Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: [Doh] Alternate proposal for transport indication in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Wed, 04 April 2018 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@redbarn.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C6E12751F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 05:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4eJtCgRHBLQz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 05:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
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 BB1B71250B8 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 05:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.5.44] (unknown [38.100.27.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81D437594C; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 12:20:15 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <5AC4C2F7.7050906@redbarn.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 05:20:07 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.25 (Windows/20180328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
CC: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <152168039295.5550.9572034766968749020.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAAObRXLm3c-p9rZkn6H6tcEoh3-UT5JW06NXQ_FMyyr2NFMmyw@mail.gmail.com> <23219.33838.166003.614689@gro.dd.org> <CAAObRX+xF5SwVd3x3iXSWd-A0Kpr_ubbOJzn0yTrSk8pc+tm6Q@mail.gmail.com> <23219.56569.2064.711002@gro.dd.org> <CA+nkc8ANQh2wAr6==eNuM82mbD+E2ELzHGizdqF_sGdY-kkOqg@mail.gmail.com> <5AB3E3B7.3080607@redbarn.org> <69AA6C5D-D348-4956-8A31-FE1EC3A2042E@icann.org> <CABkgnnX2jGY_JpVbqJuQdDVUyVzsuM_2CDg4nppfqQHZQm0F+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAAObRXKHhk51DxNt5uiYB0gunJ=DNde2j9FJSU=Ky2m4Q1UkhQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVL0XaUDS-WzDGaN9-kLx9p3x1+UVuWhvx=Zyo5oRos+w@mail.gmail.com> <19BED07A-942E-4A46-93A6-09770083EFF9@icann.org> <CABkgnnX-=n-reO9yjA8a2pHAD+JtoS5wX1w-dXMnDFdt4HXu-g@mail.gmail.com> <23236.18671.182273.977633@gro.dd.org> <28199575-e2e2-6966-fe17-f678f9f397f3@bellis.me.uk>
In-Reply-To: <28199575-e2e2-6966-fe17-f678f9f397f3@bellis.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/bj1k9aPNWIqKN-C5nEGpxpA5fZE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: [Doh] Alternate proposal for transport indication in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 04 Apr 2018 12:20:19 -0000


Ray Bellis wrote:
> On 04/04/2018 04:39, Dave Lawrence wrote:
>
>> I think that's right.  -05 with the original_transport optional
>> parameter accommodates the aims of that other draft.
>
> but ignores the concerns I raised yesterday that simply indicating "tcp"
> or "udp" is insufficient to allow a server to make policy decisions
> based on the meta-properties of the original request and its transport
> (whether that be a "real" tranport protocol like UDP or TCP or a
> pseudo-transport like DNS-o-TLS, or DNS-o-QUIC, etc).

tcp and udp are the two ways a query might have reached the initiating 
proxy, and that distinction is the only thing the responding proxy needs 
to know. if DOH becomes a standard transport, then we could add that 
identifier as well -- but i don't think a client capable of DOH is going 
to be using this particular proxy method.

-- 
P Vixie