IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsoverhttp] New draft: draft-hoffman-dns-over-http-00.txt

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Thu, 22 September 2016 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
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 9D8E812D851 for <dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.735
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 WpmZgRKoA7Gv for <dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode64.ducksong.com (linode6only.ducksong.com [IPv6:2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe6e:e8da]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05CAB12BBE3 for <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-f181.google.com (mail-io0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) by linode64.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 322E33A085 for <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:24:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-io0-f181.google.com with SMTP id m186so91006900ioa.2 for <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rnwczk5Q4zN3usBBDizG+G65gjRlY3T0Hj+lYk7xU0qPzCbGuv4djwx8rbxVQRoCLxafD1KiQcCcsVvYw==
X-Received: by 10.107.185.3 with SMTP id j3mr3995678iof.3.1474561486437; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.148.50 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVazzyAVM79p68U=j54J-s6hUErEm69bd7VCaEBTF2nbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <147438228195.28999.4355943522486567954.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D1E3CC44-FE5A-4ACE-90A1-EF9B5EE975D7@icann.org> <CABkgnnW5kOQGhZ59MevLuck_B7pBrDHRdUvQ-SyiA+JSNwHv9w@mail.gmail.com> <F5B939A3-4AB8-4174-837C-35906F4382BC@icann.org> <CABkgnnWCAdZ6VeQQ02rezMG2ZULCboDPFZhZGRn1O7Z=u9_umw@mail.gmail.com> <1D9A75DA-9DCD-4D6F-B3D8-7FB07AFC8485@icann.org> <CABkgnnVazzyAVM79p68U=j54J-s6hUErEm69bd7VCaEBTF2nbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:24:45 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqh1f1bVsnbL5fQvwJrvgDy07oUe2LQoq7XogRfDcTFcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqh1f1bVsnbL5fQvwJrvgDy07oUe2LQoq7XogRfDcTFcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c071c30994cf1053d1b1993"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsoverhttp/CEzyRGopQHKNsAD96PAppblEddI>
Cc: "dnsoverhttp@ietf.org" <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsoverhttp] New draft: draft-hoffman-dns-over-http-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dnsoverhttp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 22 Sep 2016 16:24:59 -0000

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> break HTTP.  The wire format in antithetical to my goal.  My thesis is
> that if we have the wire format, there's no incentive to do the other
> thing.
>
> I'm going to diverge a bit from both you and Paul on this point. I'm fine
with having multiple representations - I think that's a very HTTPish thing
to do and Paul makes a case for different environments reasonably wanting
different things. However, you don't really need a DNS-over-HTTP effort to
accomplish that.. the binding has the chance to further constrain the
question in order to reduce some of the ambiguity of basic HTTP and make it
more useful. If you implement a generic HTTP client there is no particular
reason to think that you would semantically be able to understand DNS data
coming from a server even if you interoperate on a HTTP level.. but if you
implement a DNS-over-HTTP client I would like to think that you would be
confident of being able to exchange DNS info with any server that pledged
fidelity to the same specification - thus MTI as a baseline but go ahead
and use content negotiation to have other representations if you like.

>
> I have to disagree about this being small.  Done right, this could be
> a big deal.
>

+1

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email