[DNSOP] Interesting question ... was Re: Clarification on EDNS 6891
Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org> Fri, 12 June 2015 13:15 UTC
Return-Path: <edward.lewis@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFAD61A9233 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 J_soOwheUjlr for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 655071A90E5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1044.25; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:15:34 -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 15.00.1044.021; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 06:15:34 -0700
From: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>
To: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Thread-Topic: Interesting question ... was Re: [DNSOP] Clarification on EDNS 6891
Thread-Index: AQHQpRHdNaRLZXYUm0+eMkjNlsuVxw==
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:15:33 +0000
Message-ID: <D1A05282.C276%edward.lewis@icann.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.1.150515
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3516945327_14784433"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/BfQcSXuQkpO1NWHZrAsB_0bBRaY>
Cc: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: [DNSOP] Interesting question ... was Re: Clarification on EDNS 6891
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:15:38 -0000
On 6/12/15, 8:07, "Shane Kerr" <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote: >If the question is, "should we change the protocol so that EDNS over >connection-oriented transports works differently", then I think the >answer is, "hm... interesting. It probably won't provide a big win, >but lets explore it." At first I didn't take to the notion that a DNS message pulled from the datagram transport would be handled differently than pulled from the stream transport. But then I realized this is already done, in TCP there are 2 octets containing the length of the DNS message. So, architecturally, there's a foothold. Or perhaps there's a different vehicle (is so much as the OPT RR is a vehicle) for meta data when using a stream than when using a datagram. The sender would have to use the "right" one, the receiver would have to know what to do with what it gets. (Like, grandparent-in EDNS0 for TCP.) Just some thoughts.
- [DNSOP] Interesting question ... was Re: Clarific… Edward Lewis