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

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 23 December 2015 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 A94731A1A54 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:34:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=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 fdCnGDXIOvhn for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:34:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (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 012941A039C for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.32.60.87] (50-1-98-110.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id tBNFYvZX013366 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:34:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-110.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.110] claimed to be [10.32.60.87]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:35:01 -0800
Message-ID: <D6EDA407-F82A-48E0-8DFC-161B8790827B@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4909572.yk9lYxXkhq@linux-85bq.suse>
References: <20151217020754.6915b71c@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <2858865.LSerpu06UP@linux-85bq.suse> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1512221056460.959@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4909572.yk9lYxXkhq@linux-85bq.suse>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5187)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zK53vtuKluH5waTJzuxFNblZV9A>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
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 15:34:59 -0000

On 22 Dec 2015, at 19:58, Paul Vixie wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:00:22 AM Tony Finch wrote:
>> Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 21, 2015 01:13:10 PM Tony Finch wrote:
>>>> The current way to deal with out-of-order responses and 
>>>> head-of-line
>>>> blocking in HTTP is HTTP/2.
>>>
>>> since http/2 is a completely new protocol, i think that's a strange 
>>> way
>>> to say it.
>>
>> Not completely - it has the same message semantics, they "just" 
>> changed
>> how the messages are transported.
>>
>> So another way of phrasing my previous message is that DNS-over-HTTP 
>> ought
>> to be "just" a mapping from DNS messages to HTTP messages.
>
> i agree. the only specification matter is the transform between 
> message formats. there's no
> reason to talk about transport at all.

-1. The IETF has a decade-old rule that you cannot just say "send stuff 
over HTTP" without considering the HTTP-specific semantics. If you want 
this to be an IETF WG document, you have to do things the IETF way.

--Paul Hoffman