IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTTP in dnsop?

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Wed, 23 December 2015 03:58 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.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 4A08A1A9231 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:58:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 FTVUYQuImFqR for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:58:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F35FD1A9218 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linux-85bq.suse (unknown [24.104.150.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B203E1822D; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 03:58:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:58:07 -0800
Message-ID: <4909572.yk9lYxXkhq@linux-85bq.suse>
Organization: Vixie Enterprises
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.13-5-default; KDE/4.14.10; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1512221056460.959@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20151217020754.6915b71c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <2858865.LSerpu06UP@linux-85bq.suse> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1512221056460.959@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="nextPart25039114.TEihI72sBO"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/H-6qTYf5aWLvVbupCa-1Cw7zaJQ>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, Mark Delany <f4t@november.emu.st>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTTP in dnsop?
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: <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: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 03:58:09 -0000

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:00:22 AM Tony Finch wrote:
> Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 21, 2015 01:13:10 PM Tony Finch wrote:
> > > The current way to deal with out-of-order responses and head-of-line
> > > blocking in HTTP is HTTP/2.
> > 
> > since http/2 is a completely new protocol, i think that's a strange way
> > to say it.
> 
> Not completely - it has the same message semantics, they "just" changed
> how the messages are transported.
> 
> So another way of phrasing my previous message is that DNS-over-HTTP ought
> to be "just" a mapping from DNS messages to HTTP messages.

i agree. the only specification matter is the transform between message formats. there's no 
reason to talk about transport at all. 

-- 
P Vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email