Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sah-resolver-information

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 15 May 2019 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 E96531200A2 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=fwbMtqTc; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=oQ59pogA
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 CvAQwoWSSv3L for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03F7612010C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 83733 invoked from network); 15 May 2019 21:49:02 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=14713.5cdc894e.k1905; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=NEJ87gCau0j9SU3Ncwx1NzE2uUAmCQQNc4n6E+Dnhyc=; b=fwbMtqTc613Bqk9I9AiXcYwon9q7Ggw6040dTRNSeWqBguaDO/GmgDfCccDMv3oCE6ogntg0ZG4mwlm+/wMCaoo5D/rud3mk2z0RbKKM9M7++wHr24ozu8vF0W4/PcJOvvtT4WQ7TCQPgU57ldXJUgCXEUI47N6ZDWjNQlgHfw0PnhIAAmttKDMoph/rlbajOdGjluSIjJfhQW+VTKiQI/IWkH3dn6zrvXCahqEdnM3TkkE2BShdW7Akct8MJ+yh
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=14713.5cdc894e.k1905; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=NEJ87gCau0j9SU3Ncwx1NzE2uUAmCQQNc4n6E+Dnhyc=; b=oQ59pogAoK9SRhxbaC3q67CQ88Q0XILlC67818IkW/zWa7L1trhZqK6DYpBsvPlMqrNDr8JRVrvXOF2duEboArDqatmoiURnIQiE53dlpuhHbBgZPQ/s1Xhe+oycBmT1tPfLq9k5LbAnnzmhWCWXgv8QhTJGovxi1RB2jOvYMdxtMh9T4nZPgS+MofVLC6At4TITGxDagj3sBXOQbfM9wjWKOayYfYKgALS0OOP5NnxKg3RVPa+pIG4V3LVu+0IY
Received: from ary.qy ([64.246.232.221]) by imap.iecc.com ([64.57.183.75]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP; 15 May 2019 21:49:02 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 57C1D201436B6F; Wed, 15 May 2019 17:49:02 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 17:49:02 -0400
Message-Id: <20190515214902.57C1D201436B6F@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: paul.hoffman@icann.org
In-Reply-To: <C3668C33-E3DB-4267-AF5B-FDC46262CC8F@icann.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/yV-AnPa7bE2AYtcpWp4C2bbzmGE>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] New draft, seeking comments: draft-sah-resolver-information
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 15 May 2019 21:49:06 -0000

>> Also, for those who would like to use DNS queries, size does matter.
>> 
>> What to do if the inventory is too large for a DNS reply.
>
>DNS replies can be arbitrarily large.

A single RR can only be 64K since there's a 16 bit length field.

This reinforces my belief that this data belongs in an http or https
response not an ever more complex DNS thing.