IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] draft-mohan-dns-query-xml-00.txt

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 04 October 2011 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B67A21F8C34 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 04:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DsuyloEfICDz for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 04:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0DE21F8B16 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 04:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:56393) by ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1RB2ni-0001D3-WQ (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:04:42 +0100
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1RB2ni-0001oN-1O (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:04:42 +0100
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:04:42 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EA70785432657FDF8A31D31C@nimrod.local>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1110041159200.16577@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CACU5sDnBx5AijEgFXKNPjtcVdtBnBJamsn-f_ye0Jm3TQq0mvw@mail.gmail.com> <201110031713.20103.vixie@isc.org> <58EB32F9-08D2-4579-BC56-1423C00FC371@verisign.com> <201110031816.32959.vixie@isc.org> <EA70785432657FDF8A31D31C@nimrod.local>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>, dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-mohan-dns-query-xml-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 11:01:42 -0000

Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote:
>
> I presume we could base64 encode POST data if we couldn't send it
> binary, whereas IIRC we couldn't do much more than hex encode GET URLs.

You can send it in binary, otherwise multipart/form-data file uploads
would not work.

> So +1 for POST here, with body content as close to UDP message format
> as possible,

Yes.

> save that we should surely be able to junk a pile of UDP restrictions
> (e.g. we can surely mandate EDNS, assume 'packet' size can 2^32 bytes,
> etc.).

You can't increase the DNS message size beyond 64KB.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Portland, Plymouth: Southwest 4 or 5, increasing 6 at times. Moderate,
occasionally rough later in Plymouth. Occasional drizzle, fog patches for a
time. Moderate or good, occasionally very poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email