IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 18 December 2015 04:53 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
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 E57D51B330E for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:53:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 mvdqUjk_Cxq5 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22d.google.com (mail-io0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B01F01B330B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id q126so78326198iof.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:53:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fqtIQmrzd0TY9/fNScUn88U+0CbYhCgEtOGqxP5Tpyw=; b=n31OTsrMHBrU5SlDHZl+cESSmiLufE1Vzzh9cIDErXps+qim6s61FpNSJlRfYBqtKU tG+vIIb+vbHNsfj+YiF1R+vZFh7mab92RcPG+flQSCVOmpncYhb4IPX1+xMncfao88Wt u9G2bIsTYi1210Aeqp6OyE48x62s8C5MihqXEarhVVgJS5IXYBmB8nopj8knPJPA1m3U UgqlCZszWh0y4VJtNM9bYin5sGDlnNfEu83YnJyjKJrz1Qx6FJwn3vLvH1H6w0P8HVq+ VodMdrj4XsvaZIA3rEvJgsyWIrw3HfQW+/0nWyJha/jDORafixRAJ9Y7FN5TjryZJkBd znbA==
X-Received: by 10.107.166.79 with SMTP id p76mr2237878ioe.117.1450414397804; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:53:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from still.local ([184.13.114.26]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id s6sm2859555ioe.43.2015.12.17.20.53.16 for <dnsop@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 17 Dec 2015 20:53:16 -0800 (PST)
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <20151217020754.6915b71c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <1880287.khLzgcvgCq@linux-85bq.suse> <alpine.LFD.2.20.1512162310550.11575@bofh.nohats.ca> <5558437.kJynxENqMX@linux-85bq.suse>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <06f03de6-9691-897c-9bf1-f1894c842e2d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 23:53:15 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0a2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5558437.kJynxENqMX@linux-85bq.suse>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/nbezGTypZDaW-97vJnxbE--u-eg>
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 04:53:20 -0000


On 12/16/15 11:36 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:

>
> this is the new era of "anything goes" for DNS protocol development. as
> with client subnet, no matter how bad an idea is, if someone is already
> doing it, then the ietf documents that use.
>

Paul,

The idea is to document deviations to the DNS protocol that are being 
deployed publicly, focusing on their behavior in an operational context. 
  It is not attempting to claim that document is some protocol change. 
The same will go for DNS over HTTP as we start to see it being deployed 
more and more.

Shane's document is attempting to document variations in 
implementations. That's good - he mentioned one or two I had forgotten 
about.  Will the working group adopt it is another question for another day.

tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email