Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTTP in dnsop?
Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> Wed, 23 December 2015 07:56 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 1DCFC1ACD79 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:56:18 -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 IE_vdKqd_CJp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:56:17 -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 E5C111ACD76 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:56:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linux-85bq.suse (dhcp-87.wireless.lah1.vix.su [24.104.150.87]) (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 E8D821822D; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:56:21 +0000 (UTC)
From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:56:16 -0800
Message-ID: <1484194.YTxUDE5uZo@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: <CAMm+LwidgX3vNV77rhukd7n-OQE6kVO5ickQXX7ZYC_6FYtPfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20151217020754.6915b71c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <1999760.RBe1cJlAWr@linux-85bq.suse> <CAMm+LwidgX3vNV77rhukd7n-OQE6kVO5ickQXX7ZYC_6FYtPfQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="nextPart14679704.jJB0vhCtRE"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/rH7vnxMsQXO-dE1alBbbiE3ufzc>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, 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: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:56:18 -0000
On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 12:28:01 AM Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > If you want to do this... > > Why not just do Web Sockets and run plain old DNS over TCP. Its not > going to be tremendously fast but it is the shortest distance between > two points and there would be almost no new code needed. i think the goal is to get the web caching/proxy system to be able to cache dns results. using REST, this could be done. using websockets, not so much. but as a broader matter, you make a good point. ws and wss (websockets and secure websockets) would be a fine transport for dns-over-tcp in general, since it already has connection persistency, which is otherwise something that tcp/53 speakers will have to negotiate. -- P Vixie
- [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTTP in… Shane Kerr
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Robert Edmonds
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Shumon Huque
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Shane Kerr
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Mark Delany
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Mark Delany
- [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we try to… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we tr… joel jaeggli
- Re: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we tr… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we tr… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Mark Delany
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Mark Delany
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] "anything goes" (was Re: Should we tr… Tim Wicinski
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… George Michaelson
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [DNSOP] Should we try to work on DNS over HTT… Tony Finch