IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Fri, 18 December 2015 03:20 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 3035A1B3286 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:20:42 -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 4T9kdHXHmPc9 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [24.104.150.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B54A1B328D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:20:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linux-85bq.suse (unknown [183.131.102.3]) (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 17AB518208; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:20:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:20:35 -0800
Message-ID: <2073641.PqY0vKhHzR@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: <20151217202024.40710.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
References: <20151217020754.6915b71c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20151217210623.620dee07@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <20151217202024.40710.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="nextPart3017031.OjEIrEI04i"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/fC0N74AxrsgLX1G3YamAbrxUEGc>
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: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:20:42 -0000

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 08:20:24 PM Mark Delany wrote:
> It might be obvious to most, but should there be a section on
> out-of-order processing of requests?
> 
> That the request pipeline order doesn't necesarily match the response
> pipeline order is particularly unexpected in some protocols (and
> likely non-compliant), such as HTTP < 2.0

i think this is opaque to the dns-over-http specification. that is, while http may under 
its covers do all kinds of asynchronous things, perhaps even using udp, or multiple 
parallel tcp sessions, or out of order processing... from the point of view of a dns-over-
http proxy, it makes POST requests, it receives POST responses to those requests.

--
P Vixie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email