved that deserve a
   more detailed look.  First, access control lists (ACLs) and private
   namespaces notwithstanding, the DNS operates under the assumption
   that public-facing authoritative name servers will respond to "usual"
   DNS queries for any zone they are authoritative for without further
   authentication or authorization of the client (resolver).  Due to the
   lack of search capabilities, only a given QNAME will reveal the
   resource records associated with that name (or that name's non-
   existence).  In other words: one needs to know what to ask for, in
   order to receive a response.  The zone transfer QTYPE [RFC5936] is
   often blocked or restricted to authenticated/authorized access to
   enforce this difference (and maybe for other reasons).

   Another differentiation to be considered is between the DNS data
   itself and a particular transaction (i.e., a DNS name lookup).  DNS
   data and the results of a DNS query are public, within the boundaries
   described above, and may not have any confidentiality requirements.
   However, the same is not true of a single transaction or a sequence
   of transactions; those transaction are not / should not be public.  A
   single transactions reveals both the originator of the query and the
   query contents which potentially leaks sensitive information about a
   specific user.  A typical example from outside the DNS world is: the
   web site of Alcoholics Anonymous is public; the fact that you visit
   it should not be.  Furthermore, the ability to link queries reveals
   information about individual use patterns.

4.2.  Data in the DNS Request

   The DNS request includes many fields, but two of them seem
   particularly relevant for the privacy issues: the QNAME and the
   source IP address. "source IP address" is used in a loose sense of
   "source IP address + maybe source port number", because the port
   number is also in the request and can be used to differentiate
   between several users sharing an IP address (behind a Carrier-Grade
   NAT (CGN), for instance [RFC6269]).

   The QNAME is the full name sent by the user.  It gives information
   about what the user does ("What are the MX records of"
   means he probably wants to send email to someone at,
   which may be a domain used by only a few persons and is therefore
   very revealing about communication relationships).  Some QNAMEs are
   more sensitive than others.  For instance, querying the A record of a

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   well-known web statistics domain reveals very little (everybody
   visits web sites that use this analytics service), but querying the A
   record of www.verybad.example where verybad.example is the domain of
   an organization that some people find offensive or objectionable may
   create more problems for the user.  Also, sometimes, the QNAME embeds
   the software one uses, which could be a privacy issue.  For instance,
   There are also some BitTorrent clients that query an SRV record for

   Another important thing about the privacy of the QNAME is the future
   usages.  Today, the lack of privacy is an obstacle to putting
   potentially sensitive or personally identifiable data in the DNS.  At
   the moment, your DNS traffic might reveal that you are doing email
   but not with whom.  If your Mail User Agent (MUA) starts looking up
   Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) keys in the DNS [RFC7929], then privacy
   becomes a lot more important.  And email is just an example; there
   would be other really interesting uses for a more privacy-friendly

   For the communication between the stub resolver and the recursive
   resolver, the source IP address is the address of the user's machine.
   Therefore, all the issues and warnings about collection of IP
   addresses apply here.  For the communication between the recursive
   resolver and the authoritative name servers, the source IP address
   has a different meaning; it does not have the same status as the
   source address in an HTTP connection.  It is typically the IP address
   of the recursive resolver that, in a way, "hides" the real user.
   However, hiding does not always work.  Sometimes EDNS(0) Client
   subnet [RFC7871] is used (see its privacy analysis in
   [denis-edns-client-subnet]).  Sometimes the end user has a personal
   recursive resolver on her machine.  In both cases, the IP address
   originating queries to the authoritative server is as sensitive as it
   is for HTTP [sidn-entrada].

   A note about IP addresses: there is currently no IETF document that
   describes in detail all the privacy issues around IP addressing in
   general, although [RFC7721] does discuss privacy considerations for
   IPv6 address generation mechanisms.  In the meantime, the discussion
   here is intended to include both IPv4 and IPv6 source addresses.  For
   a number of reasons, their assignment and utilization characteristics
   are different, which may have implications for details of information
   leakage associated with the collection of source addresses.  (For
   example, a specific IPv6 source address seen on the public Internet
   is less likely than an IPv4 address to originate behind an address
   sharing scheme.)  However, for both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, it is
   important to note that source addresses are propagated with queries

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   and comprise metadata about the host, user, or application that
   originated them.

4.2.1.  Data in the DNS Payload

   At the time of writing there are no standardized client identifiers
   contained in the DNS payload itself (ECS [RFC7871] while widely used
   is only of Category Informational).

   DNS Cookies [RFC7873] are a lightweight DNS transaction security
   mechanism that provides limited protection against a variety of
   increasingly common denial-of-service and amplification/forgery or
   cache poisoning attacks by off-path attackers.  It is noted, however,
   that they are designed to just verify IP addresses (and should change
   once a client's IP address changes), they are not designed to
   actively track users (like HTTP cookies).

   There are anecdotal accounts of MAC addresses [1] and even user names
   being inserted in non-standard EDNS(0) options [RFC6891] for stub to
   resolver communications to support proprietary functionality
   implemented at the resolver (e.g., parental filtering).

4.3.  Cache Snooping

   The content of recursive resolvers' caches can reveal data about the
   clients using it (the privacy risks depend on the number of clients).
   This information can sometimes be examined by sending DNS queries
   with RD=0 to inspect cache content, particularly looking at the DNS
   TTLs [grangeia.snooping].  Since this also is a reconnaissance
   technique for subsequent cache poisoning attacks, some counter
   measures have already been developed and deployed

5.  Risks On the Wire

5.1.  Unencrypted Transports

   For unencrypted transports, DNS traffic can be seen by an
   eavesdropper like any other traffic.  (DNSSEC, specified in
   [RFC4033], explicitly excludes confidentiality from its goals.)  So,
   if an initiator starts an HTTPS communication with a recipient, while
   the HTTP traffic will be encrypted, the DNS exchange prior to it will
   not be.  When other protocols will become more and more privacy-aware
   and secured against surveillance (e.g., [RFC8446],
   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]), the use of unencrypted transports for DNS
   may become "the weakest link" in privacy.  It is noted that at the
   time of writing there is on-going work attempting to encrypt the SNI
   in the TLS handshake [I-D.ietf-tls-sni-encryption].

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   An important specificity of the DNS traffic is that it may take a
   different path than the communication between the initiator and the
   recipient.  For instance, an eavesdropper may be unable to tap the
   wire between the initiator and the recipient but may have access to
   the wire going to the recursive resolver, or to the authoritative
   name servers.

   The best place to tap, from an eavesdropper's point of view, is
   clearly between the stub resolvers and the recursive resolvers,
   because traffic is not limited by DNS caching.

   The attack surface between the stub resolver and the rest of the
   world can vary widely depending upon how the end user's device is
   configured.  By order of increasing attack surface:

   o  The recursive resolver can be on the end user's device.  In
      (currently) a small number of cases, individuals may choose to
      operate their own DNS resolver on their local machine.  In this
      case, the attack surface for the connection between the stub
      resolver and the caching resolver is limited to that single
      machine.  The recursive resolver will expose data to authoritative
      resolvers as discussed in Section 6.2.

   o  The recursive resolver may be at the local network edge.  For
      many/most enterprise networks and for some residential users, the
      caching resolver may exist on a server at the edge of the local
      network.  In this case, the attack surface is the local network.
      Note that in large enterprise networks, the DNS resolver may not
      be located at the edge of the local network but rather at the edge
      of the overall enterprise network.  In this case, the enterprise
      network could be thought of as similar to the Internet Access
      Provider (IAP) network referenced below.

   o  The recursive resolver can be in the IAP network.  For most
      residential users and potentially other networks, the typical case
      is for the end user's device to be configured (typically
      automatically through DHCP or RA options) with the addresses of
      the DNS proxy in the CPE, which in turns points to the DNS
      recursive resolvers at the IAP.  The attack surface for on-the-
      wire attacks is therefore from the end user system across the
      local network and across the IAP network to the IAP's recursive

   o  The recursive resolver can be a public DNS service (or a privately
      run DNS resolver hosted on the public internet).  Some machines
      may be configured to use public DNS resolvers such as those
      operated by Google Public DNS or OpenDNS.  The end user may have
      configured their machine to use these DNS recursive resolvers

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

      themselves -- or their IAP may have chosen to use the public DNS
      resolvers rather than operating their own resolvers.  In this
      case, the attack surface is the entire public Internet between the
      end user's connection and the public DNS service.  It can be noted
      that if the user selects a single resolver with a small client
      population (even when using an encrypted transport) it can
      actually serve to aid tracking of that user as they move across
      network environment.

   It is also noted that typically a device connected _only_ to a modern
   cellular network is

   o  directly configured with only the recursive resolvers of the IAP

   o  afforded some level of protection against some types of
      eavesdropping for all traffic (including DNS traffic) due to the
      cellular network link-layer encryption.

   The attack surface for this specific scenario is not considered here.

5.2.  Encrypted Transports

   The use of encrypted transports directly mitigates passive
   surveillance of the DNS payload, however there are still some privacy
   attacks possible.  This section enumerates the residual privacy risks
   to an end user when an attacker can passively monitor encrypted DNS
   traffic flows on the wire.

   These are cases where user identification, fingerprinting or
   correlations may be possible due to the use of certain transport
   layers or clear text/observable features.  These issues are not
   specific to DNS, but DNS traffic is susceptible to these attacks when
   using specific transports.

   There are some general examples, for example, certain studies have
   highlighted that IPv4 TTL, IPv6 Hop Limit, or TCP Window sizes os-
   fingerprint [2] values can be used to fingerprint client OS's or that
   various techniques can be used to de-NAT DNS queries dns-de-nat [3].

   Note that even when using encrypted transports the use of clear text
   transport options to decrease latency can provide correlation of a
   users' connections e.g. using TCP Fast Open [RFC7413].

   Implementations that support encrypted transports also commonly re-
   use connections for multiple DNS queries to optimize performance
   (e.g. via DNS pipelining or HTTPS multiplexing).  Default

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   configuration options for encrypted transports could in principle
   fingerprint a specific client application.  For example:

   o  TLS version or cipher suite selection

   o  session resumption

   o  the maximum number of messages to send or

   o  a maximum connection time before closing a connections and re-

   If libraries or applications offer user configuration of such options
   (e.g. [getdns]) then they could in principle help to identify a
   specific user.  Users may want to use only the defaults to avoid this

   Whilst there are known attacks on older versions of TLS the most
   recent recommendations [RFC7525] and the development of TLS 1.3
   [RFC8446] largely mitigate those.

   Traffic analysis of unpadded encrypted traffic is also possible
   [pitfalls-of-dns-encryption] because the sizes and timing of
   encrypted DNS requests and responses can be correlated to unencrypted
   DNS requests upstream of a recursive resolver.

6.  Risks in the Servers

   Using the terminology of [RFC6973], the DNS servers (recursive
   resolvers and authoritative servers) are enablers: they facilitate
   communication between an initiator and a recipient without being
   directly in the communications path.  As a result, they are often
   forgotten in risk analysis.  But, to quote again [RFC6973], "Although
   [...] enablers may not generally be considered as attackers, they may
   all pose privacy threats (depending on the context) because they are
   able to observe, collect, process, and transfer privacy-relevant
   data."  In [RFC6973] parlance, enablers become observers when they
   start collecting data.

   Many programs exist to collect and analyze DNS data at the servers --
   from the "query log" of some programs like BIND to tcpdump and more
   sophisticated programs like PacketQ [packetq] and DNSmezzo
   [dnsmezzo].  The organization managing the DNS server can use this
   data itself, or it can be part of a surveillance program like PRISM
   [prism] and pass data to an outside observer.

   Sometimes, this data is kept for a long time and/or distributed to
   third parties for research purposes [ditl] [day-at-root], security

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   analysis, or surveillance tasks.  These uses are sometimes under some
   sort of contract, with various limitations, for instance, on
   redistribution, given the sensitive nature of the data.  Also, there
   are observation points in the network that gather DNS data and then
   make it accessible to third parties for research or security purposes
   ("passive DNS" [passive-dns]).

6.1.  In the Recursive Resolvers

   Recursive Resolvers see all the traffic since there is typically no
   caching before them.  To summarize: your recursive resolver knows a
   lot about you.  The resolver of a large IAP, or a large public
   resolver, can collect data from many users.

6.1.1.  Resolver Selection

   Given all the above considerations, the choice of recursive resolver
   has direct privacy considerations for end users.  Historically, end
   user devices have used the DHCP-provided local network recursive
   resolver.  The choice by a user to join a particular network (e.g. by
   physically plugging in a cable or selecting a network in a OS
   dialogue) typically updates a number of system resources - these can
   include IP addresses, availability of IPv4/IPv6, DHCP server, and DNS
   resolver.  These individual changes, including the change in DNS
   resolver, are not normally communicated directly to the user by the
   OS when the network is joined.  The choice of network has
   historically determined the default system DNS resolver selection;
   the two are directly coupled in this model.

   The vast majority of users do not change their default system DNS
   settings and so implicitly accept the network settings for DNS.  The
   network resolvers have therefore historically been the sole
   destination for all of the DNS queries from a device.  These
   resolvers may have strong, medium, or weak privacy policies depending
   on the network.  Privacy policies for these servers may or may not be
   available and users need to be aware that privacy guarantees will
   vary with network.

   All major OS's expose the system DNS settings and allow users to
   manually override them if desired.

   More recently, some networks and end users have actively chosen to
   use a large public resolver, e.g., Google Public DNS [4], Cloudflare
   [5], or Quad9 [6].  There can be many reasons: cost considerations
   for network operators, better reliability or anti-censorship
   considerations are just a few.  Such services typically do provide a
   privacy policy and the end user can get an idea of the data collected

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   by such operators by reading one e.g., Google Public DNS - Your
   Privacy [7].

   In general, as with many other protocols, issues around
   centralization also arise with DNS.  The picture is fluid with
   several competing factors contributing which can also vary by
   geographic region.  These include:

   o  ISP outsourcing, including to third party and public resolvers

   o  regional market domination by one or only a few ISPs

   o  applications directing DNS traffic by default to limited subset of
      resolvers, see Section

   An increased proportion of the global DNS resolution traffic being
   served by only a few entities means that the privacy considerations
   for end users are additionally highly dependent on the privacy
   policies and practices of those entities.  Many of the issues around
   centralization are discussed in
   [centralisation-and-data-sovereignty].  Dynamic Discovery of DoH and Strict DoT

   Whilst support for opportunistic DoT can be determined by probing a
   resolver on port 853, there is currently no standardized discovery
   mechanism for DoH and Strict DoT servers.

   This means that clients which might want to dynamically discover such
   encrypted services, and where users are willing to trust such
   services, are not able to do so.  At the time of writing, efforts to
   provide standardized signaling mechanisms to discover the services
   offered by local resolvers are in progress
   [I-D.ietf-dnsop-resolver-information].  Note that an increasing
   numbers of ISPs are deploying encrypted DNS, for example see the
   Encrypted DNS Deployment Initiative [EDDI].  Application-specific Resolver Selection

   An increasing number of applications are offering application-
   specific encrypted DNS resolution settings, rather than defaulting to
   using only the system resolver.  A variety of heuristics and
   resolvers are available in different applications including hard-
   coded lists of recognized DoH/DoT servers.

   Users will only be aware of and have the ability to control such
   settings if applications provide the following functions:

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   o communicate clearly the change in default to users

   o provide configuration options to change the default

   o provide configuration options to always use the system resolver

   Application-specific changes to default destinations for users' DNS
   queries might increase or decrease user privacy - it is highly
   dependent on the network context and the application-specific
   default.  This is an area of active debate and the IETF is working on
   a number of issues related to application-specific DNS settings.

6.1.2.  Active Attacks on Resolver Configuration

   The previous section discussed DNS privacy, assuming that all the
   traffic was directed to the intended servers (i.e those that would be
   used in the absence of an active attack) and that the potential
   attacker was purely passive.  But, in reality, we can have active
   attackers in the network.

   The Internet Threat model, as described in [RFC3552], assumes that
   the attacker controls the network.  Such an attacker can completely
   control any insecure DNS resolution, both passively monitoring the
   queries and responses and substituting their own responses.  Even if
   encrypted DNS such as DoH or DoT is used, unless the client has been
   configured in a secure way with the server identity, an active
   attacker can impersonate the server.  This implies that opportunistic
   modes of DoH/DoT as well as modes where the client learns of the DoH/
   DoT server via in-network mechanisms such as DHCP are vulnerable to
   attack.  In addition, if the client is compromised, the attacker can
   replace the DNS configuration with one of its own choosing.

6.1.3.  Blocking of User Selected DNS Resolution Services

   User privacy can also be at risk if there is blocking (by local
   network operators or more general mechanisms) of access to remote
   recursive servers that offer encrypted transports when the local
   resolver does not offer encryption and/or has very poor privacy
   policies.  For example, active blocking of port 853 for DoT or of
   specific IP addresses could restrict the resolvers available to the
   user.  The extent of the risk to end user privacy is highly dependent
   on the specific network and user context; a user on a network that is
   known to perform surveillance would be compromised if they could not
   access such services, whereas a user on a trusted network might have
   no privacy motivation to do so.

   As a matter of policy, some recursive resolvers use their position in
   the query path to selectively block access to certain DNS records.

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   This is a form of Rendezvous-Based Blocking as described in
   Section 4.3 of [RFC7754].  Such blocklists often include servers know
   to be used for malware, bots or other security risks.  In order to
   prevent circumvention of their blocking policies, some networks also
   block access to resolvers with incompatible policies.

   It is also noted that attacks on remote resolver services, e.g., DDoS
   could force users to switch to other services that do not offer
   encrypted transports for DNS.

6.1.4.  Encrypted Transports and Recursive Resolvers  DoT and DoH

   Use of encrypted transports does not reduce the data available in the
   recursive resolver and ironically can actually expose more
   information about users to operators.  As described in Section 5.2
   use of session based encrypted transports (TCP/TLS) can expose
   correlation data about users.  DoH Specific Considerations

   DoH inherits the full privacy properties of the HTTPS stack and as a
   consequence introduces new privacy considerations when compared with
   DNS over UDP, TCP or TLS [RFC7858].  Section 8.2 of [RFC8484]
   describes the privacy consideration in the server of the DoH

   A brief summary of some of the issues includes:

   o  HTTPS presents new considerations for correlation, such as
      explicit HTTP cookies and implicit fingerprinting of the unique
      set and ordering of HTTP request header fields.

   o  The User-Agent and Accept-Language request header fields often
      convey specific information about the client version or locale.

   o  Utilizing the full set of HTTP features enables DoH to be more
      than an HTTP tunnel, but it is at the cost of opening up
      implementations to the full set of privacy considerations of HTTP.

   o  Implementations are advised to expose the minimal set of data
      needed to achieve the desired feature set.

   [RFC8484] specifically makes selection of HTTPS functionality vs
   privacy an implementation choice.  At the extremes, there may be
   implementations that attempt to achieve parity with DoT from a
   privacy perspective at the cost of using no identifiable HTTP

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   headers, there might be others that provide feature rich data flows
   where the low-level origin of the DNS query is easily identifiable.
   Some implementations have, in fact, chosen to restrict the use of the
   'User-Agent' header so that resolver operators cannot identify the
   specific application that is originating the DNS queries.

   Privacy focused users should be aware of the potential for additional
   client identifiers in DoH compared to DoT and may want to only use
   DoH client implementations that provide clear guidance on what
   identifiers they add.

6.2.  In the Authoritative Name Servers

   Unlike what happens for recursive resolvers, observation capabilities
   of authoritative name servers are limited by caching; they see only
   the requests for which the answer was not in the cache.  For
   aggregated statistics ("What is the percentage of LOC queries?"),
   this is sufficient, but it prevents an observer from seeing
   everything.  Similarly the increasing deployment of QNAME
   minimisation [ripe-qname-measurements] reduces the data visible at
   the authoritative name server.  Still, the authoritative name servers
   see a part of the traffic, and this subset may be sufficient to
   violate some privacy expectations.

   Also, the end user often has some legal/contractual link with the
   recursive resolver (he has chosen the IAP, or he has chosen to use a
   given public resolver), while having no control and perhaps no
   awareness of the role of the authoritative name servers and their
   observation abilities.

   As noted before, using a local resolver or a resolver close to the
   machine decreases the attack surface for an on-the-wire eavesdropper.
   But it may decrease privacy against an observer located on an
   authoritative name server.  This authoritative name server will see
   the IP address of the end client instead of the address of a big
   recursive resolver shared by many users.

   This "protection", when using a large resolver with many clients, is
   no longer present if ECS [RFC7871] is used because, in this case, the
   authoritative name server sees the original IP address (or prefix,
   depending on the setup).

   As of today, all the instances of one root name server, L-root,
   receive together around 50,000 queries per second.  While most of it
   is "junk" (errors on the Top-Level Domain (TLD) name), it gives an
   idea of the amount of big data that pours into name servers.  (And
   even "junk" can leak information; for instance, if there is a typing

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   error in the TLD, the user will send data to a TLD that is not the
   usual one.)

   Many domains, including TLDs, are partially hosted by third-party
   servers, sometimes in a different country.  The contracts between the
   domain manager and these servers may or may not take privacy into
   account.  Whatever the contract, the third-party hoster may be honest
   or not but, in any case, it will have to follow its local laws.  So,
   requests to a given ccTLD may go to servers managed by organizations
   outside of the ccTLD's country.  End users may not anticipate that,
   when doing a security analysis.

   Also, it seems (see the survey described in [aeris-dns]) that there
   is a strong concentration of authoritative name servers among
   "popular" domains (such as the Alexa Top N list).  For instance,
   among the Alexa Top 100K [8], one DNS provider hosts today 10% of the
   domains.  The ten most important DNS providers host together one
   third of the domains.  With the control (or the ability to sniff the
   traffic) of a few name servers, you can gather a lot of information.

7.  Other risks

7.1.  Re-identification and Other Inferences

   An observer has access not only to the data he/she directly collects
   but also to the results of various inferences about this data.  The
   term 'observer' here is used very generally, it might be one that is
   passively observing cleartext DNS traffic, one in the network that is
   actively attacking the user by re-directing DNS resolution, or it
   might be a local or remote resolver operator.

   For instance, a user can be re-identified via DNS queries.  If the
   adversary knows a user's identity and can watch their DNS queries for
   a period, then that same adversary may be able to re-identify the
   user solely based on their pattern of DNS queries later on regardless
   of the location from which the user makes those queries.  For
   example, one study [herrmann-reidentification] found that such re-
   identification is possible so that "73.1% of all day-to-day links
   were correctly established, i.e., user u was either re-identified
   unambiguously (1) or the classifier correctly reported that u was not
   present on day t+1 any more (2)."  While that study related to web
   browsing behavior, equally characteristic patterns may be produced
   even in machine-to-machine communications or without a user taking
   specific actions, e.g., at reboot time if a characteristic set of
   services are accessed by the device.

   For instance, one could imagine that an intelligence agency
   identifies people going to a site by putting in a very long DNS name

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   and looking for queries of a specific length.  Such traffic analysis
   could weaken some privacy solutions.

   The IAB privacy and security program also have a work in progress
   [RFC7624] that considers such inference-based attacks in a more
   general framework.

7.2.  More Information

   Useful background information can also be found in [tor-leak] (about
   the risk of privacy leak through DNS) and in a few academic papers:
   [yanbin-tsudik], [castillo-garcia], [fangming-hori-sakurai], and

8.  Actual "Attacks"

   A very quick examination of DNS traffic may lead to the false
   conclusion that extracting the needle from the haystack is difficult.
   "Interesting" primary DNS requests are mixed with useless (for the
   eavesdropper) secondary and tertiary requests (see the terminology in
   Section 1).  But, in this time of "big data" processing, powerful
   techniques now exist to get from the raw data to what the
   eavesdropper is actually interested in.

   Many research papers about malware detection use DNS traffic to
   detect "abnormal" behavior that can be traced back to the activity of
   malware on infected machines.  Yes, this research was done for the
   good, but technically it is a privacy attack and it demonstrates the
   power of the observation of DNS traffic.  See [dns-footprint],
   [dagon-malware], and [darkreading-dns].

   Passive DNS systems [passive-dns] allow reconstruction of the data of
   sometimes an entire zone.  They are used for many reasons -- some
   good, some bad.  Well-known passive DNS systems keep only the DNS
   responses, and not the source IP address of the client, precisely for
   privacy reasons.  Other passive DNS systems may not be so careful.
   And there is still the potential problems with revealing QNAMEs.

   The revelations from the Edward Snowden documents, which were leaked
   from the National Security Agency (NSA) provide evidence of the use
   of the DNS in mass surveillance operations [morecowbell].  For
   example the MORECOWBELL surveillance program, which uses a dedicated
   covert monitoring infrastructure to actively query DNS servers and
   perform HTTP requests to obtain meta information about services and
   to check their availability.  Also the QUANTUMTHEORY [9] project
   which includes detecting lookups for certain addresses and injecting
   bogus replies is another good example showing that the lack of
   privacy protections in the DNS is actively exploited.

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

9.  Legalities

   To our knowledge, there are no specific privacy laws for DNS data, in
   any country.  Interpreting general privacy laws like
   [data-protection-directive] or GDPR [10] applicable in the European
   Union in the context of DNS traffic data is not an easy task, and we
   do not know a court precedent here.  See an interesting analysis in

10.  Security Considerations

   This document is entirely about security, more precisely privacy.  It
   just lays out the problem; it does not try to set requirements (with
   the choices and compromises they imply), much less define solutions.
   Possible solutions to the issues described here are discussed in
   other documents (currently too many to all be mentioned); see, for
   instance, 'Recommendations for DNS Privacy Operators'

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests of the IANA.

12.  Contributions

   Sara Dickinson and Stephane Bortzmeyer were the original authors on
   the document, and their contribution on the initial version is
   greatly apprecriated.

13.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Nathalie Boulvard and to the CENTR members for the original
   work that led to this document.  Thanks to Ondrej Sury for the
   interesting discussions.  Thanks to Mohsen Souissi and John Heidemann
   for proofreading and to Paul Hoffman, Matthijs Mekking, Marcos Sanz,
   Tim Wicinski, Francis Dupont, Allison Mankin, and Warren Kumari for
   proofreading, providing technical remarks, and making many
   readability improvements.  Thanks to Dan York, Suzanne Woolf, Tony
   Finch, Stephen Farrell, Peter Koch, Simon Josefsson, and Frank Denis
   for good written contributions.  Thanks to Vittorio Bertola and
   Mohamed Boucadair for a detailed review of the -bis.  And thanks to
   the IESG members for the last remarks.

14.  Changelog


   o  Removed Sara and Stephane as editors, made chairs as Editor.

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   o  Replaced the text in with the text from the -04 version.

   o  Clarified text about resolver selection in 6.1.1.


   o  Editorial updates from second IESG last call

   o  Section renumbering as suggested by Vittorio Bertola


   o  Tsvart review: Add reference to DNS-over-QUIC, fix typo.

   o  Secdir review: Add text in Section 3 on devices using many
      networks.  Update bullet in 3.4.1 on cellular encryption.

   o  Section - re-work the section to try to address multiple

   o  Section - remove this section as now covered by

   o  Section - Remove several paragraphs and more directly
      reference RFC8484 by including bullet points quoting text from
      Section 8.2 of RFC8484.  Retain the last 2 paragraphs as they are
      information for users, not implementors.

   o  Section 3.4.2 - some minor updates made based on specific


   o  Address 2 minor nits (typo in section 3.4.1 and adding an IANA

   o  Minor updates from AD review


   o  Numerous editorial corrections thanks to Mohamed Boucadair and

      *  Minor additions to Scope section

      *  New text on cellular network DNS

   o  Additional text from Vittorio Bertola on blocking and security


Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   o  Re-structure section 3.5 (was 2.5)

      *  Collect considerations for recursive resolvers together

      *  Re-work several sections here to clarify their context (e.g.,
         'Rogue servers' becomes 'Active attacks on resolver

      *  Add discussion of resolver selection

   o  Update text and old reference on Snowdon revelations.

   o  Add text on and references to QNAME minimisation RFC and
      deployment measurements

   o  Correct outdated references

   o  Clarify scope by adding a Scope section (was Risks overview)

   o  Clarify what risks are considered in section 3.4.2


   o  Rename after WG adoption

   o  Use DoT acronym throughout

   o  Minor updates to status of deployment and other drafts


   o  Update various references and fix some nits.


   o  Update reference for dickinson-bcp-op to draft-dickinson-dprive-


   Initial commit.  Differences to RFC7626:

   o  Update many references

   o  Add discussions of encrypted transports including DoT and DoH

   o  Add section on DNS payload

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   o  Add section on authentication of servers

   o  Add section on blocking of services

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,

   [RFC7258]  Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
              Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
              2014, <>.

15.2.  Informative References

              Vinot, N., "Vie privee: et le DNS alors?", (In French),

              ISC, "ISC Knowledge Database: DNS Cache snooping - should
              I be concerned?", 2018,

              Castillo-Perez, S. and J. Garcia-Alfaro, "Anonymous
              Resolution of DNS Queries", 2008,

              De Filippi, P. and S. McCarthy, "Cloud Computing:
              Centralization and Data Sovereignty", October 2012,

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

              Dagon, D., "Corrupted DNS Resolution Paths: The Rise of a
              Malicious Resolution Authority", ISC/OARC Workshop, 2007,

              Lemos, R., "Got Malware? Three Signs Revealed In DNS
              Traffic", InformationWeek Dark Reading, May 2013,

              European Parliament, "Directive 95/46/EC of the European
              Parliament and of the council on the protection of
              individuals with regard to the processing of personal data
              and on the free movement of such data", Official Journal L
              281, pp. 0031 - 0050, November 1995, <http://eur-

              Castro, S., Wessels, D., Fomenkov, M., and K. Claffy, "A
              Day at the Root of the Internet", ACM SIGCOMM Computer
              Communication Review, Vol. 38, Number 5,
              DOI 10.1145/1452335.1452341, October 2008,

              Denis, F., "Security and privacy issues of edns-client-
              subnet", August 2013,

   [ditl]     CAIDA, "A Day in the Life of the Internet (DITL)", 2002,

              Stoner, E., "DNS Footprint of Malware", OARC Workshop,
              October 2010, <

              Bortzmeyer, S., "DNSmezzo", 2009,

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 23]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   [EDDI]     EDDI, "Encrypted DNS Deployment Initiative", 2020,

              Fangming, Z., Hori, Y., and K. Sakurai, "Analysis of
              Privacy Disclosure in DNS Query", 2007 International
              Conference on Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering (MUE
              2007), Seoul, Korea, ISBN: 0-7695-2777-9, pp. 952-957,
              DOI 10.1109/MUE.2007.84, April 2007,

              Federrath, H., Fuchs, K., Herrmann, D., and C. Piosecny,
              "Privacy-Preserving DNS: Analysis of Broadcast, Range
              Queries and Mix-based Protection Methods", Computer
              Security ESORICS 2011, Springer, page(s) 665-683,
              ISBN 978-3-642-23821-5, 2011, <https://svs.informatik.uni-

   [getdns]   getdns, "getdns - A modern asynchronous DNS API", January
              2020, <>.

              Grangeia, L., "DNS Cache Snooping or Snooping the Cache
              for Fun and Profit", 2005,

              Herrmann, D., Gerber, C., Banse, C., and H. Federrath,
              "Analyzing Characteristic Host Access Patterns for Re-
              Identification of Web User Sessions",
              DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-27937-9_10, 2012, <http://epub.uni-

              Huitema, C., Shore, M., Mankin, A., Dickinson, S., and J.
              Iyengar, "Specification of DNS over Dedicated QUIC
              Connections", draft-huitema-quic-dnsoquic-07 (work in
              progress), September 2019.

              Sood, P., Arends, R., and P. Hoffman, "DNS Resolver
              Information Self-publication", draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-
              information-01 (work in progress), February 2020.

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 24]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

              Dickinson, S., Overeinder, B., Rijswijk-Deij, R., and A.
              Mankin, "Recommendations for DNS Privacy Service
              Operators", draft-ietf-dprive-bcp-op-14 (work in
              progress), July 2020.

              Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
              and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-30 (work
              in progress), September 2020.

              Huitema, C. and E. Rescorla, "Issues and Requirements for
              SNI Encryption in TLS", draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption-09
              (work in progress), October 2019.

              Grothoff, C., Wachs, M., Ermert, M., and J. Appelbaum,
              "NSA's MORECOWBELL: Knell for DNS", GNUnet e.V., January
              2015, <

   [packetq]  DNS-OARC, "PacketQ, a simple tool to make SQL-queries
              against PCAP-files", 2011,

              Weimer, F., "Passive DNS Replication", April 2005,

              Shulman, H., "Pretty Bad Privacy:Pitfalls of DNS
              Encryption", <>.

   [prism]    Wikipedia, "PRISM (surveillance program)", July 2015,

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,

   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 25]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   [RFC5155]  Laurie, B., Sisson, G., Arends, R., and D. Blacka, "DNS
              Security (DNSSEC) Hashed Authenticated Denial of
              Existence", RFC 5155, DOI 10.17487/RFC5155, March 2008,

   [RFC5936]  Lewis, E. and A. Hoenes, Ed., "DNS Zone Transfer Protocol
              (AXFR)", RFC 5936, DOI 10.17487/RFC5936, June 2010,

   [RFC6269]  Ford, M., Ed., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and
              P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6269, June 2011,

   [RFC6891]  Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
              for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,

   [RFC7413]  Cheng, Y., Chu, J., Radhakrishnan, S., and A. Jain, "TCP
              Fast Open", RFC 7413, DOI 10.17487/RFC7413, December 2014,

   [RFC7525]  Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
              "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
              2015, <>.

   [RFC7624]  Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,
              Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,
              "Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A
              Threat Model and Problem Statement", RFC 7624,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,

   [RFC7721]  Cooper, A., Gont, F., and D. Thaler, "Security and Privacy
              Considerations for IPv6 Address Generation Mechanisms",
              RFC 7721, DOI 10.17487/RFC7721, March 2016,

   [RFC7754]  Barnes, R., Cooper, A., Kolkman, O., Thaler, D., and E.
              Nordmark, "Technical Considerations for Internet Service
              Blocking and Filtering", RFC 7754, DOI 10.17487/RFC7754,
              March 2016, <>.

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 26]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   [RFC7816]  Bortzmeyer, S., "DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve
              Privacy", RFC 7816, DOI 10.17487/RFC7816, March 2016,

   [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, <>.

   [RFC7871]  Contavalli, C., van der Gaast, W., Lawrence, D., and W.
              Kumari, "Client Subnet in DNS Queries", RFC 7871,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7871, May 2016,

   [RFC7873]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and M. Andrews, "Domain Name System (DNS)
              Cookies", RFC 7873, DOI 10.17487/RFC7873, May 2016,

   [RFC7929]  Wouters, P., "DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities
              (DANE) Bindings for OpenPGP", RFC 7929,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7929, August 2016,

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,

   [RFC8484]  Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
              (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,

   [RFC8499]  Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
              Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
              January 2019, <>.

              Vries, W., "Making the DNS More Private with QNAME
              Minimisation", April 2019,

              Hesselman, C., Jansen, J., Wullink, M., Vink, K., and M.
              Simon, "A privacy framework for 'DNS big data'
              applications", November 2014,

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 27]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

              Thomas, M. and D. Wessels, "An Analysis of TCP Traffic in
              Root Server DITL Data", DNS-OARC 2014 Fall Workshop,
              October 2014, <https://indico.dns-

              Tor, "DNS leaks in Tor", 2013,

              Yanbin, L. and G. Tsudik, "Towards Plugging Privacy Leaks
              in the Domain Name System", October 2009,

15.3.  URIs











Author's Address

Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 28]
Internet-Draft         DNS Privacy Considerations         September 2020

   Tim Wicinski (editor)
   Elkins, WV  26241


Wicinski                 Expires March 26, 2021                [Page 29]