<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY rfc1034 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1034.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc1035 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1035.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc2119 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc2181 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2181.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc4033 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4033.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5246 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5246.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc5936 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5936.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6347 SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6347.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc6973 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6973.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.koch-perpass-dns-confidentiality SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.koch-perpass-dns-confidentiality.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.vandergaast-edns-client-subnet SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.vandergaast-edns-client-subnet">
<!ENTITY I-D.wijngaards-dnsop-confidentialdns SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.wijngaards-dnsop-confidentialdns">
<!ENTITY I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy SYSTEM
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy.xml">
]>

<rfc docName="draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation-02" category="info" ipr="trust200902">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc strict="yes"?> 
<front>
<title abbrev="Qname minimisation">DNS query name minimisation to improve privacy</title>
<author fullname="Stephane Bortzmeyer" initials="S." surname="Bortzmeyer">
<organization>AFNIC</organization>
<address><postal><street>1, rue Stephenson</street><code>78180</code><city>Montigny-le-Bretonneux</city><country>France</country></postal> <phone>+33 1 39 30 83 46</phone><email>bortzmeyer+ietf@nic.fr</email><uri>http://www.afnic.fr/</uri></address>
</author>
<date month="May" year="2014"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document describes one of the techniques that could be used to
improve DNS privacy (see <xref
target="I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy"/>), a technique called "qname
minimisation".</t>
<t>Discussions of the document should currently take place on the <xref target="dns-privacy">dns-privacy
mailing list</xref>.</t>
</abstract>
</front>

<middle>
<section title="Introduction and background">
<t>The problem statement is exposed in <xref
target="I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy"/>. The terminology ("qname",
"resolver", etc)
is also defined in this companion document. This specific solution is
not intended to completely solve the problem, far from it. It is
better to see it as one tool among a toolbox. </t>
<t>It follows the principle explained in section 6.1 of <xref
target="RFC6973"/>: the less data you send out, the less privacy
problems you'll get.</t>
</section>

<section title="Qname minimisation">
<t>The idea is to minimise the amount of data sent
from the DNS resolver. When a resolver receives the query "What is the
AAAA record for www.example.com?", it sends to the root (assuming a
cold resolver, whose cache is empty) the very same question. Sending
"What are the NS records for .com?" would be sufficient (since
it will be the answer from the root anyway). To do so would be
compatible with the current DNS system and therefore could be
easily deployable, since it is an unilateral change to the resolvers.</t>
<t>If "minimisation" is too long, you can write it "m12n".</t>
<t>To do such minimisation, the resolver needs to know the zone cut <xref
target="RFC2181"/>. There is not a zone cut at every label
boundary. If we take the name www.foo.bar.example, it is possible that
there is a zone cut between "foo" and "bar" but not between "bar" and
"example"<!-- A real example is www.economie.gouv.fr -->. So, assuming the resolver already knows
the name servers of .example, when it receives the query "What is the
AAAA record of www.foo.bar.example", it does not always know if the
request should be sent to the name servers of bar.example or to those
of example. <xref
target="RFC2181"/> suggests a method to find the zone cut (section 6), so
resolvers may try it.</t>
<t>Note that DNSSEC-validating resolvers already have access to this information, since they
have to find the zone cut (the DNSKEY record set is just below, the DS
record set just above).</t>
<t>It can be noted that minimising the amount of data sent also
partially addresses the case of a wire sniffer, not just the case of
privacy invasion by the servers.</t>
<t>One should note that the behaviour suggested here
(minimising the amount of data sent in qnames) is NOT forbidden by the <xref
target="RFC1034"/> (section 5.3.3) or <xref target="RFC1035"/>
(section 7.2). Sending the full qname to the authoritative name server
is a tradition, not a protocol requirment.</t>
</section>

<section title="Operational considerations">
<t>The administrators of the forwarders, and of the authoritative name
servers, will get less data, which will reduce the utility of the
statistics they can produce (such as the percentage of the various
qtypes). On the other hand, it will decrease their legal
responsability, in many cases.</t>
<t>Some broken name servers do not react properly to qtype=NS
requests. 
As an example, look at www.ratp.fr (not ratp.fr), which
is delegated to two name servers that reply properly to "A
www.ratp.fr" queries but send REFUSED to queries "NS
www.ratp.fr". This behaviour is a gross protocol violation and there
is no need to stop improving the DNS because of such
brokenness. However, qname minimisation may still work with such
domains since they are only leaf domains (no need to send them NS
requests).</t>
<t>Another way to deal with such broken name servers would be to try
with A requests (A being choosen because it is the most common and
hence the least revealing qtype). Instead of querying name
servers with a query "NS example.com", we could use "A
_.example.com" and see if we get a referral.</t>
</section>

<section title="Other advantages">
<t>The main goal of qname minimisation is to improve privacy, by
sending less data. However, it may have other advantages. For
instance, if a root name server receives a
query from some resolver for A.CORP followed by B.CORP
followed by C.CORP, the result will be three NXDOMAINs, since .CORP does
not exist in the root zone. Under query minimization, the root name servers would hear only one
question (for .CORP itself) to which they could answer NXDOMAIN, thus
opening up a negative caching opportunity in which the full resolver
could know a priori that neither B.CORP or C.CORP could exist. Thus in
this common case the total number of upstream queries under query
minimisation would be counter-intuitively less than the number of
queries under the traditional iteration (as described in the DNS standard).</t>
</section>

<section title="Security considerations">
<t>Under study. TODO: better handling of phantom domains?</t>
</section>

<section title="Acknowledgments">
<t>Thanks to Olaf Kolkman, Mark Andrews and Francis Dupont for the
interesting discussions on this qname minimisation. Thanks to Mohsen
Souissi for proofreading. Thanks to Tony Finch for the zone cut
algorithm in <xref target="zonecutalgo"/>. Thanks to Paul Vixie for pointing out that there are practical advantages (besides privacy) to qname m12n.
Thanks to Phillip Hallam-Baker for the
fallback on A queries, to deal with broken servers.</t>
</section>

</middle>

<back>

<references title='Normative References'>
&rfc1034;
&rfc1035;
&rfc2119;
&rfc6973;
&I-D.bortzmeyer-dnsop-dns-privacy;
</references>

<references title='Informative References'>
&rfc2181;

<reference anchor="dns-privacy">
<front>
<title>The dns-privacy mailing list</title>
<author fullname="IETF" surname="IETF"/>
<date month="March" year="2014"/>
<abstract>
<t>This (non-WG) IETF list is for the discussion of the problem statement 
surrounding the addition of privacy to the DNS protocol.<eref target="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dns-privacy/"/></t>
</abstract>
</front>
</reference>

</references>

<section anchor="zonecutalgo" title="An algorithm to find the zone cut">

<t>Although a validating resolver already has the logic to find the
zone cut, other resolvers may be interested by this algorithm to
follow in order to locate this cut:
<list style="empty">
<t>(0) If the query can be answered from the cache, do so, otherwise iterate
as follows:</t>
<t>(1) Find closest enclosing NS RRset in your cache. The owner of this NS
RRset will be a suffix of the QNAME - the longest suffix of any NS RRset
in the cache. Call this PARENT.</t>
<t>(2) Initialize CHILD to the same as PARENT.</t>
<t>(3) If CHILD is the same as the QNAME, resolve the original query using
PARENT's name servers, and finish.</t>
<t>(4) Otherwise, add a label from the QNAME to the start of CHILD.</t>
<t>(5) If you have a negative cache entry for the NS RRset at CHILD, go back
to step 3.</t>
<t>(6) Query for CHILD IN NS using PARENT's name servers. The response can
be:
<list style="empty">
<t>(6a) A referral. Cache the NS RRset from the authority section and go back
to step 1.</t>
<t>(6b) An authoritative answer. Cache the NS RRset from the answer section
and go back to step 1.</t>
<t>(6c) An NXDOMAIN answer. Return an NXDOMAIN answer in response to the
original query and stop.</t>
<t>(6d) A NOERROR/NODATA answer. Cache this negative answer and go back to
step 3.</t>
</list></t>
</list>
</t></section>

</back>

</rfc>



