IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http

"Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Tue, 12 July 2016 03:35 UTC

Return-Path: <adrien@qbik.com>
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 26CD212D0F8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 zw50xvvyQgCO for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [122.56.26.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2AED12D0D3 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 20:35:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: From [192.168.1.146] (unverified [192.168.1.146]) by SMTP Server [192.168.1.3] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v9.0.0 (Build 5838)) with SMTP id <0000774096@smtp.qbik.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:35:03 +1200
From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, Marek Vavruša <mvavrusa@cloudflare.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 03:35:02 +0000
Message-Id: <emb8d27236-31f5-4f14-ab78-4f26f9db49e2@bodybag>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1607112330450.48246@ary.lan>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.24928.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9KWV607mWNbTmeRATe--1ih3DHM>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
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, 12 Jul 2016 03:35:07 -0000

for a web to DNS proxy to decide to send a reply back, it would need to 
consider it complete?

Or are you proposing that the http server would start streaming back the 
payload as it received the (possibly out of order) replies?

Maybe instead should use WebSockets


------ Original Message ------
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Marek Vavruša" <mvavrusa@cloudflare.com>
Cc: "dnsop" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Sent: 12/07/2016 3:32:51 p.m.
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http

>>>Don't you get this automatically if it's treated as a TCP DNS
>>>connection?  You stuff a bunch of requests down the pipe, and you get
>>>back a bunch of responses.
>>>See RFC 7766.
>
>>You get queueing for free, but not pipelining and out-of-order
>>responses, that has to be defined.
>
>RFC 7766 says you should get pipelining and out-of-order responses on 
>TCP DNS.  Take a look.
>
>Even if the underlying DNS server that the proxy is using can't do it, 
>any newly written proxy should provide TCP DNS the way 7766 says it 
>should.
>
>Regards,
>John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
>Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
>
>_______________________________________________
>DNSOP mailing list
>DNSOP@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status