| < draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-05.txt | draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-06.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group P. Hoffman | Network Working Group P. Hoffman | |||
| Internet-Draft ICANN | Internet-Draft ICANN | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track P. McManus | Intended status: Standards Track P. McManus | |||
| Expires: October 4, 2018 Mozilla | Expires: October 11, 2018 Mozilla | |||
| April 02, 2018 | April 09, 2018 | |||
| DNS Queries over HTTPS | DNS Queries over HTTPS | |||
| draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-05 | draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-06 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document describes how to run DNS service over HTTP using | This document describes how to run DNS service over HTTP (DOH) using | |||
| https:// URIs. | https:// URIs. | |||
| [[ There is a repository for this draft at https://github.com/dohwg/ | ||||
| draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https [1] ]]. | ||||
| Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on October 4, 2018. | This Internet-Draft will expire on October 11, 2018. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 11 ¶ | |||
| include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | |||
| the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | |||
| described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
| 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 3. Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 3. Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 3.1. Non-requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 3.1. Non-requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 4. The HTTP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 4. The HTTP Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 4.1. DNS Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 4.1. The HTTP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 4.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 4.1.1. HTTP Request Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 5. The HTTP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 4.2. The HTTP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 5.1. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4.2.1. HTTP Response Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 6. HTTP Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 5. HTTP Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 6.1. Cache Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 5.1. Cache Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 6.2. HTTP/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5.2. HTTP/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 6.3. Server Push . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 5.3. Server Push . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 6.4. Content Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5.4. Content Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 6. DNS Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | ||||
| 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 7.1. Registration of application/dns-udpwireformat Media Type 10 | 7.1. Registration of message/dns Media Type . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 9. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 9. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | ||||
| Appendix A. Previous Work on DNS over HTTP or in Other Formats . 16 | Appendix A. Previous Work on DNS over HTTP or in Other Formats . 16 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| This document defines a specific protocol for sending DNS [RFC1035] | This document defines a specific protocol for sending DNS [RFC1035] | |||
| queries and getting DNS responses over HTTP [RFC7540] using https:// | queries and getting DNS responses over HTTP [RFC7540] using https:// | |||
| (and therefore TLS [RFC5246] security for integrity and | (and therefore TLS [RFC5246] security for integrity and | |||
| confidentiality). Each DNS query-response pair is mapped into a HTTP | confidentiality). Each DNS query-response pair is mapped into a HTTP | |||
| request-response pair. | exchange. | |||
| The described approach is more than a tunnel over HTTP. It | The described approach is more than a tunnel over HTTP. It | |||
| establishes default media formatting types for requests and responses | establishes default media formatting types for requests and responses | |||
| but uses normal HTTP content negotiation mechanisms for selecting | but uses normal HTTP content negotiation mechanisms for selecting | |||
| alternatives that endpoints may prefer in anticipation of serving new | alternatives that endpoints may prefer in anticipation of serving new | |||
| use cases. In addition to this media type negotiation, it aligns | use cases. In addition to this media type negotiation, it aligns | |||
| itself with HTTP features such as caching, redirection, proxying, | itself with HTTP features such as caching, redirection, proxying, | |||
| authentication, and compression. | authentication, and compression. | |||
| The integration with HTTP provides a transport suitable for both | The integration with HTTP provides a transport suitable for both | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 14 ¶ | |||
| Two primary uses cases were considered during this protocol's | Two primary uses cases were considered during this protocol's | |||
| development. They included preventing on-path devices from | development. They included preventing on-path devices from | |||
| interfering with DNS operations and allowing web applications to | interfering with DNS operations and allowing web applications to | |||
| access DNS information via existing browser APIs in a safe way | access DNS information via existing browser APIs in a safe way | |||
| consistent with Cross Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) [CORS]. There | consistent with Cross Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) [CORS]. There | |||
| are certainly other uses for this work. | are certainly other uses for this work. | |||
| 2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
| A server that supports this protocol is called a "DNS API server" to | A server that supports this protocol on one or more URIs is called a | |||
| differentiate it from a "DNS server" (one that uses the regular DNS | "DNS API server" to differentiate it from a "DNS server" (one that | |||
| protocol). Similarly, a client that supports this protocol is called | uses the regular DNS protocol). Similarly, a client that supports | |||
| a "DNS API client". | this protocol is called a "DNS API client". | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | |||
| "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP | "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP | |||
| 14, RFC8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all | 14, RFC8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all | |||
| capitals, as shown here. | capitals, as shown here. | |||
| 3. Protocol Requirements | 3. Protocol Requirements | |||
| The protocol described here bases its design on the following | The protocol described here bases its design on the following | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 14 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 14 ¶ | |||
| 3.1. Non-requirements | 3.1. Non-requirements | |||
| o Supporting network-specific DNS64 [RFC6147] | o Supporting network-specific DNS64 [RFC6147] | |||
| o Supporting other network-specific inferences from plaintext DNS | o Supporting other network-specific inferences from plaintext DNS | |||
| queries | queries | |||
| o Supporting insecure HTTP | o Supporting insecure HTTP | |||
| 4. The HTTP Request | 4. The HTTP Exchange | |||
| 4.1. The HTTP Request | ||||
| A DNS API client encodes a single DNS query into an HTTP request | A DNS API client encodes a single DNS query into an HTTP request | |||
| using either the HTTP GET or POST method and the other requirements | using either the HTTP GET or POST method and the other requirements | |||
| of this section. The DNS API server defines the URI used by the | of this section. The DNS API server defines the URI used by the | |||
| request through the use of a URI Template [RFC6570]. Configuration | request through the use of a URI Template [RFC6570]. Configuration | |||
| and discovery of the URI Template is done out of band from this | and discovery of the URI Template is done out of band from this | |||
| protocol. | protocol. | |||
| The URI template defined in this document is processed without any | The URI Template defined in this document is processed without any | |||
| variables for requests using POST, and with the single variable "dns" | variables when the HTTP method is POST. When the HTTP method is GET | |||
| for requests using GET. The value of the dns parameter is the | the single variable "dns" is defined as the content of the DNS | |||
| content of the request (as described in Section 4.1), encoded with | request (as described in Section 6), encoded with base64url | |||
| base64url [RFC4648]. | [RFC4648]. | |||
| Future specifications for new media types MUST define the variables | Future specifications for new media types MUST define the variables | |||
| used for URI Template processing with this protocol. | used for URI Template processing with this protocol. | |||
| DNS API servers MUST implement both the POST and GET methods. | DNS API servers MUST implement both the POST and GET methods. | |||
| When using the POST method the DNS query is included as the message | When using the POST method the DNS query is included as the message | |||
| body of the HTTP request and the Content-Type request header | body of the HTTP request and the Content-Type request header | |||
| indicates the media type of the message. POST-ed requests are | indicates the media type of the message. POST-ed requests are | |||
| smaller than their GET equivalents. | smaller than their GET equivalents. | |||
| Using the GET method is friendlier to many HTTP cache | Using the GET method is friendlier to many HTTP cache | |||
| implementations. | implementations. | |||
| The DNS API client SHOULD include an HTTP "Accept" request header to | The DNS API client SHOULD include an HTTP "Accept" request header to | |||
| indicate what type of content can be understood in response. | indicate what type of content can be understood in response. | |||
| Irrespective of the value of the Accept request header, the client | Irrespective of the value of the Accept request header, the client | |||
| MUST be prepared to process "application/dns-udpwireformat" | MUST be prepared to process "message/dns" (as described in Section 6) | |||
| Section 4.1 responses but MAY also process any other type it | responses but MAY also process any other type it receives. | |||
| receives. | ||||
| In order to maximize cache friendliness, DNS API clients using media | In order to maximize cache friendliness, DNS API clients using media | |||
| formats that include DNS ID, such as application/dns-udpwireformat, | formats that include DNS ID, such as message/dns, SHOULD use a DNS ID | |||
| SHOULD use a DNS ID of 0 in every DNS request. HTTP correlates | of 0 in every DNS request. HTTP correlates the request and response, | |||
| request and response, thus eliminating the need for the ID in a media | thus eliminating the need for the ID in a media type such as message/ | |||
| type such as application/dns-udpwireformat and the use of a varying | dns. The use of a varying DNS ID can cause semantically equivalent | |||
| DNS ID can cause semantically equivalent DNS queries to be cached | DNS queries to be cached separately. | |||
| separately. | ||||
| DNS API clients can use HTTP/2 padding and compression in the same | DNS API clients can use HTTP/2 padding and compression in the same | |||
| way that other HTTP/2 clients use (or don't use) them. | way that other HTTP/2 clients use (or don't use) them. | |||
| 4.1. DNS Wire Format | 4.1.1. HTTP Request Examples | |||
| The data payload is the DNS on-the-wire format defined in [RFC1035]. | ||||
| The format is for DNS over UDP. Note that this is different than the | ||||
| wire format used in [RFC7858]. Also note that while [RFC1035] says | ||||
| "Messages carried by UDP are restricted to 512 bytes", that was later | ||||
| updated by [RFC6891], and this protocol allows DNS on-the-wire format | ||||
| payloads of any size. | ||||
| When using the GET method, the data payload MUST be encoded with | ||||
| base64url [RFC4648] and then provided as a variable named "dns" to | ||||
| the URI Template expansion. Padding characters for base64url MUST | ||||
| NOT be included. | ||||
| When using the POST method, the data payload MUST NOT be encoded and | ||||
| is used directly as the HTTP message body. | ||||
| DNS API clients using the DNS wire format MAY have one or more EDNS | ||||
| options [RFC6891] in the request. | ||||
| The media type is "application/dns-udpwireformat". | ||||
| 4.2. Examples | ||||
| These examples use HTTP/2 style formatting from [RFC7540]. | These examples use HTTP/2 style formatting from [RFC7540]. | |||
| These examples use a DNS API service with a URI Template of | These examples use a DNS API service with a URI Template of | |||
| "https://dnsserver.example.net/dns-query{?dns}" to resolve IN A | "https://dnsserver.example.net/dns-query{?dns}" to resolve IN A | |||
| records. | records. | |||
| The requests are represented as application/dns-udpwirefomat typed | The requests are represented as message/dns typed bodies. | |||
| bodies. | ||||
| The first example request uses GET to request www.example.com | The first example request uses GET to request www.example.com | |||
| :method = GET | :method = GET | |||
| :scheme = https | :scheme = https | |||
| :authority = dnsserver.example.net | :authority = dnsserver.example.net | |||
| :path = /dns-query?dns=AAABAAABAAAAAAAAA3d3dwdleGFtcGxlA2NvbQAAAQAB | :path = /dns-query?dns=AAABAAABAAAAAAAAA3d3dwdleGFtcGxlA2NvbQAAAQAB | |||
| accept = application/dns-udpwireformat | accept = message/dns | |||
| The same DNS query for www.example.com, using the POST method would | The same DNS query for www.example.com, using the POST method would | |||
| be: | be: | |||
| :method = POST | :method = POST | |||
| :scheme = https | :scheme = https | |||
| :authority = dnsserver.example.net | :authority = dnsserver.example.net | |||
| :path = /dns-query | :path = /dns-query | |||
| accept = application/dns-udpwireformat | accept = message/dns | |||
| content-type = application/dns-udpwireformat | content-type = message/dns | |||
| content-length = 33 | content-length = 33 | |||
| <33 bytes represented by the following hex encoding> | <33 bytes represented by the following hex encoding> | |||
| 00 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 77 77 77 | 00 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 77 77 77 | |||
| 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f 6d 00 00 01 00 | 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f 6d 00 00 01 00 | |||
| 01 | 01 | |||
| Finally, a GET based query for a.62characterlabel-makes-base64url- | Finally, a GET based query for a.62characterlabel-makes-base64url- | |||
| distinct-from-standard-base64.example.com is shown as an example to | distinct-from-standard-base64.example.com is shown as an example to | |||
| emphasize that the encoding alphabet of base64url is different than | emphasize that the encoding alphabet of base64url is different than | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 4 ¶ | |||
| 00 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 77 77 77 | 00 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 77 77 77 | |||
| 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f 6d 00 00 01 00 | 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f 6d 00 00 01 00 | |||
| 01 | 01 | |||
| Finally, a GET based query for a.62characterlabel-makes-base64url- | Finally, a GET based query for a.62characterlabel-makes-base64url- | |||
| distinct-from-standard-base64.example.com is shown as an example to | distinct-from-standard-base64.example.com is shown as an example to | |||
| emphasize that the encoding alphabet of base64url is different than | emphasize that the encoding alphabet of base64url is different than | |||
| regular base64 and that padding is omitted. | regular base64 and that padding is omitted. | |||
| The DNS query is 94 bytes represented by the following hex encoding | The DNS query is 94 bytes represented by the following hex encoding | |||
| 00 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 61 3e 36 | 00 00 01 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 61 3e 36 | |||
| 32 63 68 61 72 61 63 74 65 72 6c 61 62 65 6c 2d | 32 63 68 61 72 61 63 74 65 72 6c 61 62 65 6c 2d | |||
| 6d 61 6b 65 73 2d 62 61 73 65 36 34 75 72 6c 2d | 6d 61 6b 65 73 2d 62 61 73 65 36 34 75 72 6c 2d | |||
| 64 69 73 74 69 6e 63 74 2d 66 72 6f 6d 2d 73 74 | 64 69 73 74 69 6e 63 74 2d 66 72 6f 6d 2d 73 74 | |||
| 61 6e 64 61 72 64 2d 62 61 73 65 36 34 07 65 78 | 61 6e 64 61 72 64 2d 62 61 73 65 36 34 07 65 78 | |||
| 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f 6d 00 00 01 00 01 | 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f 6d 00 00 01 00 01 | |||
| :method = GET | :method = GET | |||
| :scheme = https | :scheme = https | |||
| :authority = dnsserver.example.net | :authority = dnsserver.example.net | |||
| :path = /dns-query? (no space or CR) | :path = /dns-query? (no space or CR) | |||
| dns=AAABAAABAAAAAAAAAWE-NjJjaGFyYWN0ZXJsYWJl (no space or CR) | dns=AAABAAABAAAAAAAAAWE-NjJjaGFyYWN0ZXJsYWJl (no space or CR) | |||
| bC1tYWtlcy1iYXNlNjR1cmwtZGlzdGluY3QtZnJvbS1z (no space or CR) | bC1tYWtlcy1iYXNlNjR1cmwtZGlzdGluY3QtZnJvbS1z (no space or CR) | |||
| dGFuZGFyZC1iYXNlNjQHZXhhbXBsZQNjb20AAAEAAQ | dGFuZGFyZC1iYXNlNjQHZXhhbXBsZQNjb20AAAEAAQ | |||
| accept = application/dns-udpwireformat | accept = message/dns | |||
| 5. The HTTP Response | 4.2. The HTTP Response | |||
| An HTTP response with a 2xx status code ([RFC7231] Section 6.3) | An HTTP response with a 2xx status code ([RFC7231] Section 6.3) | |||
| indicates a valid DNS response to the query made in the HTTP request. | indicates a valid DNS response to the query made in the HTTP request. | |||
| A valid DNS response includes both success and failure responses. | A valid DNS response includes both success and failure responses. | |||
| For example, a DNS failure response such as SERVFAIL or NXDOMAIN will | For example, a DNS failure response such as SERVFAIL or NXDOMAIN will | |||
| be the message in a successful 2xx HTTP response even though there | be the message in a successful 2xx HTTP response even though there | |||
| was a failure at the DNS layer. Responses with non-successful HTTP | was a failure at the DNS layer. Responses with non-successful HTTP | |||
| status codes do not contain DNS answers to the question in the | status codes do not contain DNS answers to the question in the | |||
| corresponding request. Some of these non-successful HTTP responses | corresponding request. Some of these non-successful HTTP responses | |||
| (e.g., redirects or authentication failures) could allow clients to | (e.g., redirects or authentication failures) could allow clients to | |||
| make new requests to satisfy the original question. | make new requests to satisfy the original question. | |||
| Different response media types will provide more or less information | Different response media types will provide more or less information | |||
| from a DNS response. For example, one response type might include | from a DNS response. For example, one response type might include | |||
| the information from the DNS header bytes while another might omit | the information from the DNS header bytes while another might omit | |||
| it. The amount and type of information that a media type gives is | it. The amount and type of information that a media type gives is | |||
| solely up to the format, and not defined in this protocol. | solely up to the format, and not defined in this protocol. | |||
| At the time this is published, the response types are works in | At the time this is published, the response types are works in | |||
| progress. The only response type defined in this document is | progress. The only response type defined in this document is | |||
| "application/dns-udpwireformat", but it is possible that other | "message/dns", but it is possible that other response formats will be | |||
| response formats will be defined in the future. | defined in the future. | |||
| The DNS response for "application/dns-udpwireformat" in Section 4.1 | ||||
| MAY have one or more EDNS options, depending on the extension | ||||
| definition of the extensions given in the DNS request. | ||||
| Each DNS request-response pair is matched to one HTTP request- | ||||
| response pair. The responses may be processed and transported in any | ||||
| order using HTTP's multi-streaming functionality ([RFC7540] | ||||
| Section 5}). | ||||
| The Answer section of a DNS response can contain zero or more RRsets. | The DNS response for "message/dns" in Section 6 MAY have one or more | |||
| (RRsets are defined in [RFC7719].) According to [RFC2181], each | EDNS options, depending on the extension definition of the extensions | |||
| resource record in an RRset has Time To Live (TTL) freshness | given in the DNS request. | |||
| information. Different RRsets in the Answer section can have | ||||
| different TTLs, although it is only possible for the HTTP response to | ||||
| have a single freshness lifetime. The HTTP response freshness | ||||
| lifetime ([RFC7234] Section 4.2) should be coordinated with the RRset | ||||
| with the smallest TTL in the Answer section of the response. | ||||
| Specifically, the HTTP freshness lifetime SHOULD be set to expire at | ||||
| the same time any of the DNS resource records in the Answer section | ||||
| reach a 0 TTL. The response freshness lifetime MUST NOT be greater | ||||
| than that indicated by the DNS resoruce record with the smallest TTL | ||||
| in the response. | ||||
| If the DNS response has no records in the Answer section, and the DNS | Each DNS request-response pair is matched to one HTTP exchange. The | |||
| response has an SOA record in the Authority section, the response | responses may be processed and transported in any order using HTTP's | |||
| freshness lifetime MUST NOT be greater than the MINIMUM field from | multi-streaming functionality ([RFC7540] Section 5). | |||
| that SOA record. (See [RFC2308].) Otherwise, the HTTP response MUST | ||||
| set a freshness lifetime ([RFC7234] Section 4.2) of 0 by using a | ||||
| mechanism such as "Cache-Control: no-cache" ([RFC7234] | ||||
| Section 5.2.1.4). | ||||
| A DNS API client that receives a response without an explicit | Section 5.1 discusses the relationship between DNS and HTTP response | |||
| freshness lifetime MUST NOT assign that response a heuristic | caching. | |||
| freshness ([RFC7234] Section 4.2.2.) greater than that indicated by | ||||
| the DNS Record with the smallest TTL in the response. | ||||
| A DNS API server MUST be able to process application/dns- | A DNS API server MUST be able to process message/dns request | |||
| udpwireformat request messages. | messages. | |||
| A DNS API server SHOULD respond with HTTP status code 415 | A DNS API server SHOULD respond with HTTP status code 415 | |||
| (Unsupported Media Type) upon receiving a media type it is unable to | (Unsupported Media Type) upon receiving a media type it is unable to | |||
| process. | process. | |||
| This document does not change the definition of any HTTP response | 4.2.1. HTTP Response Example | |||
| codes or otherwise proscribe their use. | ||||
| 5.1. Example | ||||
| This is an example response for a query for the IN A records for | This is an example response for a query for the IN A records for | |||
| "www.example.com" with recursion turned on. The response bears one | "www.example.com" with recursion turned on. The response bears one | |||
| record with an address of 192.0.2.1 and a TTL of 128 seconds. | record with an address of 192.0.2.1 and a TTL of 128 seconds. | |||
| :status = 200 | :status = 200 | |||
| content-type = application/dns-udpwireformat | content-type = message/dns | |||
| content-length = 64 | content-length = 64 | |||
| cache-control = max-age=128 | cache-control = max-age=128 | |||
| <64 bytes represented by the following hex encoding> | <64 bytes represented by the following hex encoding> | |||
| 00 00 81 80 00 01 00 01 00 00 00 00 03 77 77 77 | 00 00 81 80 00 01 00 01 00 00 00 00 03 77 77 77 | |||
| 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f 6d 00 00 01 00 | 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f 6d 00 00 01 00 | |||
| 01 03 77 77 77 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f | 01 03 77 77 77 07 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f | |||
| 6d 00 00 01 00 01 00 00 00 80 00 04 C0 00 02 01 | 6d 00 00 01 00 01 00 00 00 80 00 04 C0 00 02 01 | |||
| 6. HTTP Integration | 5. HTTP Integration | |||
| This protocol MUST be used with the https scheme URI [RFC7230]. | This protocol MUST be used with the https scheme URI [RFC7230]. | |||
| 6.1. Cache Interaction | 5.1. Cache Interaction | |||
| A DNS API client may utilize a hierarchy of caches that include both | A DNS API client may utilize a hierarchy of caches that include both | |||
| HTTP and DNS specific caches. HTTP cache entries may be bypassed | HTTP and DNS specific caches. HTTP cache entries may be bypassed | |||
| with HTTP mechanisms such as the "Cache-Control no-cache" directive; | with HTTP mechanisms such as the "Cache-Control no-cache" directive; | |||
| however DNS caches do not have a similar mechanism. | however DNS caches do not have a similar mechanism. | |||
| The Answer section of a DNS response can contain zero or more RRsets. | ||||
| (RRsets are defined in [RFC7719].) According to [RFC2181], each | ||||
| resource record in an RRset has Time To Live (TTL) freshness | ||||
| information. Different RRsets in the Answer section can have | ||||
| different TTLs, although it is only possible for the HTTP response to | ||||
| have a single freshness lifetime. The HTTP response freshness | ||||
| lifetime ([RFC7234] Section 4.2) should be coordinated with the RRset | ||||
| with the smallest TTL in the Answer section of the response. | ||||
| Specifically, the HTTP freshness lifetime SHOULD be set to expire at | ||||
| the same time any of the DNS resource records in the Answer section | ||||
| reach a 0 TTL. The response freshness lifetime MUST NOT be greater | ||||
| than that indicated by the DNS resoruce record with the smallest TTL | ||||
| in the response. | ||||
| If the DNS response has no records in the Answer section, and the DNS | ||||
| response has an SOA record in the Authority section, the response | ||||
| freshness lifetime MUST NOT be greater than the MINIMUM field from | ||||
| that SOA record. (See [RFC2308].) Otherwise, the HTTP response MUST | ||||
| set a freshness lifetime ([RFC7234] Section 4.2) of 0 by using a | ||||
| mechanism such as "Cache-Control: no-cache" ([RFC7234] | ||||
| Section 5.2.1.4). | ||||
| A DNS API client that receives a response without an explicit | ||||
| freshness lifetime MUST NOT assign that response a heuristic | ||||
| freshness ([RFC7234] Section 4.2.2.) greater than that indicated by | ||||
| the DNS Record with the smallest TTL in the response. | ||||
| A DOH response that was previously stored in an HTTP cache will | A DOH response that was previously stored in an HTTP cache will | |||
| contain the [RFC7234] Age response header indicating the elapsed time | contain the [RFC7234] Age response header indicating the elapsed time | |||
| between when the entry was placed in the HTTP cache and the current | between when the entry was placed in the HTTP cache and the current | |||
| DOH response. DNS API clients should subtract this time from the DNS | DOH response. DNS API clients should subtract this time from the DNS | |||
| TTL if they are re-sharing the information in a non HTTP context | TTL if they are re-sharing the information in a non HTTP context | |||
| (e.g., their own DNS cache) to determine the remaining time to live | (e.g., their own DNS cache) to determine the remaining time to live | |||
| of the DNS record. | of the DNS record. | |||
| HTTP revalidation (e.g., via If-None-Match request headers) of cached | HTTP revalidation (e.g., via If-None-Match request headers) of cached | |||
| DNS information may be of limited value to DOH as revalidation | DNS information may be of limited value to DOH as revalidation | |||
| skipping to change at page 9, line 33 ¶ | skipping to change at page 9, line 7 ¶ | |||
| extenuating circumstances defined in [RFC5861]. | extenuating circumstances defined in [RFC5861]. | |||
| All HTTP servers, including DNS API servers, need to consider cache | All HTTP servers, including DNS API servers, need to consider cache | |||
| interaction when they generate responses that are not globally valid. | interaction when they generate responses that are not globally valid. | |||
| For instance, if a DNS API server customized a response based on the | For instance, if a DNS API server customized a response based on the | |||
| client's identity then it would not want to globally allow reuse of | client's identity then it would not want to globally allow reuse of | |||
| that response. This could be accomplished through a variety of HTTP | that response. This could be accomplished through a variety of HTTP | |||
| techniques such as a Cache-Control max-age of 0, or perhaps by the | techniques such as a Cache-Control max-age of 0, or perhaps by the | |||
| Vary response header. | Vary response header. | |||
| 6.2. HTTP/2 | 5.2. HTTP/2 | |||
| The minimum version of HTTP used by DOH SHOULD be HTTP/2 [RFC7540]. | The minimum version of HTTP used by DOH SHOULD be HTTP/2 [RFC7540]. | |||
| The messages in classic UDP based DNS [RFC1035] are inherently | The messages in classic UDP based DNS [RFC1035] are inherently | |||
| unordered and have low overhead. A competitive HTTP transport needs | unordered and have low overhead. A competitive HTTP transport needs | |||
| to support reordering, parallelism, priority, and header compression | to support reordering, parallelism, priority, and header compression | |||
| to achieve similar performance. Those features were introduced to | to achieve similar performance. Those features were introduced to | |||
| HTTP in HTTP/2 [RFC7540]. Earlier versions of HTTP are capable of | HTTP in HTTP/2 [RFC7540]. Earlier versions of HTTP are capable of | |||
| conveying the semantic requirements of DOH but may result in very | conveying the semantic requirements of DOH but may result in very | |||
| poor performance for many uses cases. | poor performance. | |||
| 6.3. Server Push | 5.3. Server Push | |||
| Before using DOH response data for DNS resolution, the client MUST | Before using DOH response data for DNS resolution, the client MUST | |||
| establish that the HTTP request URI is a trusted service for the DOH | establish that the HTTP request URI is a trusted service for the DOH | |||
| query. For HTTP requests initiated by the DNS API client this trust | query. For HTTP requests initiated by the DNS API client this trust | |||
| is implicit in the selection of URI. For HTTP server push ([RFC7540] | is implicit in the selection of URI. For HTTP server push ([RFC7540] | |||
| Section 8.2) extra care must be taken to ensure that the pushed URI | Section 8.2) extra care must be taken to ensure that the pushed URI | |||
| is one that the client would have directed the same query to if the | is one that the client would have directed the same query to if the | |||
| client had initiated the request. This specification does not extend | client had initiated the request. This specification does not extend | |||
| DNS resolution privileges to URIs that are not recognized by the | DNS resolution privileges to URIs that are not recognized by the | |||
| client as trusted DNS API servers. | client as trusted DNS API servers. | |||
| 6.4. Content Negotiation | 5.4. Content Negotiation | |||
| In order to maximize interoperability, DNS API clients and DNS API | In order to maximize interoperability, DNS API clients and DNS API | |||
| servers MUST support the "application/dns-udpwireformat" media type. | servers MUST support the "message/dns" media type. Other media types | |||
| Other media types MAY be used as defined by HTTP Content Negotiation | MAY be used as defined by HTTP Content Negotiation ([RFC7231] | |||
| ([RFC7231] Section 3.4). | Section 3.4). | |||
| 6. DNS Wire Format | ||||
| The data payload is the DNS on-the-wire format defined in [RFC1035]. | ||||
| The format is for DNS over UDP. Note that this is different than the | ||||
| wire format used in [RFC7858]. Also note that while [RFC1035] says | ||||
| "Messages carried by UDP are restricted to 512 bytes", that was later | ||||
| updated by [RFC6891], and this protocol allows DNS on-the-wire format | ||||
| payloads of any size. | ||||
| When using the GET method, the data payload MUST be encoded with | ||||
| base64url [RFC4648] and then provided as a variable named "dns" to | ||||
| the URI Template expansion. Padding characters for base64url MUST | ||||
| NOT be included. | ||||
| When using the POST method, the data payload MUST NOT be encoded and | ||||
| is used directly as the HTTP message body. | ||||
| DNS API clients using the DNS wire format MAY have one or more EDNS | ||||
| options [RFC6891] in the request. | ||||
| The media type is "message/dns". | ||||
| 7. IANA Considerations | 7. IANA Considerations | |||
| 7.1. Registration of application/dns-udpwireformat Media Type | 7.1. Registration of message/dns Media Type | |||
| To: ietf-types@iana.org | To: ietf-types@iana.org | |||
| Subject: Registration of MIME media type | Subject: Registration of MIME media type | |||
| application/dns-udpwireformat | message/dns | |||
| MIME media type name: application | MIME media type name: message | |||
| MIME subtype name: dns-udpwireformat | MIME subtype name: dns | |||
| Required parameters: n/a | Required parameters: n/a | |||
| Optional parameters: original_transport | Optional parameters: n/a | |||
| The "original_transport" parameter has two defined values, | ||||
| "udp" and "tcp". This parameter is only expected to be used by | ||||
| servers. | ||||
| Encoding considerations: This is a binary format. The contents are a | Encoding considerations: This is a binary format. The contents are a | |||
| DNS message as defined in RFC 1035. The format used here is for DNS | DNS message as defined in RFC 1035. The format used here is for DNS | |||
| over UDP, which is the format defined in the diagrams in RFC 1035. | over UDP, which is the format defined in the diagrams in RFC 1035. | |||
| Security considerations: The security considerations for carrying | Security considerations: The security considerations for carrying | |||
| this data are the same for carrying DNS without encryption. | this data are the same for carrying DNS without encryption. | |||
| Interoperability considerations: None. | Interoperability considerations: None. | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 27 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 27 ¶ | |||
| The HTTPS connection provides transport security for the interaction | The HTTPS connection provides transport security for the interaction | |||
| between the DNS API server and client, but does not inherently ensure | between the DNS API server and client, but does not inherently ensure | |||
| the authenticity of DNS data. A DNS API client may also perform full | the authenticity of DNS data. A DNS API client may also perform full | |||
| DNSSEC validation of answers received from a DNS API server or it may | DNSSEC validation of answers received from a DNS API server or it may | |||
| choose to trust answers from a particular DNS API server, much as a | choose to trust answers from a particular DNS API server, much as a | |||
| DNS client might choose to trust answers from its recursive DNS | DNS client might choose to trust answers from its recursive DNS | |||
| resolver. This capability might be affected by the response media | resolver. This capability might be affected by the response media | |||
| type. | type. | |||
| Section 6.1 describes the interaction of this protocol with HTTP | Section 5.1 describes the interaction of this protocol with HTTP | |||
| caching. An adversary that can control the cache used by the client | caching. An adversary that can control the cache used by the client | |||
| can affect that client's view of the DNS. This is no different than | can affect that client's view of the DNS. This is no different than | |||
| the security implications of HTTP caching for other protocols that | the security implications of HTTP caching for other protocols that | |||
| use HTTP. | use HTTP. | |||
| A server that is acting both as a normal web server and a DNS API | A server that is acting both as a normal web server and a DNS API | |||
| server is in a position to choose which DNS names it forces a client | server is in a position to choose which DNS names it forces a client | |||
| to resolve (through its web service) and also be the one to answer | to resolve (through its web service) and also be the one to answer | |||
| those queries (through its DNS API service). An untrusted DNS API | those queries (through its DNS API service). An untrusted DNS API | |||
| server can thus easily cause damage by poisoning a client's cache | server can thus easily cause damage by poisoning a client's cache | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 13 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 13 ¶ | |||
| transport for other protocols that require strict ordering. | transport for other protocols that require strict ordering. | |||
| If a DNS API server responds to a DNS API client with a DNS message | If a DNS API server responds to a DNS API client with a DNS message | |||
| that has the TC (truncation) bit set in the header, that indicates | that has the TC (truncation) bit set in the header, that indicates | |||
| that the DNS API server was not able to retrieve a full answer for | that the DNS API server was not able to retrieve a full answer for | |||
| the query and is providing the best answer it could get. This | the query and is providing the best answer it could get. This | |||
| protocol does not require that a DNS API server that cannot get an | protocol does not require that a DNS API server that cannot get an | |||
| untruncated answer send back such an answer; it can instead send back | untruncated answer send back such an answer; it can instead send back | |||
| an HTTP error to indicate that it cannot give a useful answer. | an HTTP error to indicate that it cannot give a useful answer. | |||
| This protocol does not define any use for the "original_transport" | ||||
| optional parameter of the application/dns-udpwireformat media type. | ||||
| 10. Acknowledgments | 10. Acknowledgments | |||
| This work required a high level of cooperation between experts in | This work required a high level of cooperation between experts in | |||
| different technologies. Thank you Ray Bellis, Stephane Bortzmeyer, | different technologies. Thank you Ray Bellis, Stephane Bortzmeyer, | |||
| Manu Bretelle, Tony Finch, Daniel Kahn Gilmor, Olafur Guomundsson, | Manu Bretelle, Tony Finch, Daniel Kahn Gilmor, Olafur Guomundsson, | |||
| Wes Hardaker, Rory Hewitt, Joe Hildebrand, David Lawrence, Eliot | Wes Hardaker, Rory Hewitt, Joe Hildebrand, David Lawrence, Eliot | |||
| Lear, John Mattson, Alex Mayrhofer, Mark Nottingham, Jim Reid, Adam | Lear, John Mattson, Alex Mayrhofer, Mark Nottingham, Jim Reid, Adam | |||
| Roach, Ben Schwartz, Davey Song, Daniel Stenberg, Andrew Sullivan, | Roach, Ben Schwartz, Davey Song, Daniel Stenberg, Andrew Sullivan, | |||
| Martin Thomson, and Sam Weiler. | Martin Thomson, and Sam Weiler. | |||
| skipping to change at page 16, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 36 ¶ | |||
| [RFC7719] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS | [RFC7719] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS | |||
| Terminology", RFC 7719, DOI 10.17487/RFC7719, December | Terminology", RFC 7719, DOI 10.17487/RFC7719, December | |||
| 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7719>. | 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7719>. | |||
| [RFC7858] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D., | [RFC7858] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D., | |||
| and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport | and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport | |||
| Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May | Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May | |||
| 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>. | 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>. | |||
| 11.3. URIs | ||||
| [1] https://github.com/dohwg/draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https | ||||
| Appendix A. Previous Work on DNS over HTTP or in Other Formats | Appendix A. Previous Work on DNS over HTTP or in Other Formats | |||
| The following is an incomplete list of earlier work that related to | The following is an incomplete list of earlier work that related to | |||
| DNS over HTTP/1 or representing DNS data in other formats. | DNS over HTTP/1 or representing DNS data in other formats. | |||
| The list includes links to the tools.ietf.org site (because these | The list includes links to the tools.ietf.org site (because these | |||
| documents are all expired) and web sites of software. | documents are all expired) and web sites of software. | |||
| o https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mohan-dns-query-xml | o https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mohan-dns-query-xml | |||
| End of changes. 44 change blocks. | ||||
| 138 lines changed or deleted | 123 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||