idnits 2.17.1 draft-reddy-add-enterprise-split-dns-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (February 20, 2021) is 1162 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-add-ddr' is mentioned on line 142, but not defined ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2826 == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-btw-add-ipsecme-ike-01 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7626 (Obsoleted by RFC 9076) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 8499 (Obsoleted by RFC 9499) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ADD T. Reddy 3 Internet-Draft McAfee 4 Intended status: Standards Track D. Wing 5 Expires: August 24, 2021 Citrix 6 February 20, 2021 8 Split-Horizon DNS Configuration in Enterprise Networks 9 draft-reddy-add-enterprise-split-dns-00 11 Abstract 13 When split-horizon DNS is deployed by an enterprise, certain 14 enterprise domains are only resolvable by querying the network- 15 provided DNS server. DNS clients which use DNS servers not provided 16 by the network need to route those DNS domain queries to the network- 17 provided DNS server. This document informs DNS clients of split- 18 horizon DNS, their DNS domains, and is compatible with encrypted DNS. 20 Status of This Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2021. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 55 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 3. Scope of the Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 4. Split DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 5. PvD dnsZones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 6. PvD SplitDNSAllowed Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 7. An Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 8. Roaming Enterprise Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 62 9. Upstream Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 64 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 68 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 69 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 1. Introduction 73 Historically, an endpoint would utilize network-provided DNS servers 74 upon joining a network (e.g., DHCP OFFER, IPv6 Router Advertisement). 75 While it has long been possible to configure endpoints to ignore the 76 network's suggestions and use a (public) DNS server on the Internet, 77 this was seldom used because some networks block UDP/53 (in order to 78 enforce their own DNS policies). With the advent of DoT and DoH, 79 such network blocking is more difficult, but the endpoint is unable 80 to (properly) resolve split-horizon DNS domains which must query the 81 network-provided DNS server. 83 [RFC7626] discusses DNS privacy considerations in both "on the wire" 84 (Section 2.4 of [RFC7626]) and "in the server" (Section 2.5 of 85 [RFC7626]) contexts. Also, there has been an increase in the 86 availability of "public resolvers" [RFC8499] which DNS clients may be 87 pre-configured to use instead of the default network resolver for a 88 variety of reasons (e.g., offer a good reachability, support an 89 encrypted transport, provide a claimed privacy policy, (lack of) 90 filtering). 92 If public encrypted DNS servers (e.g., DNS-over-TLS (DoT) [RFC7858] 93 or DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484]) are used instead of using local 94 DNS servers, it can adversely impact Enterprise network-based 95 security features. Indeed, various network security services are 96 provided by Enterprise networks to protect endpoints (e.g., laptops, 97 printers, IoT devices) and to enforce enterprise-specific policies. 98 These policies may be necessary to protect employees, customers, or 99 enterprise network. It is out of the scope of this memo to 100 characterize such policies nor assess that they achieve the claimed 101 intent. Nevertheless, network-provided DNS servers in place for 102 these purposes act on DNS messages involving endpoints connected to 103 the Enterprise network to enforce these policies. Therefore, if an 104 endpoint uses a public encrypted DNS server, the desired enterprise 105 protection level and enforcement will be bypassed and thus nullified. 107 In order to act on DNS messages involving endpoints connected to an 108 Enterprise network, network security services can be configured to 109 block DoT traffic by dropping outgoing packets to destination port 110 number 853. Identifying DoH traffic is far more challenging than 111 identifying DoT traffic. Network security services may try to 112 identify the well-known DoH resolvers by their domain name and DoH 113 traffic can be blocked by dropping outgoing packets to these domains. 114 However, DoH traffic can not be fully identified without acting as a 115 TLS proxy. 117 If a network security service blocks access to a public encrypted DNS 118 server, there are incompatibilities with the privacy profiles 119 discussed in [RFC8310]: 121 o If an endpoint has enabled strict privacy profile (Section 5 of 122 [RFC8310]), the endpoint cannot resolve DNS names. 124 o If an endpoint has enabled opportunistic privacy profile 125 (Section 5 of [RFC8310]), the endpoint will either fallback to an 126 encrypted connection without authenticating the DNS server 127 provided by the local network or fallback to clear text DNS, and 128 cannot exchange encrypted DNS messages. 130 The fallback adversely impacts security and privacy as internal 131 attacks are possible within Enterprise networks. For example, an 132 internal attacker can modify the DNS responses to re-direct a 133 client to malicious servers or pervasively monitor the DNS 134 traffic. The reader may refer to Section 3.2.1 of 135 [I-D.arkko-farrell-arch-model-t] for a discussion on the need for 136 more awareness about attacks from within closed domains. 138 This document specifies a mechanism to indicate which DNS zones are 139 used for split-horizon DNS. DNS clients can discover and 140 authenticate encrypted DNS servers provided by the Enterprise 141 network, for example using the techniques proposed in 142 [I-D.btw-add-home] and [I-D.ietf-add-ddr]. Discovery of encrypted 143 DNS server for roaming enterprise endpoints is discussed in 144 [I-D.btw-add-ipsecme-ike] (see Section 8). 146 Provisioning Domains (PvDs) are defined in [RFC7556] as sets of 147 network configuration information that clients can use to access 148 networks, including rules for DNS resolution and proxy configuration. 149 [RFC8801] defines a mechanism for discovering multiple Explicit PvDs 150 on a single network and their Additional Information by means of an 151 HTTP-over-TLS query using a URI derived from the PvD ID. This set of 152 additional configuration information is referred to as a Web 153 Provisioning Domain (Web PvD). 155 This document defines one PvD Key: 157 The SplitDNSAllowed PvD Key: which determines if the Enterprise 158 network allows split-horizon DNS. 160 2. Terminology 162 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 163 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 164 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 165 14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 166 capitals, as shown here. 168 This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC8499]. The terms 169 "Private DNS", "Global DNS" and "Split DNS" are defined in [RFC8499]. 171 'Encrypted DNS' refers to a DNS protocol that provides an encrypted 172 channel between a DNS client and server (e.g., DoT, DoH, or DoQ). 174 The term "enterprise network" in this document extends to a wide 175 variety of deployment scenarios. For example, an "enterprise" can be 176 a Small Office, Home Office or Corporation. The clients that connect 177 to a enterprise network can securely authenticate that network and 178 the client is sure that it has connected to the network it was 179 expecting. 181 3. Scope of the Document 183 If a device is managed by an enterprise's IT department, the device 184 can be configured to use a specific encrypted DNS server. This 185 configuration may be manual or rely upon whatever deployed device 186 management tool in an Enterprise network. For example, customizing 187 Firefox using Group Policy to use the Enterprise DoH server is 188 discussed in [Firefox-Policy] for Windows and MacOS, and setting 189 Chrome policies is discussed in [Chrome-Policy] and [Chrome-DoH]. 191 If mobile device management (MDM) (e.g., [MDM-Apple]) secures a 192 device, MDM can configure OS/browser with a specific encrypted DNS 193 server. If an endpoint is on-boarded, for example, using Over-The- 194 Air (OTA) enrollment [OTA] to provision the device with a certificate 195 and configuration profile, the configuration profile can include the 196 authentication domain name (ADN) of the encrypted DNS server. The 197 OS/Browser can use the configuration profile to use a specific 198 encrypted DNS server. In this case, MDM is not installed on the 199 device. 201 Provisioning IT-managed devices, BYOD devices with MDM or 202 configuration profile with the Split DNS configuration is outside the 203 scope of this document. 205 Typically, Enterprise networks do not assume that all devices in 206 their network are managed by the IT team or MDM, especially in the 207 quite common BYOD scenario. The endpoint can use the discovered 208 network-provided DNS server to only access DNS names for which the 209 Enterprise network claims authority and use another public DNS server 210 for global domains or use the discovered network-provided DNS server 211 to access both private domains and global domains. 213 The scope of this document is restricted to unmanaged BYOD devices 214 without a configuration profile. The unmanaged BYOD devices use the 215 credentials (user name and password) provided by the IT admin to 216 mutually authenticate to the Enterprise WLAN Access Point (e.g., 217 PEAP-MSCHAPv2 [PEAP], EAP-pwd [RFC8146], EAP-PSK [RFC4764]). 219 Note: Many users have privacy and personal data sovereignty 220 concerns with employers installing MDM on their personal devices; 221 they are concerned that admin can glean personal information and 222 could control how they use their devices. When users do not 223 install MDM on their devices, IT admins do not get visibility into 224 the security posture of those devices. To overcome this problem, 225 a host agent can cryptographically attest the security status 226 associated with device, such as minimum pass code length, 227 biometric login enabled, OS version etc. This approach is fast 228 gaining traction especially with the advent of closed OS like 229 Windows 10 in S mode [win10s] or Chromebook [Chromebook], where 230 applications are sandboxed (e.g., ransomware attack is not 231 possible) and applications can only be installed via the OS store. 233 4. Split DNS 235 [RFC2826] "does not preclude private networks from operating their 236 own private name spaces" but notes that if private networks "wish to 237 make use of names uniquely defined for the global Internet, they have 238 to fetch that information from the global DNS naming hierarchy". 240 There are various DNS deployments outside of the global DNS, 241 including "split horizon" deployments and DNS usages on private (or 242 virtual private) networks. In a split horizon, an authoritative 243 server gives different responses to queries from the Internet than 244 they do to network-provided DNS servers; while some deployments 245 differentiate internal queries from public queries by the source IP 246 address, the concerns in Section 3.1.1 of [RFC6950] relating to 247 trusting source IP addresses apply to such deployments. 249 When the internal address space range is private [RFC1918], this 250 makes it both easier for the server to discriminate public from 251 private and harder for public entities to impersonate nodes in the 252 private network. The use cases that motivate split-horizon DNS 253 typically involve restricting access to some network services -- 254 intranet resources such as internal web sites, development servers, 255 or directories, for example -- while preserving the ease of use 256 offered by domain names for internal users. 258 An Enterprise can require one or more DNS domains to be resolved via 259 network-provided DNS servers. This can be a special domain, such as 260 "corp.example.com" for an enterprise that is publicly known to use 261 "example.com". In this case, the endpoint needs to be informed what 262 the private domain names are and what the IP addresses of the 263 network-provided DNS servers are. An Enterprise can also run a 264 different version of its global domain on its internal network. In 265 that case, the client is instructed to send DNS queries for the 266 enterprise public domain (e.g., "example.com") to the network- 267 provided DNS servers. A configuration for this deployment scenario 268 is referred to as a Split DNS configuration. 270 The PvD RA option defined in [RFC8801] SHOULD set the H-flag to 271 indicate that Additional Information is available. This Additional 272 Information JSON object SHOULD include both the "dnsZones" and 273 "SplitDNSAllowed" keys to define the DNS domains for which the 274 Enterprise network claims authority and to indicate if the Enterprise 275 network allows split-horizon DNS. 277 5. PvD dnsZones 279 As discussed in Section 4, the Enterprise internal resources tend to 280 have private DNS names, an enterprise can also run a different 281 version of its global domain on its internal network, and require the 282 use of network-provided DNS servers to get resolved. 284 The PvD Key dnsZones is defined in [RFC8801]. The PvD Key dnsZones 285 adds support for DNS domains for which the Enterprise network claims 286 authority. These domains are intended to be resolved using network- 287 provided DNS servers that are only reachable to the devices attached 288 to the Enterprise network. DNS resolution for other domains remains 289 unchanged. 291 The dnsZones PvD Key conveys the specified DNS domains must be 292 resolved using an network-provided DNS server. The DNS root zone 293 (".") MUST be ignored if it appears in dnsZones. Other generic or 294 global domains, such as Top-Level Domains (TLDs), similarly MUST be 295 ignored if they appear in dnsZones. 297 For each dnsZones entry, the client MUST use the network-provided DNS 298 servers as the only resolvers for the listed domains and its 299 subdomains and it MUST NOT attempt to resolve the provided DNS 300 domains using public resolvers. Other domain names may be resolved 301 using some other public resolvers that are configured independently. 303 6. PvD SplitDNSAllowed Key 305 If an Enterprise network restricts all the DNS queries to be sent to 306 the network-provided DNS server, SplitDNSAllowed will be set to 307 false. 309 Split DNS configurations may be preferable to sending all DNS queries 310 to an network-provided DNS server in some deployments. This allows 311 an endpoint to only send DNS queries for the enterprise to the 312 network-provided DNS servers. The Enterprise remains unaware of all 313 non-enterprise (DNS) activity of the user. 315 It also allows the network-provided DNS servers to only be configured 316 for the enterprise DNS domains, which removes the legal and technical 317 responsibility of the enterprise to resolve every DNS domain 318 potentially asked for by the endpoints. For example, if the 319 SplitDNSAllowed key specifies "example.test" and SplitDNSAllowed is 320 set to true, then "example.test", "www.example.test", and 321 "mail.eng.example.test" must be resolved using the network-provided 322 DNS resolver(s), but "otherexample.test" and "ple.test" can be 323 resolved using the system's public resolver(s). 325 If SplitDNSAllowed is set to false, the client should not trust the 326 SplitDNSAllowed key in case of connecting to unknown or untrusted 327 networks (e.g., coffee shops or hotel networks). For example, if 328 SplitDNSAllowed is set to false, client can choose to use a alternate 329 network to resolve the global domain names. 331 7. An Example 333 The following example shows how the JSON keys defined in this 334 document can be used: 336 { 337 "identifier": "cafe.example.com.", 338 "expires": "2020-05-23T06:00:00Z", 339 "prefixes": ["2001:db8:1::/48", "2001:db8:4::/48"], 340 "SplitDNSAllowed": True, 341 "dnsZones:": ["city.other.test", "example.com"] 342 } 344 The JSON keys "identifier", "expires", and "prefixes" are defined in 345 [RFC8801]. 347 8. Roaming Enterprise Users 349 In this Enterprise scenario (Section 1.1.3 of [RFC7296]), a roaming 350 user connects to the Enterprise network through an VPN tunnel (e.g., 351 IPsec, SSL, Wireguard). The split-tunnel Virtual Private Network 352 (VPN) configuration allows the endpoint to access hosts that reside 353 in the Enterprise network [RFC8598] using that tunnel; other traffic 354 not destined to the Enterprise does not traverse the tunnel. In 355 contrast, a non-split- tunnel VPN configuration causes all traffic to 356 traverse the tunnel into the Enterprise. 358 When the VPN tunnel is IPsec, the encrypted server hosted by the 359 Enterprise network can be securely discovered by the endpoint using 360 the ENCDNS_IP*_* IKEv2 Configuration Payload Attribute Types defined 361 in [I-D.btw-add-ipsecme-ike]. For split-tunnel VPN configurations, 362 the endpoint uses the discovered encrypted DNS server to resolve 363 domain names for which the Enterprise network claims authority. For 364 non-split-tunnel VPN configurations, the endpoint uses the discovered 365 encrypted DNS server to resolve both global and private domain names. 367 Other VPN tunnel types have similar configuration capabilities, not 368 detailed here. 370 9. Upstream Encryption 372 If an Enterprise network is using a local encrypted DNS server 373 configured as a Forwarding DNS server [RFC8499] relying upon the 374 upstream resolver (e.g., at an ISP) to perform recursive DNS lookups, 375 DNS messages exchanged between the local encrypted DNS server and the 376 recursive resolver MUST be encrypted. 378 If the Enterprise network is using the local encrypted DNS server 379 configured as a recursive DNS server, DNS messages exchanges between 380 the recursive resolver and authoritative servers SHOULD be encrypted 381 to conform to the requirements discussed in 382 [I-D.ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements]. 384 10. Security Considerations 386 Clients may want to preconfigure global domains for TLDs and Second- 387 Level Domains (SLDs) to prevent malicious DNS redirections for well- 388 known domains. This prevents users from unknowingly giving DNS 389 queries to third parties. This is even more important if those well- 390 known domains are not deploying DNSSEC, as the Enterprise network 391 could then even modify the DNS answers without detection. 393 The content of dnsZones and SplitDNSAllowed may be passed to another 394 (DNS) program for processing. As with any network input, the content 395 SHOULD be considered untrusted and handled accordingly. The split 396 DNS configuration assigned by an anonymous or unknown network (e.g., 397 coffee shops) MUST be ignored by the client. 399 11. IANA Considerations 401 IANA is requested to add SplitDNSAllowed PvD Key to the Additional 402 Information PvD Keys registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/pvds/ 403 pvds.xhtml). 405 12. Acknowledgements 407 Thanks to Mohamed Boucadair, Jim Reid and Vinny Parla for the 408 discussion and comments. 410 13. References 412 13.1. Normative References 414 [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G., 415 and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", 416 BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996, 417 . 419 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 420 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 421 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 422 . 424 [RFC2826] Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical Comment on the 425 Unique DNS Root", RFC 2826, DOI 10.17487/RFC2826, May 426 2000, . 428 [RFC7858] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D., 429 and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport 430 Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May 431 2016, . 433 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 434 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 435 May 2017, . 437 [RFC8310] Dickinson, S., Gillmor, D., and T. Reddy, "Usage Profiles 438 for DNS over TLS and DNS over DTLS", RFC 8310, 439 DOI 10.17487/RFC8310, March 2018, 440 . 442 [RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS 443 (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018, 444 . 446 [RFC8801] Pfister, P., Vyncke, E., Pauly, T., Schinazi, D., and W. 447 Shao, "Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data", 448 RFC 8801, DOI 10.17487/RFC8801, July 2020, 449 . 451 13.2. Informative References 453 [Chrome-DoH] 454 The Unicode Consortium, "Chrome DNS over HTTPS (aka DoH)", 455 . 457 [Chrome-Policy] 458 The Unicode Consortium, "Chrome policies for users or 459 browsers", . 462 [Chromebook] 463 Microsoft, "Chromebook security", 464 . 467 [Firefox-Policy] 468 "Policy templates for Firefox", 469 . 472 [I-D.arkko-farrell-arch-model-t] 473 Arkko, J. and S. Farrell, "Challenges and Changes in the 474 Internet Threat Model", draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model- 475 t-04 (work in progress), July 2020. 477 [I-D.btw-add-home] 478 Boucadair, M., Reddy.K, T., Wing, D., Cook, N., and T. 479 Jensen, "DHCP and Router Advertisement Options for 480 Encrypted DNS Discovery", draft-btw-add-home-12 (work in 481 progress), January 2021. 483 [I-D.btw-add-ipsecme-ike] 484 Boucadair, M., Reddy.K, T., Wing, D., and V. Smyslov, 485 "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) 486 Configuration for Encrypted DNS", draft-btw-add-ipsecme- 487 ike-01 (work in progress), September 2020. 489 [I-D.ietf-dprive-phase2-requirements] 490 Livingood, J., Mayrhofer, A., and B. Overeinder, "DNS 491 Privacy Requirements for Exchanges between Recursive 492 Resolvers and Authoritative Servers", draft-ietf-dprive- 493 phase2-requirements-02 (work in progress), November 2020. 495 [MDM-Apple] 496 Apple, "Mobile Device Management", 497 . 500 [OTA] Apple, "Over-the-Air Profile Delivery Concepts", . 505 [PEAP] Microsoft, "[MS-PEAP]: Protected Extensible Authentication 506 Protocol (PEAP)", . 510 [RFC4764] Bersani, F. and H. Tschofenig, "The EAP-PSK Protocol: A 511 Pre-Shared Key Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) 512 Method", RFC 4764, DOI 10.17487/RFC4764, January 2007, 513 . 515 [RFC6950] Peterson, J., Kolkman, O., Tschofenig, H., and B. Aboba, 516 "Architectural Considerations on Application Features in 517 the DNS", RFC 6950, DOI 10.17487/RFC6950, October 2013, 518 . 520 [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. 521 Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 522 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October 523 2014, . 525 [RFC7556] Anipko, D., Ed., "Multiple Provisioning Domain 526 Architecture", RFC 7556, DOI 10.17487/RFC7556, June 2015, 527 . 529 [RFC7626] Bortzmeyer, S., "DNS Privacy Considerations", RFC 7626, 530 DOI 10.17487/RFC7626, August 2015, 531 . 533 [RFC8146] Harkins, D., "Adding Support for Salted Password Databases 534 to EAP-pwd", RFC 8146, DOI 10.17487/RFC8146, April 2017, 535 . 537 [RFC8499] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS 538 Terminology", BCP 219, RFC 8499, DOI 10.17487/RFC8499, 539 January 2019, . 541 [RFC8598] Pauly, T. and P. Wouters, "Split DNS Configuration for the 542 Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", 543 RFC 8598, DOI 10.17487/RFC8598, May 2019, 544 . 546 [win10s] Microsoft, "Windows 10 in S mode", 547 . 549 Authors' Addresses 551 Tirumaleswar Reddy 552 McAfee, Inc. 553 Embassy Golf Link Business Park 554 Bangalore, Karnataka 560071 555 India 557 Email: kondtir@gmail.com 559 Dan Wing 560 Citrix Systems, Inc. 561 4988 Great America Pkwy 562 Santa Clara, CA 95054 563 USA 565 Email: danwing@gmail.com