-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
/
draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-00.txt
1120 lines (733 loc) · 43.2 KB
/
draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-00.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
Network Working Group C. Huitema
Internet-Draft Private Octopus Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track A. Mankin
Expires: October 29, 2020 Salesforce
S. Dickinson
Sinodun IT
April 27, 2020
Specification of DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections
draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-00
Abstract
This document describes the use of QUIC to provide transport privacy
for DNS. The encryption provided by QUIC has similar properties to
that provided by TLS, while QUIC transport eliminates the head-of-
line blocking issues inherent with TCP and provides more efficient
error corrections than UDP. DNS over QUIC (DoQ) has privacy
properties similar to DNS over TLS (DoT) specified in RFC7858, and
latency characteristics similar to classic DNS over UDP.
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 October 29, 2020.
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
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Scope is Limited to the Stub to Resolver Scenario . . . . 4
3.2. Provide DNS Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Design for Minimum Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. No Specific Middlebox Bypass Mechanism . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. No Server Initiated Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Connection Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Draft Version Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2. Port Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Stream Mapping and Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Transaction Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. DoQ Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Connection Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Connection Resume and 0-RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6. Message Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Fall Back to Other Protocols on Connection Failure . . . 11
5.3. Address Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. DNS Message IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.5. Padding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6. Connection Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.6.1. Connection Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.6.2. Resource Management and Idle Timeout Values . . . . . 12
5.7. Processing Queries in Parallel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.8. Flow Control Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Privacy Issues With 0-RTT data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Privacy Issues With Session Resume . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. Traffic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Registration of DoQ Identification String . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Reservation of Dedicated Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2.1. Port number 784 for experimentations . . . . . . . . 16
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
Domain Name System (DNS) concepts are specified in "Domain names -
concepts and facilities" [RFC1034]. The transmission of DNS queries
and responses over UDP and TCP is specified in "Domain names -
implementation and specification" [RFC1035]. This document presents
a mapping of the DNS protocol over the QUIC transport
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport] [I-D.ietf-quic-tls]. DNS over QUIC is
referred here as DoQ, in line with the "Terminology for DNS
Transports and Location" [I-D.ietf-dnsop-terminology-ter]. The goals
of the DoQ mapping are:
1. Provide the same DNS privacy protection as DNS over TLS (DoT)
[RFC7858]. This includes an option for the client to
authenticate the server by means of an authentication domain name
as specified in "Usage Profiles for DNS over TLS and DNS over
DTLS" [RFC8310].
2. Provide an improved level of source address validation for DNS
servers compared to classic DNS over UDP.
3. Provide a transport that is not constrained by path MTU
limitations on the size of DNS responses it can send.
4. Explore the characteristics of using QUIC as a DNS transport,
versus other solutions like DNS over UDP [RFC1035], DoT
[RFC7858], or DNS over HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484].
In order to achieve these goals, the focus of this document is
limited to the "stub to recursive resolver" scenario also addressed
by DoT [RFC7858]. That is, the protocol described here works for
queries and responses between stub clients and recursive servers.
The specific non-goals of this document are:
1. No attempt is made to support AXFR "DNS Zone Transfer Protocol
(AXFR)" [RFC5936] or IXFR "Incremental Zone Transfer in DNS"
[RFC1885], as these mechanisms are not relevant to the stub to
recursive resolver scenario.
2. No attempt is made to evade potential blocking of DNS over QUIC
traffic by middleboxes.
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
3. No attempt to support server initiated transactions, are these
are not relevant for the "stub to recursive resolver" scenario,
see Section 3.5.
Users interested in zone transfers should continue using TCP based
solutions and will also want to take note of work in progress to
support "DNS Zone Transfer-over-TLS" [I-D.ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls].
Specifying the transmission of an application over QUIC requires
specifying how the application's messages are mapped to QUIC streams,
and generally how the application will use QUIC. This is done for
HTTP in "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)"[I-D.ietf-quic-http]. The purpose of this document is to
define the way DNS messages can be transmitted over QUIC.
In this document, Section 3 presents the reasoning that guided the
proposed design. Section 4 specifies the actual mapping of DoQ.
Section 5 presents guidelines on the implementation, usage and
deployment of DoQ.
2. Key Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC8174].
3. Design Considerations
This section and its subsection present the design guidelines that
were used for DoQ. This section is informative in nature.
3.1. Scope is Limited to the Stub to Resolver Scenario
Usage scenarios for the DNS protocol can be broadly classified in
three groups: stub to recursive resolver, recursive resolver to
authoritative server, and server to server. This design focuses only
on the "stub to recursive resolver" scenario following the approach
taken in DoT [RFC7858] and "Usage Profiles for DNS over TLS and DNS
over DTLS" [RFC8310].
QUESTION: Should this document specify any aspects of configuration
of discoverability differently to DoT?
No attempt is made to address the recursive to authoritative
scenarios. Authoritative resolvers are discovered dynamically
through NS records. It is noted that at the time of writing work is
ongoing in the DPRIVE working group to attempt to address the
analogous problem for DoT [I-D.ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements]. In
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
the absence of an agreed way for authoritative to signal support for
QUIC transport, recursive resolvers would have to resort to some
trial and error process. At this stage of QUIC deployment, this
would be mostly errors, and does not seem attractive. This could
change in the future.
The DNS protocol is also used for zone transfers. In the AXFR zone
transfer scenario [RFC5936], the client emits a single AXFR query,
and the server responds with a series of AXFR responses. This
creates a unique profile, in which a query results in several
responses. Supporting that profile would complicate the mapping of
DNS queries over QUIC streams. Zone transfers are not used in the
stub to recursive scenario that is the focus here, and seem to be
currently well served by using DNS over TCP. There is no attempt to
support either AXFR or IXFR in this proposed mapping of DNS to QUIC.
3.2. Provide DNS Privacy
DoT [RFC7858] defines how to mitigate some of the issues described in
"DNS Privacy Considerations" [RFC7626] by specifying how to transmit
DNS messages over TLS. The "Usage Profiles for DNS over TLS and DNS
over DTLS" [RFC8310] specify Strict and Opportunistic Usage Profiles
for DoT including how stub resolvers can authenticate recursive
resolvers.
QUIC connection setup includes the negotiation of security parameters
using TLS, as specified in "Using TLS to Secure QUIC"
[I-D.ietf-quic-tls], enabling encryption of the QUIC transport.
Transmitting DNS messages over QUIC will provide essentially the same
privacy protections as DoT [RFC7858] including Strict and
Opportunistic Usage Profiles [RFC8310]. Further discussion on this
is provided in Section 7.
3.3. Design for Minimum Latency
QUIC is specifically designed to reduce the delay between HTTP
queries and HTTP responses. This is achieved through three main
components:
1. Support for 0-RTT data during session resumption.
2. Support for advanced error recovery procedures as specified in
"QUIC Loss Detection and Congestion Control"
[I-D.ietf-quic-recovery].
3. Mitigation of head-of-line blocking by allowing parallel delivery
of data on multiple streams.
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
This mapping of DNS to QUIC will take advantage of these features in
three ways:
1. Optional support for sending 0-RTT data during session resumption
(the security and privacy implications of this are discussed in
later sections).
2. Long-lived QUIC connections over which multiple DNS transactions
are performed, generating the sustained traffic required to
benefit from advanced recovery features.
3. Fast resumption of QUIC connections to manage the disconnect-on-
idle feature of QUIC without incurring retransmission time-outs.
4. Mapping of each DNS Query/Response transaction to a separate
stream, to mitigate head-of-line blocking. This enables servers
to respond to queries "out of order". It also enables clients to
process responses as soon as they arrive, without having to wait
for in order delivery of responses previously posted by the
server.
These considerations will be reflected in the mapping of DNS traffic
to QUIC streams in Section 4.2.
3.4. No Specific Middlebox Bypass Mechanism
The mapping of DNS over QUIC is defined for minimal overhead and
maximum performance. This means a different traffic profile than
HTTP3 over QUIC. This difference can be noted by firewalls and
middleboxes. There may be environments in which HTTP3 over QUIC will
be able to pass through, but DoQ will be blocked by these middle
boxes.
3.5. No Server Initiated Transactions
As stated in Section 1, this document does not specify support for
server initiated transactions because these are not relevant for the
"stub to recursive resolver" scenario. Note that "DNS Stateful
Operations" (DSO) [RFC8490] are only applicable for DNS over TCP and
DNS over TLS. DSO is not applicable to DNS over HTTP since HTTP has
its own mechanism for managing sessions, and this is incompatible
with the DSO; the same is true for DNS over QUIC.
4. Specifications
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
4.1. Connection Establishment
DoQ connections are established as described in the QUIC transport
specification [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]. During connection
establishment, DoQ support is indicated by selecting the ALPN token
"doq" in the crypto handshake.
4.1.1. Draft Version Identification
*RFC Editor's Note:* Please remove this section prior to publication
of a final version of this document.
Only implementations of the final, published RFC can identify
themselves as "doq". Until such an RFC exists, implementations MUST
NOT identify themselves using this string.
Implementations of draft versions of the protocol MUST add the string
"-" and the corresponding draft number to the identifier. For
example, draft-ietf-dprive-dnsoquic-00 is identified using the string
"doq-i00".
4.1.2. Port Selection
By default, a DNS server that supports DoQ MUST listen for and accept
QUIC connections on the dedicated UDP port TBD (number to be defined
in Section 8), unless it has mutual agreement with its clients to use
a port other than TBD for DoQ. In order to use a port other than
TBD, both clients and servers would need a configuration option in
their software.
By default, a DNS client desiring to use DoQ with a particular server
MUST establish a QUIC connection to UDP port TBD on the server,
unless it has mutual agreement with its server to use a port other
than port TBD for DoQ. Such another port MUST NOT be port 53 or port
853. This recommendation against use of port 53 for DoQ is to avoid
confusion between DoQ and the use of DNS over UDP [RFC1035].
Similarly, using port 853 would cause confusion between DoQ and DNS
over DTLS [RFC8094].
4.2. Stream Mapping and Usage
The mapping of DNS traffic over QUIC streams takes advantage of the
QUIC stream features detailed in Section 2 of the QUIC transport
specification [I-D.ietf-quic-transport].
The stub to resolver DNS traffic follows a simple pattern in which
the client sends a query, and the server provides a response. This
design specifies that for each subsequent query on a QUIC connection
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
the client MUST select the next available client-initiated
bidirectional stream, in conformance with the QUIC transport
specification [I-D.ietf-quic-transport].
The client MUST send the DNS query over the selected stream, and MUST
indicate through the STREAM FIN mechanism that no further data will
be sent on that stream.
The server MUST send the response on the same stream, and MUST
indicate through the STREAM FIN mechanism that no further data will
be sent on that stream.
Therefore, a single client initiated DNS transaction consumes a
single stream. This means that the client's first query occurs on
QUIC stream 0, the second on 4, and so on.
4.2.1. Transaction Errors
Peers normally complete transactions by sending a DNS response on the
transaction's stream, including cases where the DNS response
indicates a DNS error. For example, a Server Failure (SERVFAIL,
[RFC1035]) SHOULD be notified to the initiator of the transaction by
sending back a response with the Response Code set to SERVFAIL.
If a peer is incapable of sending a DNS response due to an internal
error, it may issue a QUIC Stream Reset with error code
DOQ_INTERNAL_ERROR. The corresponding transaction MUST be abandoned.
4.3. DoQ Error Codes
The following error codes are defined for use when abruptly
terminating streams, aborting reading of streams, or immediately
closing connections:
DOQ_NO_ERROR (0x00): No error. This is used when the connection or
stream needs to be closed, but there is no error to signal.
DOQ_INTERNAL_ERROR (0x01): The DoQ implementation encountered an
internal error and is incapable of pursuing the transaction or the
connection.
DOQ_TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR (0x02): One or some of the transport
parameters proposed by the peer are not acceptable.
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
4.4. Connection Management
Section 10 of the QUIC transport specification
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport] specifies that connections can be closed in
three ways:
o idle timeout
o immediate close
o stateless reset
Clients and servers implementing DNS over QUIC SHOULD negotiate use
of the idle timeout. Closing on idle timeout is done without any
packet exchange, which minimizes protocol overhead. Per section 10.2
of the QUIC transport specification, the effective value of the idle
timeout is computed as the minimum of the values advertised by the
two endpoints. Practical considerations on setting the idle timeout
are discussed in Section 5.6.2.
Clients SHOULD monitor the idle time incurred on their connection to
the server, defined by the time spent since the last packet from the
server has been received. When a client prepares to send a new DNS
query to the server, it will check whether the idle time is
sufficient lower than the idle timer. If it is, the client will send
the DNS query over the existing connection. If not, the client will
establish a new connection and send the query over that connection.
Clients MAY discard their connection to the server before the idle
timeout expires. If they do that, they SHOULD close the connection
explicitly, using QUIC's CONNECTION_CLOSE mechanisms, and indicating
the Application reason "No Error".
Clients and servers MAY close the connection for a variety of other
reasons, indicated using QUIC's CONNECTION_CLOSE. Client and servers
that send packets over a connection discarded by their peer MAY
receive a stateless reset indication. If a connection fails, all
queries in progress over the connection MUST be considered failed,
and a Server Failure (SERVFAIL, [RFC1035]) SHOULD be notified to the
initiator of the transaction.
4.5. Connection Resume and 0-RTT
A stub resolver MAY take advantage of the connection resume
mechanisms supported by QUIC transport [I-D.ietf-quic-transport] and
QUIC TLS [I-D.ietf-quic-tls]. Stub resolvers SHOULD consider
potential privacy issues associated with session resume before
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
deciding to use this mechanism. These privacy issues are detailed in
Section 7.2.
When resuming a session, a stub resolver MAY take advantage of the
0-RTT mechanism supported by QUIC. The 0-RTT mechanism MUST NOT be
used to send data that is not "replayable" transactions. For
example, a stub resolver MAY transmit a Query as 0-RTT, but MUST NOT
transmit an Update.
4.6. Message Sizes
DoQ Queries and Responses are sent on QUIC streams, which in theory
can carry up to 2^62 bytes. However, DNS messages are restricted in
practice to a maximum size of 65535 bytes. This maximum size is
enforced by the use of a two-octet message length field in DNS over
TCP [RFC1035] and DNS over TLS [RFC7858], and by the definition of
the "application/dns-message" for DNS over HTTP [RFC8484]. DoQ
enforces the same restriction.
The maximum size of messages is controlled in QUIC by the transport
parameters:
o initial_max_stream_data_bidi_local: when set by the client,
specifies the amount of data that servers can send on a "response"
stream without waiting for a MAX_STREAM_DATA frame.
o initial_max_stream_data_bidi_remote: when set by the server,
specifies the amount of data that clients can send on a "query"
stream without waiting for a MAX_STREAM_DATA frame.
Clients and servers MUST set these two parameters to the value 65535.
If they receive a different value, they SHOULD close the QUIC
connection with an application error "Invalid Parameter".
The Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS) [RFC6891] allow peers to
specify the UDP message size. This parameter is ignored by DoQ. DoQ
implementations always assume that the maximum message size is 65535
bytes.
5. Implementation Requirements
5.1. Authentication
For the stub to recursive resolver scenario, the authentication
requirements are the same as described in DoT [RFC7858] and "Usage
Profiles for DNS over TLS and DNS over DTLS" [RFC8310]. There is no
need to authenticate the client's identity in either scenario.
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
5.2. Fall Back to Other Protocols on Connection Failure
If the establishment of the DoQ connection fails, clients SHOULD
attempt to fall back to DoT and then potentially clear text, as
specified in DoT [RFC7858] and "Usage Profiles for DNS over TLS and
DNS over DTLS" [RFC8310], depending on their privacy profile.
DNS clients SHOULD remember server IP addresses that don't support
DoQ, including timeouts, connection refusals, and QUIC handshake
failures, and not request DoQ from them for a reasonable period (such
as one hour per server). DNS clients following an out-of-band key-
pinned privacy profile ([RFC7858]) MAY be more aggressive about
retrying DoQ connection failures.
5.3. Address Validation
Section 8 of the QUIC transport specification
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport] defines Address Validation procedures to
avoid servers being used in address amplification attacks. DoQ
implementations MUST conform to this specification, which limits the
worst case amplification to a factor 3.
DoQ implementations SHOULD consider configuring servers to use the
Address Validation using Retry Packets procedure defined in section
8.1.2 of the QUIC transport specification [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]).
This procedure imposes a 1-RTT delay for verifying the return
routability of the source address of a client, similar to the DNS
Cookies mechanism [RFC7873].
DoQ implementations that configure Address Validation using Retry
Packets SHOULD implement the Address Validation for Future
Connections procedure defined in section 8.1.3 of the QUIC transport
specification [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]). This defines how servers
can send NEW TOKEN frames to clients after the client address is
validated, in order to avoid the 1-RTT penalty during subsequent
connections by the client from the same address.
5.4. DNS Message IDs
When sending queries over a QUIC connection, the DNS Message ID MUST
be set to zero.
5.5. Padding
There are mechanisms specified for padding individual DNS messages in
"The EDNS(0) Padding Option" [RFC7830] and for padding within QUIC
packets (see Section 8.6 of the QUIC transport specification
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport]).
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
Implementations SHOULD NOT use DNS options for padding individual DNS
messages, because QUIC transport MAY transmit multiple STREAM frames
containing separate DNS messages in a single QUIC packet. Instead,
implementations SHOULD use QUIC PADDING frames to align the packet
length to a small set of fixed sizes, aligned with the
recommendations of the "Padding Policies for Extension Mechanisms for
DNS (EDNS(0))" [RFC8467].
5.6. Connection Handling
"DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements" [RFC7766]
provides updated guidance on DNS over TCP, some of which is
applicable to DoQ. This section attempts to specify which and how
those considerations apply to DoQ.
5.6.1. Connection Reuse
Historic implementations of DNS stub resolvers are known to open and
close TCP connections for each DNS query. To avoid excess QUIC
connections, each with a single query, clients SHOULD reuse a single
QUIC connection to the recursive resolver.
In order to achieve performance on par with UDP, DNS clients SHOULD
send their queries concurrently over the QUIC streams on a QUIC
connection. That is, when a DNS client sends multiple queries to a
server over a QUIC connection, it SHOULD NOT wait for an outstanding
reply before sending the next query.
5.6.2. Resource Management and Idle Timeout Values
Proper management of established and idle connections is important to
the healthy operation of a DNS server. An implementation of DoQ
SHOULD follow best practices similar to those specified for DNS over
TCP [RFC7766], in particular with regard to:
o Concurrent Connections (Section 6.2.2)
o Security Considerations (Section 10)
Failure to do so may lead to resource exhaustion and denial of
service.
Clients that want to maintain long duration DoQ connections SHOULD
use the idle timeout mechanisms defined in Section 10.2 of the QUIC
transport specification [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]. Clients and
servers MUST NOT send the edns-tcp-keepalive EDNS(0) Option [RFC7828]
in any messages sent on a DoQ connection (because it is specific to
the use of TCP/TLS as a transport). If any message sent on a DoQ
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
connection contains an edns-tcp-keepalive EDNS(0) Option, this is a
fatal error and the recipient of the defective message MUST forcibly
abort the connection immediately.
This document does not make specific recommendations for timeout
values on idle connections. Clients and servers should reuse and/or
close connections depending on the level of available resources.
Timeouts may be longer during periods of low activity and shorter
during periods of high activity.
Clients that are willing to use QUIC's 0-RTT mechanism can
reestablish connections and send transactions on the new connection
with minimal delay overhead. These clients MAY chose low values of
the idle timer.
5.7. Processing Queries in Parallel
As specified in Section 7 of "DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation
Requirements" [RFC7766], resolvers are RECOMMENDED to support the
preparing of responses in parallel and sending them out of order. In
DoQ, they do that by sending responses on their specific stream as
soon as possible, without waiting for availability of responses for
previously opened streams.
5.8. Flow Control Mechanisms
Servers and Clients manage flow control as specified in QUIC.
Servers MAY use the "maximum stream ID" option of the QUIC transport
to limit the number of streams opened by the client. This mechanism
will effectively limit the number of DNS queries that a client can
send on a single DoQ connection.
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations of DoQ should be comparable to those of
DoT [RFC7858].
7. Privacy Considerations
DoQ is specifically designed to protect the DNS traffic between stub
and resolver from observations by third parties, and thus protect the
privacy of queries sent by the stub. However, the recursive resolver
has full visibility of the stub's traffic, and could be used as an
observation point, as discussed in the revision of "DNS Privacy
Considerations" [I-D.ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis]. These considerations
do not differ between DoT and DoQ and are not discussed further here.
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
QUIC incorporates the mechanisms of TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] and this
enables QUIC transmission of "0-RTT" data. This can provide
interesting latency gains, but it raises two concerns:
1. Adversaries could replay the 0-RTT data and infer its content
from the behavior of the receiving server.
2. The 0-RTT mechanism relies on TLS resume, which can provide
linkability between successive client sessions.
These issues are developed in Section 7.1 and Section 7.2.
7.1. Privacy Issues With 0-RTT data
The 0-RTT data can be replayed by adversaries. That data may trigger
queries by a recursive resolver to authoritative resolvers.
Adversaries may be able to pick a time at which the recursive
resolver outgoing traffic is observable, and thus find out what name
was queried for in the 0-RTT data.
This risk is in fact a subset of the general problem of observing the
behavior of the recursive resolver discussed in "DNS Privacy
Considerations" [RFC7626]. The attack is partially mitigated by
reducing the observability of this traffic. However, the risk is
amplified for 0-RTT data, because the attacker might replay it at
chosen times, several times.
The recommendation for TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] is that the capability to
use 0-RTT data should be turned off by default, and only enabled if
the user clearly understands the associated risks.
QUESTION: Should 0-RTT only be used with Opportunistic profiles (i.e.
disabled by default for Strict only)?
7.2. Privacy Issues With Session Resume
The QUIC session resume mechanism reduces the cost of re-establishing
sessions and enables 0-RTT data. There is a linkability issue
associated with session resume, if the same resume token is used
several times, but this risk is mitigated by the mechanisms
incorporated in QUIC and in TLS 1.3. With these mechanisms, clients
and servers can cooperate to avoid linkability by third parties.
However, the server will always be able to link the resumed session
to the initial session. This creates a virtual long duration
session. The series of queries in that session can be used by the
server to identify the client.
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
Enabling the server to link client sessions through session resume is
probably not a large additional risk if the client's connectivity did
not change between the sessions, since the two sessions can probably
be correlated by comparing the IP addresses. On the other hand, if
the addresses did change, the client SHOULD consider whether the
linkability risk exceeds the privacy benefits. This evaluation will
obviously depend on the level of trust between stub and recursive.
7.3. Traffic Analysis
Even though QUIC packets are encrypted, adversaries can gain
information from observing packet lengths, in both queries and
responses, as well as packet timing. Many DNS requests are emitted
by web browsers. Loading a specific web page may require resolving
dozen of DNS names. If an application adopts a simple mapping of one
query or response per packet, or "one QUIC STREAM frame per packet",
then the succession of packet lengths may provide enough information
to identify the requested site.
Implementations SHOULD use the mechanisms defined in Section 5.5 to
mitigate this attack.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Registration of DoQ Identification String
This document creates a new registration for the identification of
DoQ in the "Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol
IDs" registry [RFC7301].
The "doq" string identifies DoQ:
Protocol: DoQ
Identification Sequence: 0x64 0x6F 0x71 ("doq")
Specification: This document
8.2. Reservation of Dedicated Port
IANA is required to add the following value to the "Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" in the System Range. The
registry for that range requires IETF Review or IESG Approval
{{?RFC6335], and such a review was requested using the early
allocation process {{?RFC7120] for the well-known UDP port in this
document. Since port 853 is reserved for 'DNS query-response
protocol run over TLS' consideration is requested for reserving port
TBD for 'DNS query-response
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
protocol run over QUIC'.
Service Name domain-s
Transport Protocol(s) TCP/UDP
Assignee IESG
Contact IETF Chair
Description DNS query-response protocol run over QUIC
Reference This document
8.2.1. Port number 784 for experimentations
*RFC Editor's Note:* Please remove this section prior to publication
of a final version of this document.
Early experiments MAY use port 784. This port is marked in the IANA
registry as unassigned.
9. Acknowledgements
This document liberally borrows text from the HTTP-3 specification
[I-D.ietf-quic-http] edited by Mike Bishop, and from the DoT
specification [RFC7858] authored by Zi Hu, Liang Zhu, John Heidemann,
Allison Mankin, Duane Wessels, and Paul Hoffman.
The privacy issue with 0-RTT data and session resume were analyzed by
Daniel Kahn Gillmor (DKG) in a message to the IETF "DPRIVE" working
group [DNS0RTT].
Thanks to Tony Finch for an extensive review of the initial version
of this draft.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[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-quic-tls]
Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using TLS to Secure QUIC",
draft-ietf-quic-tls-27 (work in progress), February 2020.
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic-transport-27 (work
in progress), February 2020.
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC6891] Damas, J., Graff, M., and P. Vixie, "Extension Mechanisms
for DNS (EDNS(0))", STD 75, RFC 6891,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6891, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6891>.
[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.
[RFC7766] Dickinson, J., Dickinson, S., Bellis, R., Mankin, A., and
D. Wessels, "DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation
Requirements", RFC 7766, DOI 10.17487/RFC7766, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7766>.
[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>.
[RFC7873] Eastlake 3rd, D. and M. Andrews, "Domain Name System (DNS)
Cookies", RFC 7873, DOI 10.17487/RFC7873, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7873>.
[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>.
[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>.
Huitema, et al. Expires October 29, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DNS over Dedicated QUIC April 2020
10.2. Informative References
[DNS0RTT] Kahn Gillmor, D., "DNS + 0-RTT", Message to DNS-Privacy WG
mailing list, April 2016, <https://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/dns-privacy/current/msg01276.html>.
[I-D.ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements]
Livingood, J., Mayrhofer, A., and B. Overeinder, "DNS
Privacy Requirements for Exchanges between Recursive
Resolvers and Authoritative Servers", draft-ietf-dprive-
phase2-requirements-00 (work in progress), December 2019.
[I-D.ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis]
Bortzmeyer, S. and S. Dickinson, "DNS Privacy
Considerations", draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-04 (work in
progress), January 2020.
[I-D.ietf-dprive-xfr-over-tls]
Zhang, H., Aras, P., Toorop, W., Dickinson, S., and A.
Mankin, "DNS Zone Transfer-over-TLS", draft-ietf-dprive-
xfr-over-tls-00 (work in progress), November 2019.
[I-D.ietf-quic-http]
Bishop, M., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 3
(HTTP/3)", draft-ietf-quic-http-27 (work in progress),
February 2020.
[I-D.ietf-quic-recovery]
Iyengar, J. and I. Swett, "QUIC Loss Detection and
Congestion Control", draft-ietf-quic-recovery-27 (work in
progress), March 2020.
[RFC1885] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message
Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 1885, DOI 10.17487/RFC1885, December 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1885>.
[RFC5936] Lewis, E. and A. Hoenes, Ed., "DNS Zone Transfer Protocol
(AXFR)", RFC 5936, DOI 10.17487/RFC5936, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5936>.
[RFC7626] Bortzmeyer, S., "DNS Privacy Considerations", RFC 7626,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7626, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7626>.