DNS Queries over HTTPS
draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8484.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Paul E. Hoffman , Patrick McManus | ||
| Last updated | 2018-03-21 | ||
| Replaces | draft-hoffman-dispatch-dns-over-https, draft-hoffman-dns-over-https | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
TSVART Last Call review
(of
-13)
by Fernando Gont
Almost ready
GENART Last Call review
(of
-12)
by Stewart Bryant
On the Right Track
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8484 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-04
Network Working Group P. Hoffman
Internet-Draft ICANN
Intended status: Standards Track P. McManus
Expires: September 22, 2018 Mozilla
March 21, 2018
DNS Queries over HTTPS
draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-04
Abstract
This document describes how to run DNS service over HTTP using
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
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 September 22, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
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
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protocol Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Non-requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. The HTTP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. DNS Wire Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. The HTTP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. HTTP Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Cache Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. HTTP/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Server Push . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Registration of application/dns-udpwireformat Media Type 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Previous Work on DNS over HTTP or in Other Formats . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The Internet does not always provide end to end reachability for
native DNS. On-path network devices may spoof DNS responses, block
DNS requests, or just redirect DNS queries to different DNS servers
that give less-than-honest answers. These are also sometimes
delivered with poor performance or reduced feature sets.
Over time, there have been many proposals for using HTTP and HTTPS as
a substrate for DNS queries and responses. To date, none of those
proposals have made it beyond early discussion, partially due to
disagreement about what the appropriate formatting should be and
partially because they did not follow HTTP best practices.
This document defines a specific protocol for sending DNS [RFC1035]
queries and getting DNS responses over HTTP [RFC7540] using https://
(and therefore TLS [RFC5246] security for integrity and
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
confidentiality). Each DNS query-response pair is mapped into a HTTP
request-response pair.
The described approach is more than a tunnel over HTTP. It
establishes default media formatting types for requests and responses
but uses normal HTTP content negotiation mechanisms for selecting
alternatives that endpoints may prefer in anticipation of serving new
use cases. In addition to this media type negotiation, it aligns
itself with HTTP features such as caching, redirection, proxying,
authentication, and compression.
The integration with HTTP provides a transport suitable for both
traditional DNS clients and native web applications seeking access to
the DNS.
Two primary uses cases were considered during this protocol's
development. They included preventing on-path devices from
interfering with DNS operations and allowing web applications to
access DNS information via existing browser APIs in a safe way
consistent with Cross Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) [CORS]. There
are certainly other uses for this work.
2. Terminology
A server that supports this protocol is called a "DNS API server" to
differentiate it from a "DNS server" (one that uses the regular DNS
protocol). Similarly, a client that supports this protocol is called
a "DNS API client".
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14, RFC8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Protocol Requirements
The protocol described here bases its design on the following
protocol requirements:
o The protocol must use normal HTTP semantics.
o The queries and responses must be able to be flexible enough to
express every normal DNS query.
o The protocol must allow implementations to use HTTP's content
negotiation mechanism.
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
o The protocol must ensure interoperable media formats through a
mandatory to implement format wherein a query must be able to
contain future modifications to the DNS protocol including the
inclusion of one or more EDNS extensions (including those not yet
defined).
o The protocol must use a secure transport that meets the
requirements for HTTPS.
3.1. Non-requirements
o Supporting network-specific DNS64 [RFC6147]
o Supporting other network-specific inferences from plaintext DNS
queries
o Supporting insecure HTTP
o Supporting legacy HTTP versions
4. The HTTP Request
To make a DNS API query 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 of this section. The DNS API server defines the
URI used by the request. Configuration and discovery of the URI is
done out of band from this protocol.
When using the POST method the DNS query is included as the message
body of the HTTP request and the Content-Type request header
indicates the media type of the message. POST-ed requests are
smaller than their GET equivalents.
When using the GET method the URI path MUST contain a query parameter
name-value pair [QUERYPARAMETER] with the name of "ct" and a value
indicating the media-format used for the dns parameter. The value
may either be an explicit media type (e.g. ct=application/dns-
udpwireformat&dns=...) or it may be empty. An empty value indicates
the default application/dns-udpwireformat type (e.g. ct&dns=...).
When using the GET method the URI path MUST contain a query parameter
with the name of "dns". The value of the parameter is the content of
the request potentially encoded with base64url [RFC4648].
Specifications that define media types for use with DOH, such as DNS
Wire Format Section 4.1 of this document, MUST indicate if the dns
parameter uses base64url encoding.
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
Using the GET method is friendlier to many HTTP cache
implementations.
The DNS API client SHOULD include an HTTP "Accept:" request header to
say what type of content can be understood in response. The client
MUST be prepared to process "application/dns-udpwireformat"
Section 4.1 responses but MAY process any other type it receives.
In order to maximize cache friendliness, DNS API clients using media
formats that include DNS ID, such as application/dns-udpwireformat,
SHOULD use a DNS ID of 0 in every DNS request. HTTP correlates
request and response, thus eliminating the need for the ID in a media
type such as application/dns-udpwireformat and the use of a varying
DNS ID can cause semantically equivalent DNS queries to be cached
separately.
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.
4.1. 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].
When using the GET method, the data payload MUST be encoded with
base64url [RFC4648] and then placed as a name value pair in the query
portion of the URI with name "dns". 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
extensions [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 a DNS API service located at
https://dnsserver.example.net/dns-query to resolve the IN A records.
The requests are represented as application/dns-udpwirefomat typed
bodies.
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
The first example request uses GET to request www.example.com
:method = GET
:scheme = https
:authority = dnsserver.example.net
:path = /dns-query?ct& (no space or CR)
dns=AAABAAABAAAAAAAAA3d3dwdleGFtcGxlA2NvbQAAAQAB
accept = application/dns-udpwireformat
The same DNS query for www.example.com, using the POST method would
be:
:method = POST
:scheme = https
:authority = dnsserver.example.net
:path = /dns-query
accept = application/dns-udpwireformat
content-type = application/dns-udpwireformat
content-length = 33
<33 bytes represented by the following hex encoding>
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
01
Finally, a GET based query for a.62characterlabel-makes-base64url-
distinct-from-standard-base64.example.com is shown as an example to
emphasize that the encoding alphabet of base64url is different than
regular base64 and that padding is omitted.
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
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
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 6d 70 6c 65 03 63 6f 6d 00 00 01 00 01
:method = GET
:scheme = https
:authority = dnsserver.example.net
:path = /dns-query?ct& (no space or CR)
dns=AAABAAABAAAAAAAAAWE-NjJjaGFyYWN0ZXJsYWJl (no space or CR)
bC1tYWtlcy1iYXNlNjR1cmwtZGlzdGluY3QtZnJvbS1z (no space or CR)
dGFuZGFyZC1iYXNlNjQHZXhhbXBsZQNjb20AAAEAAQ
accept = application/dns-udpwireformat
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
5. The HTTP Response
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.
A valid DNS response includes both success and failure responses.
For example, a DNS failure response such as SERVFAIL or NXDOMAIN will
be the message in a successful 2xx HTTP response even though there
was a failure at the DNS layer. Responses with non-successful HTTP
status codes do not contain DNS answers to the question in the
corresponding request. Some of these non-successful HTTP responses
(e.g. redirects or authentication failures) could allow clients to
make new requests to satisfy the original question.
Different response media types will provide more or less information
from a DNS response. For example, one response type might include
the information from the DNS header bytes while another might omit
it. The amount and type of information that a media type gives is
solely up to the format, and not defined in this protocol.
At the time this is published, the response types are works in
progress. The only response type defined in this document is
"application/dns-udpwireformat", but it is possible that other
response formats will be defined in the future.
The DNS response for "application/dns-udpwireformat" in Section 4.1
MAY have one or more EDNS extensions, 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.
(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.
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
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. 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 DNS API server MUST be able to process application/dns-
udpwireformat request messages.
A DNS API server SHOULD respond with HTTP status code 415
(Unsupported Media Type) upon receiving a media type it is unable to
process.
This document does not change the definition of any HTTP response
codes or otherwise proscribe their use.
5.1. Example
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
record with an address of 192.0.2.1 and a TTL of 128 seconds.
:status = 200
content-type = application/dns-udpwireformat
content-length = 64
cache-control = max-age=128
<64 bytes represented by the following hex encoding>
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
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
6. HTTP Integration
This protocol MUST be used with the https scheme URI [RFC7230].
6.1. Cache Interaction
A DOH API client may utilize a hierarchy of caches that include both
HTTP and DNS specific caches. HTTP cache entries may be bypassed
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
with HTTP mechanisms such as the "Cache-Control no-cache" directive;
however DNS caches do not have a similar mechanism.
A DOH response that was previously stored in an HTTP cache will
contain the [RFC7234] Age response header indicating the elapsed time
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
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 of
the DNS record.
HTTP revalidation (e.g. via If-None-Match request headers) of cached
DNS information may be of limited value to DOH as revalidation
provides only a bandwidth benefit and DNS transactions are normally
latency bound. Furthermore, the HTTP response headers that enable
revalidation (such as "Last-Modified" and "Etag") are often fairly
large when compared to the overall DNS response size, and have a
variable nature that creates constant pressure on the HTTP/2
compression dictionary [RFC7541]. Other types of DNS data, such as
zone transfers, may be larger and benefit more from revalidation.
DNS API servers may wish to consider whether providing these
validation enabling response headers is worthwhile.
The stale-while-revalidate and stale-if-error cache control
directives may be well suited to a DOH implementation when allowed by
server policy. Those mechanisms allow a client, at the server's
discretion, to reuse a cache entry that is no longer fresh under some
extenuating circumstances defined in [RFC5861].
All HTTP servers, including DNS API servers, need to consider cache
interaction when they generate responses that are not globally valid.
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
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
Vary response header.
6.2. HTTP/2
The minimum version of HTTP used by DOH SHOULD be HTTP/2 [RFC7540].
The messages in classic UDP based DNS [RFC1035] are inherently
unordered and have low overhead. A competitive HTTP transport needs
to support reordering, parallelism, priority, and header compression
to achieve similar performance. Those features were introduced to
HTTP in HTTP/2 [RFC7540]. Earlier versions of HTTP are capable of
conveying the semantic requirements of DOH but may result in very
poor performance for many uses cases.
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
6.3. Server Push
Before using DOH response data for DNS resolution, the client MUST
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
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
is one that the client would have directed the same query to if the
client had initiated the request. This specification does not extend
DNS resolution privileges to URIs that are not recognized by the
client as trusted DNS API servers.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Registration of application/dns-udpwireformat Media Type
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
To: ietf-types@iana.org
Subject: Registration of MIME media type
application/dns-udpwireformat
MIME media type name: application
MIME subtype name: dns-udpwireformat
Required parameters: n/a
Optional parameters: n/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
over UDP, which is the format defined in the diagrams in RFC 1035.
Security considerations: The security considerations for carrying
this data are the same for carrying DNS without encryption.
Interoperability considerations: None.
Published specification: This document.
Applications that use this media type:
Systems that want to exchange full DNS messages.
Additional information:
Magic number(s): n/a
File extension(s): n/a
Macintosh file type code(s): n/a
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Paul Hoffman, paul.hoffman@icann.org
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: n/a
Author: Paul Hoffman, paul.hoffman@icann.org
Change controller: IESG
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
8. Security Considerations
Running DNS over HTTPS relies on the security of the underlying HTTP
transport. This mitigates classic amplication attacks for UDP-based
DNS. Implementations utilizing HTTP/2 benefit from the TLS profile
defined in [RFC7540] Section 9.2.
Session level encryption has well known weaknesses with respect to
traffic analysis which might be particularly acute when dealing with
DNS queries. HTTP/2 provides further advice about the use of
compression (Section 10.6 of [RFC7540]) and padding (Section 10.7 of
[RFC7540]).
The HTTPS connection provides transport security for the interaction
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
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
DNS client might choose to trust answers from its recursive DNS
resolver. This capability might be affected by the response media
type.
Section 6.1 describes the interaction of this protocol with HTTP
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
the security implications of HTTP caching for other protocols that
use HTTP.
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
to resolve (through its web service) and also be the one to answer
those queries (through its DNS API service). An untrusted DNS API
server can thus easily cause damage by poisoning a client's cache
with names that the DNS API server chooses to poison. A client MUST
NOT trust a DNS API server simply because it was discovered, or
because the client was told to trust the DNS API server by an
untrusted party. Instead, a client MUST only trust DNS API server
that is configured as trustworthy.
A client can use DNS over HTTPS as one of multiple mechanisms to
obtain DNS data. If a client of this protocol encounters an HTTP
error after sending a DNS query, and then falls back to a different
DNS retrieval mechanism, doing so can weaken the privacy expected by
the user of the client.
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
9. Operational Considerations
Local policy considerations and similar factors mean different DNS
servers may provide different results to the same query: for instance
in split DNS configurations [RFC6950]. It logically follows that the
server which is queried can influence the end result. Therefore a
client's choice of DNS server may affect the responses it gets to its
queries. For example, in the case of DNS64 [RFC6147], the choice
could affect whether IPv6/IPv4 translation will work at all.
The HTTPS channel used by this specification establishes secure two
party communication between the DNS API client and the DNS API
server. Filtering or inspection systems that rely on unsecured
transport of DNS will not function in a DNS over HTTPS environment.
Many HTTPS implementations perform real time third party checks of
the revocation status of the certificates being used by TLS. If this
check is done as part of the DNS API server connection procedure and
the check itself requires DNS resolution to connect to the third
party a deadlock can occur. The use of an OCSP [RFC6960] server is
one example of how this can happen. DNS API servers SHOULD utilize
OCSP Stapling [RFC6961] to provide the client with certificate
revocation information that does not require contacting a third
party.
A DNS API client may face a similar bootstrapping problem when the
HTTP request needs to resolve the hostname portion of the DNS URI.
Just as the address of a traditional DNS nameserver cannot be
originally determined from that same server, a DOH client cannot use
its DOH server to initially resolve the server's host name into an
address. Alternative strategies a client might employ include making
the initial resolution part of the configuration, IP based URIs and
corresponding IP based certificates for HTTPS, or resolving the DNS
API server's hostname via traditional DNS or another DOH server while
still authenticating the resulting connection via HTTPS.
HTTP [RFC7230] is a stateless application level protocol and
therefore DOH implementations do not provide stateful ordering
guarantees between different requests. DOH cannot be used as a
transport for other protocols that require strict ordering.
10. Acknowledgments
Joe Hildebrand contributed lots of material for a different iteration
of this document. Helpful early comments were given by Ben Schwartz
and Mark Nottingham.
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6960] Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A.,
Galperin, S., and C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key
Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP",
RFC 6960, DOI 10.17487/RFC6960, June 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6960>.
[RFC6961] Pettersen, Y., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Multiple Certificate Status Request Extension", RFC 6961,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6961, June 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6961>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
[RFC7234] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching",
RFC 7234, DOI 10.17487/RFC7234, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7234>.
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
[RFC7541] Peon, R. and H. Ruellan, "HPACK: Header Compression for
HTTP/2", RFC 7541, DOI 10.17487/RFC7541, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7541>.
[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>.
11.2. Informative References
[CORS] "Cross-Origin Resource Sharing", n.d.,
<https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#http-cors-protocol>.
[QUERYPARAMETER]
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded Parsing", n.d.,
<https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#application/
x-www-form-urlencoded>.
[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, DOI 10.17487/RFC2181, July 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2181>.
[RFC5861] Nottingham, M., "HTTP Cache-Control Extensions for Stale
Content", RFC 5861, DOI 10.17487/RFC5861, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5861>.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
[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>.
[RFC6950] Peterson, J., Kolkman, O., Tschofenig, H., and B. Aboba,
"Architectural Considerations on Application Features in
the DNS", RFC 6950, DOI 10.17487/RFC6950, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6950>.
[RFC7719] Hoffman, P., Sullivan, A., and K. Fujiwara, "DNS
Terminology", RFC 7719, DOI 10.17487/RFC7719, December
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7719>.
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DNS Queries over HTTPS March 2018
[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>.
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
The following is an incomplete list of earlier work that related to
DNS over HTTP/1 or representing DNS data in other formats.
The list includes links to the tools.ietf.org site (because these
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-daley-dnsxml
o https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dulaunoy-dnsop-passive-dns-cof
o https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-json
o https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/projects/dnssec-trigger/
Authors' Addresses
Paul Hoffman
ICANN
Email: paul.hoffman@icann.org
Patrick McManus
Mozilla
Email: pmcmanus@mozilla.com
Hoffman & McManus Expires September 22, 2018 [Page 16]