ADD M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Standards Track T. Reddy
Expires: January 11, 2021 McAfee
D. Wing
Citrix
N. Cook
Open-Xchange
July 10, 2020
Encrypted DNS Discovery and Deployment Considerations for Home Networks
draft-btw-add-home-07
Abstract
This document discusses DoT/DoH deployment considerations for home
networks. It particularly sketches the required steps to use DoT/DoH
capabilities provided by local networks.
The document specifies new DHCP and Router Advertisement Options to
convey a DNS Authentication Domain Name.
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 January 11, 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Sample Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Managed CPEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Unmanaged CPEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. DNS Reference Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. DHCPv6 DNS Reference Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. DHCP DNS Reference Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. RA DNS Reference Identifier Option . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. DoH URI Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Locating DoH/DoT Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. DoT/DoH Auto-Upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2. Other Deployment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Hosting DoH/DoT Forwarder in the CPE . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Managed CPEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1.1. ACME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1.2. Auto-Upgrade based on Domains and their Sub-domains . 15
7.2. Unmanaged CPEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Legacy CPEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. DHCP Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.3. RA Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) traditionally provide DNS resolvers
to their customers. Typically, ISPs deploy the following mechanisms
to advertise a list of DNS Recursive DNS server(s) to their
customers:
o Protocol Configuration Options in cellular networks [TS.24008].
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
o DHCP [RFC2132] (Domain Name Server Option) or DHCPv6
[RFC8415][RFC3646] (OPTION_DNS_SERVERS).
o IPv6 Router Advertisement [RFC4861][RFC8106] (Type 25 (Recursive
DNS Server Option)).
The communication between a customer's device (possibly via Customer
Premises Equipment (CPE)) and an ISP-supplied DNS resolver takes
place by using cleartext DNS messages (Do53,
[I-D.ietf-dnsop-terminology-ter]). Some examples are depicted in
Figure 1. In the case of cellular networks, the cellular network
will provide connectivity directly to a host (e.g., smartphone,
tablet) or via a CPE. Do53 mechanisms used within the Local Area
Network (LAN) are similar in both fixed and cellular CPE-based
broadband service offerings.
(a) Fixed Networks
,--,--,--. ,--,--,--.
,-' +--+ `-. ,-' ISP `-.
( LAN |H | CPE----( )
`-. +--+ ,-' `-. ,-'
`--'|-'--' `--'--'--'
| |
|<=======Do53========>|
(b) Cellular Networks
|<===========Do53=========>|
,--,-|,--. |
,-' +--+ `-. ,--,--,--.
( LAN |H | CPE------------+ \
`-. +--+ ,-' ,' ISP `-.
`--'--'--' ( )
+-----+-. ,-'
+--+ | `--'--'--'
|H +------------+
+--+
Legend:
* H: refers to a host.
Figure 1: Sample Legacy Deployments
ISPs use DNS to provide additional services such as (but not limited
to) malware filtering, parental control, or VoD (Video on Demand)
optimization. DNS is also a central component for mastering the
quality of experience for current latency-sensitive services, but
also emerging ones (such as those services that pertain to the Ultra
Reliability and Low Latency Communications (uRLLC) or Enhanced Mobile
Broadband (eMBB).
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
For example, the latency targets set in the context of 5G are 1ms
(uRLLC) and 4ms (eMBB). An ISP will be able to address such
demanding latency requirements assuming the corresponding services
rely upon resources (network, compute, storage) that are located
as close to the user as possible (e.g., by means of Edge Computing
techniques and resources). Such latency requirements are likely
to be addressed by means of optimized designs (DNS, in
particular), too.
Relying upon local DNS resolvers will therefore contribute to meet
the aforementioned service requirements. The use of external
resolvers is likely to induce an extra service delay which exceeds by
far the service target.
This document focuses on the support of DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH)
[RFC8484] or DNS-over-TLS (DoT) [RFC7858] in local networks. In
particular, the document describes how a local DoH/DoT server can be
discovered and used by connected hosts. This document specifies
options that allow DNS clients to discover local DoT/DoH servers.
Section 4 describes DHCP, DHCPv6, and RA options to convey the
Authentication Domain Name (ADN, defined in [RFC8310]).
Some ISPs rely upon external resolvers (e.g., outsourced service or
public resolvers); these ISPs provide their customers with the IP
addresses of these resolvers. These addresses are typically
configured on CPEs using the same mechanisms listed above. Likewise,
users can modify the default DNS configuration of their CPEs (e.g.,
supplied by their ISP) to configure their favorite DNS servers. This
document permits such deployments.
Both managed and unmanaged CPEs are discussed in the document
(Section 3). Also, considerations related to hosting a DNS forwarder
in the CPE are described (Section 7).
Hosts and/or CPEs may be connected to multiple networks; each
providing their own DNS configuration using the discovery mechanisms
specified in this document. Nevertheless, it is out of the scope of
this specification to discuss DNS selection of multi-interface
devices. The reader may refer to [RFC6731] for a discussion of
issues and an example of DNS server selection for multi-interfaced
devices.
2. Terminology
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
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8499] and
[I-D.ietf-dnsop-terminology-ter].
Do53 refers to unencrypted DNS.
'DoH/DoT' refers to DNS-over-HTTPS and/or DNS-over-TLS.
3. Sample Deployment Scenarios
3.1. Managed CPEs
ISPs have developed an expertise in managing service-specific
configuration information (e.g., CPE WAN Management Protocol
[TR-069]). For example, these tools may be used to provision the
authentication domain name information (ADN) to managed CPEs if DoH/
DoT is supported by a local network similar to what is depicted in
Figure 2.
DoH-capable (or DoT) clients establish the DoH (or DoT) session with
the discovered DoH (or DoT) server.
The DNS client discovers whether the DNS server in the local network
supports DoH/DoT by using a dedicated field in the discovery message:
Encrypted DNS Types (Section 4).
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
(a) Fixed Networks
,--,--,--. ,--,--,--.
,-' +--+ `-. ,-' ISP `-.
( LAN |H | CPE----( DNS Server )
`-. +--+ ,-' `-. ,-'
`--'|-'--' `--'--'--'
| |
|<=======DoH/DoT=====>|
(b) Cellular Networks
|<===========DoH/DoT======>|
,--,-|,--. |
,-' +--+ `-. ,--,--,--.
( LAN |H | CPE------------+ \
`-. +--+ ,-' ,' ISP `-.
`--'--'--' ( DNS Server )
+-----+-. ,-'
+--+ | `--'--'--'
|H +-----------+
+--+
Figure 2: DoH/DoT in the WAN
Figure 2 shows the scenario where the CPE relays the list of DoT/DoH
servers it learns for the network by using mechanisms like DHCP or a
specific Router Advertisement message. In such context, direct DoH/
DoT sessions will be established between a host serviced by a CPE and
an ISP-supplied DoT/DoH server (see the example depicted in Figure 3
for a DoH/DoT-capable host).
,--,--,--. ,--,--,--.
,-' `-. ,-' ISP `-.
Host---( LAN CPE----( DNS Server )
| `-. ,-' `-. ,-'
| `--'--'--' `--'--'--'
| |
|<==============DoT/DoH============>|
Figure 3: Direct DoH/DoT Sessions
Figure 4 shows a deployment where the CPE embeds a caching DNS
forwarder. The CPE advertises itself as the default DNS server to
the hosts it serves. The CPE relies upon DHCP or RA to advertise
itself to internal hosts as the default DoT/DoH/Do53 server. When
receiving a DNS request it cannot handle locally, the CPE forwards
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
the request to an upstream DoH/DoT/Do53 resolver. Such deployment is
required for IPv4 service continuity purposes (e.g.,
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis]) or for supporting advanced services
within the home (e.g., malware filtering, parental control,
Manufacturer Usage Description (MUD, [RFC8520] to only allow intended
communications to and from an IoT device)). When the CPE behaves as
a DNS forwarder, DNS communications can be decomposed into two legs:
o The leg between an internal host and the CPE.
o The leg between the CPE and an upstream DNS resolver.
An ISP that offers DoH/DoT to its customers may enable DoH/DoT in
both legs as shown in Figure 4. Additional considerations related to
this deployment are discussed in Section 7.
,--,--,--. ,--,--,--.
,-' `-. ,-' ISP `-.
Host---( LAN CPE----( DNS Server )
| `-. ,-'| `-. ,-'
| `--'--'--' | `--'--'--'
| | |
|<======DoT/DoH======>|<==DoT/DoH==>|
Figure 4: Proxied DoH/DoT Sessions
3.2. Unmanaged CPEs
Customers may decide to deploy unmanaged CPEs (assuming the CPE is
compliant with the network access technical specification that is
usually published by ISPs). Upon attachment to the network, an
unmanaged CPE receives from the network its service configuration
(including the DNS information) by means of, e.g., DHCP. That DNS
information is shared within the LAN following the same mechanisms as
those discussed in Section 3.1. A host can thus establish DoH/DoT
session with a DoH/DoT server similar to what is depicted in
Figure 3.
Customers may also decide to deploy internal home routers (called
hereafter, Internal CPEs) for a variety of reasons that are not
detailed here. Absent any explicit configuration on the internal CPE
to override the DNS configuration it receives from the ISP-supplied
CPE, an Internal CPE relays the DNS information it receives via DHCP/
RA from the ISP-supplied CPE to connected hosts. DoH/DoT sessions
can be established by a host with the DoH/DoT servers of the ISP (see
Figure 5).
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
,--,--,--. ,--,--,--.
,-' Internal ,-' ISP `-.
Host--( Network#A CPE----CPE---( DNS Server )
| `-. ,-' `-. ,-'
| `--'--'--' `--'--'--'
| |
|<===================DoT/DoH==============>|
Figure 5: Direct DoH/DoT Sessions with the ISP DNS Resolver (Internal
CPE)
Similar to managed CPEs, a user may modify the default DNS
configuration of an unmanaged CPE to use his/her favorite DNS servers
instead. DoH/DoT sessions can be established directly between a host
and a 3rd Party DNS server (see Figure 6).
,--,--,--. ,--,
,' Internal ,-' '- 3rd Party
Host--( Network#A CPE----CPE---( ISP )--- DNS Server
| `. ,-' `-. -' |
| `-'--'--' `--' |
| |
|<======================DoT/DoH===================>|
Figure 6: Direct DoH/DoT Sessions with a Third Party DNS Resolver
Section 7.2 discusses considerations related to hosting a forwarder
in the Internal CPE.
4. DNS Reference Identifier Option
This section describes how a DNS client can discover the ADN of local
DoH/DoT server(s) using DHCP (Sections 4.1 and 4.2) and Neighbor
Discovery protocol (Section 4.3).
As reported in Section 1.7.2 of [RFC6125]:
"few certification authorities issue server certificates based on
IP addresses, but preliminary evidence indicates that such
certificates are a very small percentage (less than 1%) of issued
certificates".
In order to allow for PKIX-based authentication between a DNS client
and a DoH/DoT server while accommodating the current best practices
for issuing certificates, this document allows for configuring an
authentication domain name to be presented as a reference identifier
for DNS authentication purposes.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
The DNS client establishes a DoH/DoT session with the discovered DNS
IP address(es) (Section 6) and uses the mechanism discussed in
Section 8 of [RFC8310] to authenticate the DNS server certificate
using the authentication domain name conveyed in the DNS Reference
Identifier.
If the DNS Reference Identifier is discovered by a host using both RA
and DHCP, the rules discussed in Section 5.3.1 of [RFC8106] MUST be
followed.
4.1. DHCPv6 DNS Reference Identifier Option
The DHCPv6 DNS Reference Identifier option is used to configure an
authentication domain name of the DoH/DoT server. The format of this
option is shown in Figure 7.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_V6_DNS_RI | Option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Encr DNS Types| |
+-+-------------+ |
| |
~ Authentication Domain Name ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: DHCPv6 DNS Reference Identifier Option
The fields of the option shown in Figure 7 are as follows:
o Option-code: OPTION_V6_DNS_RI (TBA1, see Section 10.1)
o Option-length: Length of the enclosed data in octets.
o Encr DNS Types (Encrypted DNS Types): Indicates the type(s) of the
encrypted DNS server conveyed in this attribute. The format of
this 8-bit field is shown in Figure 8.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|U|U|U|U|U|H|T|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Encrypted DNS Types
T: If set, this bit indicates that the server supports DoT
[RFC7858].
H: If set, this bit indicates that the server supports DoH
[RFC8484].
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
U: Unassigned bits. These bits MUST be unset by the sender.
Associating a meaning with an unassigned bit can be done via
Standards Action [RFC8126].
In a request, these bits are assigned to indicate the requested
encrypted DNS server type(s) by the client. In a response, these
bits are set as a function of the encrypted DNS supported by the
server and the requested encrypted DNS server type(s).
To keep the packet small, if more than one encrypted DNS type
(e.g., both DoH and DoT) are to be returned to a requesting client
and the same ADN is used for these types, the corresponding bits
MUST be set in the 'Encrypted DNS Types' field of the same option
instance in a response. For example, if the client requested DoH
and DoTand the server supports both, then both T and H bits must
be set.
o Authentication Domain Name: A fully qualified domain name of the
DoH/DoT server. This field is formatted as specified in
Section 10 of [RFC8415].
An example of the Authentication Domain Name encoding is shown in
Figure 9. This example conveys the FQDN "doh1.example.com.".
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| 0x04 | d | o | h | 1 | 0x07 | e | x | a |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| m | p | l | e | 0x03 | c | o | m | 0x00 |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
Figure 9: An example of the authentication-domain-name Encoding
Multiple instances of OPTION_V6_DNS_RI may be returned to a DHCPv6
client; each pointing to a distinct encrypted DNS server type.
To discover an encrypted DNS server, the DHCPv6 client including
OPTION_V6_DNS_RI in an Option Request Option (ORO), as in Sections
18.2.1, 18.2.2, 18.2.4, 18.2.5, 18.2.6, and 21.7 of [RFC8415]. The
DHCPv6 client sets the Encrypted DNS Types field to the requested
encrypted DNS server type(s).
If the DHCPv6 client requested more than one encrypted DNS server
type, the DHCP client MUST be prepared to receive multiple DHCP
OPTION_V6_DNS_RI options; each option is to be treated as a separate
encrypted DNS server.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
4.2. DHCP DNS Reference Identifier Option
The DHCP DNS Reference Identifier option is used to configure an
authentication domain name of the DoH/DoT server. The format of this
option is illustrated in Figure 10.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TBA2 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Encr DNS Types| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
~ Authentication Domain Name ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
with:
Authentication Domain Name
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
| s1 | s2 | s3 | s4 | s5 | ...
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
The values s1, s2, s3, etc. represent the domain name labels in the
domain name encoding.
Figure 10: DHCP DNS Reference Identifier Option
The fields of the option shown in Figure 10 are as follows:
o Code: OPTION_V4_DNS_RI (TBA2, see Section 10.2).
o Length: Length of the enclosed data in octets.
o Encr DNS Types (Encrypted DNS Types): Indicates the type(s) of the
encrypted DNS server conveyed in this attribute. The format of
this field is shown in Figure 8.
o Authentication Domain Name: The domain name of the DoH/DoT server.
This field is formatted as specified in Section 10 of [RFC8415].
OPTION_V4_DNS_RI is a concatenation-requiring option. As such, the
mechanism specified in [RFC3396] MUST be used if OPTION_V4_DNS_RI
exceeds the maximum DHCP option size of 255 octets.
To discover an encrypted DNS server, the DHCP client requests the
Encrypted DNS Reference Identifier by including OPTION_V4_DNS_RI in a
Parameter Request List option [RFC2132]. The DHCP client sets the
Encrypted DNS Types field to the requested encrypted DNS server.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
If the DHCP client requested more than one encrypted DNS server type,
the DHCP client MUST be prepared to receive multiple DHCP
OPTION_V4_DNS_RI options; each option is to be treated as a separate
encrypted DNS server.
4.3. RA DNS Reference Identifier Option
The IPv6 Router Advertisement (RA) DNS Reference Identifier option is
used to configure an authentication domain name of the DoH/DoT
server. The format of this option is illustrated in Figure 11.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Encr DNS Types| Unassigned |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Authentication Domain Name :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: RA DNS Reference Identifier Option
The fields of the option shown in Figure 11 are as follows:
o Type: 8-bit identifier of the DNS Reference Identifier Option as
assigned by IANA (TBA3, see Section 10.3).
o Length: 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option
(including the Type and Length fields) is in units of 8 octets.
o Encr DNS Types (Encrypted DNS Types): Indicates the type(s) of the
encrypted DNS server conveyed in this attribute. The format of
this field is shown in Figure 8.
o Unassigned: This field is unused. It MUST be initialized to zero
by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.
o Lifetime: 32-bit unsigned integer. The maximum time in seconds
(relative to the time the packet is received) over which the
authentication domain name MAY be used as a DNS Reference
Identifier.
The value of Lifetime SHOULD by default be at least 3 *
MaxRtrAdvInterval, where MaxRtrAdvInterval is the maximum RA
interval as defined in [RFC4861].
A value of all one bits (0xffffffff) represents infinity.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
A value of zero means that the DNS Reference Identifier MUST no
longer be used.
o Authentication Domain Name: The domain name of the DoH/DoT server.
This field is formatted as specified in Section 10 of [RFC8415].
This field MUST be padded with zeros so that its size is a
multiple of 8 octets.
5. DoH URI Templates
DoH servers may support more than one URI Template [RFC8484]. The
following discusses a mechanism for a DoH client to retrieve the list
of supported templates by a DoH server. Also, if the resolver hosts
several DoH services (e.g., no-filtering, blocking adult content,
blocking malware), these services can be discovered as templates.
Upon discovery of a DoH resolver (Section 4), the DoH client contacts
that DoH resolver to retrieve the list of supported DoH services
using the well-known URI defined in
[I-D.btw-add-rfc8484-clarification]. DoH clients re-iterates that
request regularly to retrieve an updated list of supported DoH
services. Note that a "push" mode can be considered using the
mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-dnssd-push].
How a DoH client makes use of the configured DoH services is out of
scope of this document.
6. Locating DoH/DoT Servers
A CPE or a host relies upon discovery mechanisms (such as PCO, DHCP,
or RA) to retrieve DoH/DoT servers' reachability information. In the
various scenarios sketched in Section 3, Do53, DoH, and DoT may
terminate on the same IP address or distinct IP addresses.
Terminating Do53/DoH/DoT on the same or distinct IP addresses is
deployment-specific.
From an IP reachability standpoint, DoH/DoT servers SHOULD be located
by their address literals rather than their names. This avoids
adding a dependency on another server to resolve the DoH/DoT name.
Concretely, if Do53/DoH/DoT terminate on same IP addresses, existing
discovery mechanisms [RFC2132][RFC3646][RFC8106] can be leveraged to
learn the IP addresses of DoT/DoH servers while an authentication
domain name is supplied by one of the options discussed in Section 4.
The following sub-sections discusses the conditions under which
discovered DoT/DoH server can be used.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
6.1. DoT/DoH Auto-Upgrade
Additional considerations are discussed below for the use of DoH and
DoT servers provided by local networks:
o If the DNS server's IP address discovered by using DHCP/RA is pre-
configured in the OS or Browser as a verified resolver (e.g., part
of an auto-upgrade program such as [Auto-upgrade]), the DNS client
auto-upgrades to use the pre-configured DoH/DoT server tied to the
discovered DNS server IP address. In such a case the DNS client
will perform additional checks out of band, such as confirming
that the Do53 IP address and the DoH server are owned and operated
by the same organisation.
o Similarly, if the ADN conveyed in DHCP/RA (Section 4) is pre-
configured in the OS or browser as a verified resolver, the DNS
client auto-upgrades to establish a DoH/DoT session with the ADN.
In such case, the DNS client matches the domain name in the DNS
Reference Identifier DHCP/RA option with the 'DNS-ID' identifier
type within subjectAltName entry in the server certificate
conveyed in the TLS handshake.
6.2. Other Deployment Options
Some deployment options to securely configure hosts are discussed
below. These options are provided for the sake of completeness.
o If Device Provisioning Protocol (DPP) [DPP] is used, the
configurator can securely configure devices in the home network
with the local DoT/DoH server using DPP. If the DoT/DoH servers
use raw public keys [RFC7250], the Subject Public Key Info (SPKI)
pin set [RFC7250] of raw public keys may be encoded in a QR code.
The configurator (e.g., mobile device) can scan the QR code and
provision SPKI pin set in OS/Browser. The configurator can in-
turn securely configure devices (e.g., thermostat) in the home
network with the SPKI pin set using DPP.
o If a CPE is co-located with security services within the home
network, the CPE can use WPA-PSK but with unique pre-shared keys
for different endpoints to deal with security issues. In such
networks, [I-D.reddy-add-iot-byod-bootstrap] may be used to
securely bootstrap endpoint devices with the authentication domain
name and DNS server certificate of the local network's DoH/DoT
server.
The OS would not know if the WPA pre-shared-key is the same for
all clients or a unique pre-shared key is assigned to the host.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
Hence, the user has to indicate to the system that a unique pre-
shared key is assigned to trigger the bootstrapping procedure.
If the device joins a home network using a single shared password
among all the attached devices, a compromised device can host a
fake access point, and the device cannot be securely bootstrapped
with the home network's DoH/DoT server.
7. Hosting DoH/DoT Forwarder in the CPE
7.1. Managed CPEs
The following mechanisms can be used to host a DoH/DoT forwarder in a
managed CPE (Section 3.1).
7.1.1. ACME
The ISP can assign a unique FQDN (e.g., cpe1.example.com) and a
domain-validated public certificate to the DoH/DoT forwarder hosted
on the CPE. Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)
[RFC8555] can be used by the ISP to automate certificate management
functions such as domain validation procedure, certificate issuance
and certificate revocation.
The managed CPE should support a configuration parameter to instruct
the CPE whether it has to relay the encrypted DNS server received
from the ISP's network or has to announce itself as a forwarder
within the local network. The default behavior of the CPE is to
supply the encrypted DNS server received from the ISP's network.
7.1.2. Auto-Upgrade based on Domains and their Sub-domains
If the ADN conveyed in DHCP/RA (Section 4) is pre-configured in
popular OSes or browsers as a verified resolver and the auto-upgrade
(Section 6.1) is allowed for both the pre-configured ADN and its sub-
domains, the DoH/DoT client will learn the local DoH/DoT forwarder
using DHCP/RA and auto-upgrade because the left-most label of the
pre-configured ADN would match the subjectAltName value in the server
certificate. Concretely, the CPE can communicate the ADN of the
local DoH forwarder (Section 7.1.1) to internal hosts using DHCP/RA
(Section 4).
Let's suppose that "example.net" is pre-configured as a verified
resolved in the browser or OS. If the DoH/DoT client discovers a
local forwarder "cpe1-internal.example.net", the DoH/DoT client will
auto-upgrade because the pre-configured ADN would match
subjectAltName value "cpe1-internal.example.net" of type dNSName. As
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
shown in Figure 12, the auto-upgrade to a rogue server advertising
"rs.example.org" will fail.
Rogue Server
| |
X<==DHCP=======|
| {ADN= |
| rs.example.org, @rs}
| | --,--,-
| ,+-,--+--. ,/ ISP \.
| ,-' `-. ,-' `-.
DoH/DoT --( LAN CPE----( S (@1) )
capable client `-. ,-'| `-. ,-'
| `--'--'--' | `--'--'--'
|<========DHCP========>|
|{ADN= |
| cpe1-internal.example.net, @i}
|
|<========DoH=========>|
| |
Legend:
* S: DoH/DoT server
* @1: IP address of S
* @i: internal IP address of the CPE
* @rs: IP address of a rogue server
Figure 12: A Simplified Example of Auto-upgrade based on Sub-domains
7.2. Unmanaged CPEs
The approach specified in Section 7.1 does not apply for hosting a
DNS forwarder in an unmanaged CPE.
The unmanaged CPE administrator (referred to as administrator) can
host a DoH/DoT forwarder on the unmanaged CPE. This assumes the
following:
o The DoH/DoT server certificate is managed by the entity in-charge
of hosting the DoT/DoH forwarder.
Alternatively, a security service provider can assign a unique
FQDN to the CPE. The DoH/DoT forwarder will act like a private
DoT/DoH server only be accessible from within the home network.
o The DoH/DoT forwarder will either be configured to use the ISP's
or a 3rd party DoH/DoT server.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
o The unmanaged CPE will advertise the DoH/DoT forwarder ADN using
DHCP/RA to internal hosts.
Figure 13 illustrates an example of an unmanaged CPE hosting a
forwarder which connects to a 3rd party DoH/DoT server. In this
example, the DNS information received from the managed CPE (and
therefore from the ISP) is ignored by the Internal CPE hosting the
forwarder.
,--,--,--. ,--,
,' Internal Managed ,-' '- 3rd Party
Host--( Network#A CPE--------CPE------( ISP )--- DNS Server
| `. ,-'| | `-. -' |
| `-'--'--' | |<==DHCP==>|`--' |
| |<==DHCP==>| | |
|<======DHCP=======>| | |
| {RI, @i} | |
|<=====DoT/DoH=====>|<=============DoT/DoH=============>|
Legend:
* @i: IP address of the DNS forwarder hosted in the Internal
CPE.
Figure 13: Example of an Internal CPE Hosting a Forwarder
8. Legacy CPEs
Hosts serviced by legacy CPEs that can't be upgraded to support the
options defined in Section 4 won't be able to learn the DoH/DoT
server hosted by the ISP, in particular. If the ADN is not
discovered using DHCP/RA, such hosts will have to fallback to use the
special-use domain name defined in [I-D.pp-add-resinfo] to discover
the DoH/DoT server and to retrieve the list of supported DoH services
using the RESINFO RRtype [I-D.pp-add-resinfo]. The DHCP/RA option to
discover ADN takes precedence over special-use domain name since the
special-use domain name is suseptible to both internal and external
attacks whereas DHCP/RA is only vulnerable to internal attacks.
9. Security Considerations
An attacker can get a domain name, domain-validated public
certificate from a CA, host a DoT/DoH server and claim the best DNS
privacy preservation policy. Also, an attacker within the home
network can use the public IP address, get an 'IP address'-validated
public certificate from a CA, host a DoT/DoH server and claim the
best DNS privacy preservation policy.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
Wireless LAN as frequently deployed in home networks is vulnerable to
various attacks (e.g., [Evil-Twin], [Krack], [Dragonblood]). Because
of these attacks, only cryptographically authenticated communications
are trusted on Wireless LAN networks. This means information
provided by such networks via DHCP, DHCPv6, or RA (e.g., NTP server,
DNS server, default domain) are untrusted because DHCP and RA are not
authenticated.
Because DHCP/RA messages are not encrypted or protected against
modification in any way, their content can be spoofed or modified by
active attackers (e.g., compromised devices within the home network).
An active attacker (Section 3.3 of [RFC3552]) can spoof the DHCP/RA
response to provide the attacker's DoT/DoH server. Note that such an
attacker can launch other attacks as discussed in Section 22 of
[RFC8415]. Furthermore, if the browser or the OS is pre-configured
with a list of DNS servers and some of which perform malware
filtering while others do not, an attacker can prevent contacting the
preferred filtering DNS servers causing a downgrade attack to a non-
filtering DNS server, which the attacker can leverage to deliver
malware.
In this specification, DoH/DoT servers discovered using insecure
discovery mechanisms (like DHCP/RA) are only used if that DoH/DoT
server is pre-configured in the OS or the browser. Section 6.1
identifies a set of deployment options under which DHCP/RA RI options
can be used. If the insecurely discovered DoH/DoT server is not pre-
configured in the OS or browser, the client must validate the
signatory (e.g., cryptographically attested by the ISP
[I-D.reddy-add-server-policy-selection]). If the DHCP/RA response is
dropped by the attacker, the client can fallback to use a pre-
configured DoH/DoT server. However, the use of policies to select
servers is out of scope of this document.
The use of DoH/DoT also depends on the user's policies. For example,
the user may indicate his/her consent to use (or not) the locally-
discovered DoH/DoT server or request to review human-readable privacy
policy information of a selected DNS server and to assess whether
that DNS server performs DNS-based content filtering (e.g.,
[I-D.reddy-add-server-policy-selection]). The DNS client is assumed
to adhere to these policies. This document does not make any
assumption about the structure of such policies nor mandates specific
requirements. Such policies and their handling is out of scope.
DoT/DoH sessions with rogue servers spoofing the IP address of a DNS
server will fail because the DNS client will fail to authenticate
that rogue server based upon PKIX authentication [RFC6125] based upon
the authentication domain name in the Reference Identifier Option.
DNS clients that ignore authentication failures and accept spoofed
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
certificates will be subject to attacks (e.g., redirect to malicious
servers, intercept sensitive data).
A passive attacker (Section 3.2 of [RFC3552]) can identify the host
is using DHCP/RA to discover the DoH/DoT server and can infer the
host is capable of using DoH/DoT to encrypt DNS messages. However, a
passive attacker cannot spoof or modify DHCP/RA messages.
Attacks of spoofed or modified DHCP responses and RA messages by
attackers in the home network can possibly be mitigated by making use
of the mechanisms described in [RFC7610], [RFC7113], and [RFC7513].
TCP connections received outside the home network MUST be discarded
by the DoH/DoT forwarder in the CPE. This behavior adheres to REQ#8
in [RFC6092]; it MUST apply for both IPv4 and IPv6.
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. DHCPv6 Option
IANA is requested to assign the following new DHCPv6 Option Code in
the registry maintained in: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-
parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xhtml#dhcpv6-parameters-2.
+-------+------------------+---------+-------------+----------------+
| Value | Description | Client | Singleton | Reference |
| | | ORO | Option | |
+-------+------------------+---------+-------------+----------------+
| TBA1 | OPTION_V6_DNS_RI | Yes | Yes | [ThisDocument] |
+-------+------------------+---------+-------------+----------------+
10.2. DHCP Option
IANA is requested to assign the following new DHCP Option Code in the
registry maintained in: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-
parameters/bootp-dhcp-parameters.xhtml#options.
+------+------------------+-------+----------------+----------------+
| Tag | Name | Data | Meaning | Reference |
| | | Length| | |
+------+------------------+-------+----------------+----------------+
| TBA2 | OPTION_V4_DNS_RI | N | DoT/DoH server | [ThisDocument] |
| | | | authentication | |
| | | | domain name | |
+------+------------------+-------+----------------+----------------+
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
10.3. RA Option
IANA is requested to assign the following new IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
Option type in the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats" sub-
registry under the "Internet Control Message Protocol version 6
(ICMPv6) Parameters" registry maintained in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/
icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-5.
+------+---------------------------------+----------------+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+------+---------------------------------+----------------+
| TBA3 | DNS Reference Identifier Option | [ThisDocument] |
+------+---------------------------------+----------------+
11. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Christian Jacquenet for the review.
Thanks to Tommy Jensen, Stephen Farrell, Martin Thomson, Vittorio
Bertola, and Iain Sharp for the comments.
Thanks to Mark Nottingham for the feedback on HTTP redirection.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC3396] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3396, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3396>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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>.
[RFC8310] Dickinson, S., Gillmor, D., and T. Reddy, "Usage Profiles
for DNS over TLS and DNS over DTLS", RFC 8310,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8310, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8310>.
[RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.
[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>.
12.2. Informative References
[Auto-upgrade]
The Unicode Consortium, "DoH providers: criteria, process
for Chrome", <docs.google.com/document/
d/128i2YTV2C7T6Gr3I-81zlQ-_Lprnsp24qzy_20Z1Psw/edit>.
[DPP] The Wi-Fi Alliance, "Device Provisioning Protocol
Specification", <https://www.wi-fi.org/file/device-
provisioning-protocol-specification>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
[Dragonblood]
The Unicode Consortium, "Dragonblood: Analyzing the
Dragonfly Handshake of WPA3 and EAP-pwd",
<https://papers.mathyvanhoef.com/dragonblood.pdf>.
[Evil-Twin]
The Unicode Consortium, "Evil twin (wireless networks)",
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Evil_twin_(wireless_networks)>.
[I-D.btw-add-rfc8484-clarification]
Boucadair, M., Cook, N., Reddy.K, T., and D. Wing,
"Supporting Redirection for DNS Queries over HTTPS (DoH)",
draft-btw-add-rfc8484-clarification-02 (work in progress),
July 2020.
[I-D.ietf-dnsop-terminology-ter]
Hoffman, P., "Terminology for DNS Transports and
Location", draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-ter-01 (work in
progress), February 2020.
[I-D.ietf-dnssd-push]
Pusateri, T. and S. Cheshire, "DNS Push Notifications",
draft-ietf-dnssd-push-25 (work in progress), October 2019.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis]
Palet, J., "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-04 (work in
progress), June 2017.
[I-D.pp-add-resinfo]
Sood, P. and P. Hoffman, "DNS Resolver Information Self-
publication", draft-pp-add-resinfo-02 (work in progress),
June 2020.
[I-D.reddy-add-iot-byod-bootstrap]
Reddy.K, T., Wing, D., Richardson, M., and M. Boucadair,
"A Bootstrapping Procedure to Discover and Authenticate
DNS-over-TLS and DNS-over-HTTPS Servers for IoT and BYOD
Devices", draft-reddy-add-iot-byod-bootstrap-00 (work in
progress), May 2020.
[I-D.reddy-add-server-policy-selection]
Reddy.K, T., Wing, D., Richardson, M., and M. Boucadair,
"DNS Server Selection: DNS Server Information with
Assertion Token", draft-reddy-add-server-policy-
selection-03 (work in progress), June 2020.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
[Krack] The Unicode Consortium, "Key Reinstallation Attacks",
2017, <https://www.krackattacks.com/>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC3646] Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.
[RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security
Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for
Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>.
[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
(PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.
[RFC6731] Savolainen, T., Kato, J., and T. Lemon, "Improved
Recursive DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced
Nodes", RFC 6731, DOI 10.17487/RFC6731, December 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6731>.
[RFC7113] Gont, F., "Implementation Advice for IPv6 Router
Advertisement Guard (RA-Guard)", RFC 7113,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7113, February 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7113>.
[RFC7250] Wouters, P., Ed., Tschofenig, H., Ed., Gilmore, J.,
Weiler, S., and T. Kivinen, "Using Raw Public Keys in
Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport
Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 7250, DOI 10.17487/RFC7250,
June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7250>.
[RFC7513] Bi, J., Wu, J., Yao, G., and F. Baker, "Source Address
Validation Improvement (SAVI) Solution for DHCP",
RFC 7513, DOI 10.17487/RFC7513, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7513>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
[RFC7610] Gont, F., Liu, W., and G. Van de Velde, "DHCPv6-Shield:
Protecting against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers", BCP 199,
RFC 7610, DOI 10.17487/RFC7610, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7610>.
[RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8499>.
[RFC8520] Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage
Description Specification", RFC 8520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8520>.
[RFC8555] Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., McCarney, D., and J.
Kasten, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment
(ACME)", RFC 8555, DOI 10.17487/RFC8555, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8555>.
[TR-069] The Broadband Forum, "CPE WAN Management Protocol",
December 2018, <https://www.broadband-
forum.org/technical/download/TR-069.pdf>.
[TS.24008]
3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core
network protocols; Stage 3 (Release 16)", December 2019,
<http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/24008.htm>.
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Tirumaleswar Reddy
McAfee, Inc.
Embassy Golf Link Business Park
Bangalore, Karnataka 560071
India
Email: TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft DoH/DoT in Home Networks July 2020
Dan Wing
Citrix Systems, Inc.
USA
Email: dwing-ietf@fuggles.com
Neil Cook
Open-Xchange
UK
Email: neil.cook@noware.co.uk
Boucadair, et al. Expires January 11, 2021 [Page 25]