IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net> Sun, 20 December 2015 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <vixie@tisf.net>
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 605441A1B4A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:30:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 5pvFFHR5Oh-o for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:30:14 -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 EBD071A1B46 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:30:13 -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 3310C181F4; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:30:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@tisf.net>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:30:13 -0800
Message-ID: <1999755.oExeQdjcfZ@linux-85bq.suse>
Organization: TISF
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.13-5-default; KDE/4.14.10; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20151220204933.52293.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
References: <20151217020754.6915b71c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <2399375.F2Ysi4yhKb@linux-85bq.suse> <20151220204933.52293.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="nextPart1794754.cvneB6jdx7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Rxp7bcrSszMu94uArLH2mQWzx-A>
Cc: 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: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:30:15 -0000

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 08:49:33 PM Mark Delany wrote:
> 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."

that's for tcp/53 service. dns-over-http is a tcp/53 responder, not a tcp initiator. only a tcp/53 
initiator has to concern itself with out of order responses.

> 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 ...

no.

-- 
P. Vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email