IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsoverhttp] [Ext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hoffman-dns-over-https-00.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Thu, 04 May 2017 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C56112EA94 for <dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 08:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 zRnMl9Kr15S5 for <dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 May 2017 08:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (pfe112-ca-2.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EAF11293EB for <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 May 2017 08:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Thu, 4 May 2017 08:46:07 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Thu, 4 May 2017 08:46:07 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
CC: "dnsoverhttp@ietf.org" <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [dnsoverhttp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hoffman-dns-over-https-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSxO2LuTXNi9qbxkCcUbyDEcx3UA==
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 15:46:07 +0000
Message-ID: <AF2D8CFF-D461-443D-891F-9A1B7196B65A@icann.org>
References: <149386734028.4783.5496348785626743035.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAOdDvNpKuFB0hB33Dpc_oyR6SPOeDVbfD0oGxgpF3KzHf03bgA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnV9AV-_qWq6tAA8AVaQgdf74pHWdSc3c7hy42PqvEnY-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNqhU2z4-Lq4iN=fw_NXLMmoDo1qy8-qfDps3YOvX4MpyQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsDg0cDSRcD3A+t94Xtf-Ccmtu4zr5m7Q1822Qw7mUcwHQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsDg0cDSRcD3A+t94Xtf-Ccmtu4zr5m7Q1822Qw7mUcwHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_15524911-D99D-4E78-8F56-72B27CBE4F95"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsoverhttp/B0IQD2nhL7ua2r56AHJ8JbGE1Hg>
Subject: Re: [dnsoverhttp] [Ext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hoffman-dns-over-https-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsoverhttp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of DNS over HTTP <dnsoverhttp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsoverhttp>, <mailto:dnsoverhttp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsoverhttp/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsoverhttp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsoverhttp>, <mailto:dnsoverhttp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 15:46:17 -0000

On May 4, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> wrote:
> The text is
>    In order to maximize cache friendliness, DNS API Clients SHOULD use
>    the same ID (the first two bytes of the header) for every DNS
>    request.
> 
> That's enough to ensure that the same client making the same request hits the cache, but it's not enough to make sure that _different_ clients can hit a shared cache.  Even different tabs in the same browser won't share the browser cache unless they select matching IDs.
> 
> Personally, I would just skip these two bytes.  Instead of being "part of the DNS format", I think of the ID as being a generic miniature RPC protocol, which we are replacing with HTTP.  Failing that, I would say the ID MUST be zero.

If we're going to use the wire protocol (which I think is good, particularly for extensions), then it should actually be the wire protocol. Therefore, I would strongly prefer "MUST be zero" to "be close to, but not exactly, the wire protocol but not exactly in order to help caching".

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email