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

"Mark Delany" <f4t@november.emu.st> Sun, 20 December 2015 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <f4t@november.emu.st>
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 02F291B3032 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 12:49:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] 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 JS3HoRC0Js7l for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 12:49:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from f5.bushwire.net (f5.bushwire.net [IPv6:2607:fc50:1000:5b00::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208E61AC3CD for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 12:49:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by f5.bushwire.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2DC2FAC8D2; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 12:49:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=emu.st; s=2015; t=1450644573; bh=iqX+HHASgLiYvx0sqtRy8dPu1nQ=; h=Comments:Received:Date:Message-ID:From:Mail-Followup-To:To: Subject:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: In-Reply-To; b=VvQ9+pVdKVuhXSZ3i5d3xzAdN8tRvyc4R3GKB+c3oIPlr+bLdXT6hzBLYIJjaMTGE CjSsWlac0n8xH/xAM/xEjAESZshTKAxuPHwvMe3iKPKyfRPdXz+FklBzYKVDbnhLbN dqC4R57RAkoh0fvVwRoM9KWgpcgxQBf805ON9jf4=ON9jf4=
Comments: QMDA 0.3
Received: (qmail 52294 invoked by uid 1001); 20 Dec 2015 20:49:33 -0000
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:49:33 +0000
Message-ID: <20151220204933.52293.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
From: Mark Delany <f4t@november.emu.st>
Mail-Followup-To: dnsop@ietf.org
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20151217020754.6915b71c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <2073641.PqY0vKhHzR@linux-85bq.suse> <20151218175619.44495.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net> <2399375.F2Ysi4yhKb@linux-85bq.suse>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2399375.F2Ysi4yhKb@linux-85bq.suse>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Qq4VyvGelAB0RzLI4M0ES-rDTt4>
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: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:49:35 -0000

On 20Dec15, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote:

> since DNS-over-HTTP does not call for out-of-order HTTP responses

But at least according to dpriv:

    "Since pipelined responses can arrive out-of-order, clients MUST
    match responses to outstanding queries using the ID field, query
    name, type, and class."

And since shane-review states:

    "This memo reviews the possible approaches..."

I take it to mean that shane-review could encompass implementations
like dpriv that imply or propose out-of-order. If that is the case
then I would think that those semantic variations should at least be
highlighted in shane-review.


Mark.