IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Mark Delany" <f4t@november.emu.st> Sun, 20 December 2015 22:04 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 5773C1A1BA7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:04:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 xv2DQ2w6p-Jy for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:03:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from f5.bushwire.net (f5.bushwire.net [199.48.133.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2D91A1BA4 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:03:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by f5.bushwire.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id DEB66AC8D2; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:03:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=emu.st; s=2015; t=1450649038; bh=8rpDbB0+PUJNqpH28cAdbo3RmTc=; h=Comments:Received:Date:Message-ID:From:Mail-Followup-To:To: Subject:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: In-Reply-To; b=YnKejX4qJRNCXA0/zgA2iuFO/GdP6WKCbK+ayMH0oGcIMIzo8ScjH0cowvnL6SDTO oTY2utuIl2/49p9vIEdQcU3DR6mHbNU+tollTgS1LKD8cbIhlhkJUunc05y9QYz2G6 BhDWjJVIH1z3XSNrgOm5uziWMSu3RbHrPvA09eYA=A09eYA=
Comments: QMDA 0.3
Received: (qmail 52595 invoked by uid 1001); 20 Dec 2015 22:03:58 -0000
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 22:03:58 +0000
Message-ID: <20151220220358.52594.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> <2399375.F2Ysi4yhKb@linux-85bq.suse> <20151220204933.52293.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net> <1999755.oExeQdjcfZ@linux-85bq.suse>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1999755.oExeQdjcfZ@linux-85bq.suse>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/YLm48sRk7KF2KoJOflRtRVCNlzc>
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 22:04:00 -0000

> > 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.

Then I'd like to suggest a "yes" for this document.

Pipeline stalling due to forced in-order queries/responses is quite a
performance limitation and some implementations could readily provide
out-of-order.


Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email