IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: [Doh] Alternate proposal for transport indication in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 03 April 2018 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E13F12E8E6; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 06:27:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nAAfglrDEYSW; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 06:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-1.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E66112E8E2; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 06:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 06:27:20 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 06:27:20 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Re: [Doh] Alternate proposal for transport indication in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http
Thread-Index: AQHTxMYJjiIeoO0puk2SlNzAM+KuJqPvJ+iAgAAkvICAAAPeAIAAOkYA
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 13:27:20 +0000
Message-ID: <19BED07A-942E-4A46-93A6-09770083EFF9@icann.org>
References: <152168039295.5550.9572034766968749020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAAObRXLm3c-p9rZkn6H6tcEoh3-UT5JW06NXQ_FMyyr2NFMmyw@mail.gmail.com> <23219.33838.166003.614689@gro.dd.org> <CAAObRX+xF5SwVd3x3iXSWd-A0Kpr_ubbOJzn0yTrSk8pc+tm6Q@mail.gmail.com> <23219.56569.2064.711002@gro.dd.org> <CA+nkc8ANQh2wAr6==eNuM82mbD+E2ELzHGizdqF_sGdY-kkOqg@mail.gmail.com> <5AB3E3B7.3080607@redbarn.org> <69AA6C5D-D348-4956-8A31-FE1EC3A2042E@icann.org> <CABkgnnX2jGY_JpVbqJuQdDVUyVzsuM_2CDg4nppfqQHZQm0F+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAAObRXKHhk51DxNt5uiYB0gunJ=DNde2j9FJSU=Ky2m4Q1UkhQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVL0XaUDS-WzDGaN9-kLx9p3x1+UVuWhvx=Zyo5oRos+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVL0XaUDS-WzDGaN9-kLx9p3x1+UVuWhvx=Zyo5oRos+w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5D2AEE092E955141A1378CF99D5218B8@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1Lyvg1TxxmdIBvgOjDVpfXhInXg>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: [Doh] Alternate proposal for transport indication in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 13:27:23 -0000

On Apr 3, 2018, at 2:58 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If I understand your response (not sure that I do), that seems pretty
> academic and not at all persuasive.  

...to you. It was persuasive enough for the DNSOP WG to adopt the document as a WG item.

> For instance, if a client cared
> about testing TCP capabilities, it can always do its own resolution.

That's not what draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http is about.

Martin: Are you saying that you want DOH to remove the optional parameter from the application/dns-udpwireformat registration? If so, what do you propose for the DNSOP WG?

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email