Re: [dnsoverhttp] [Ext] DNS over HTTP: next steps?

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Tue, 17 January 2017 20:45 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 4955412950B for <dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:45:39 -0800 (PST)
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 WYV6Cd41liMA for <dnsoverhttp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:45:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from linode64.ducksong.com (www.ducksong.com [192.155.95.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BC81294D7 for <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:45:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-f172.google.com (mail-qt0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by linode64.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4FC63A0A7 for <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:45:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: by mail-qt0-f172.google.com with SMTP id x49so178272957qtc.2 for <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:45:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIDWXUeYcCeBgq5K3XuQcs1ybWh0IWsEsZcc1dK0ySedujDQMkFPJYXc2JTF4iKVc2Y4jaAvdkilfLhtg==
X-Received: by 10.55.43.158 with SMTP id r30mr42531738qkr.28.1484685935620; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:45:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.157.12 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:45:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxpsx-W2yx9sWZZFPYaT8PxZjTRFMpaTm=VMrPQyoZ0A9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161221171207.06fb9acb@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <AE968DEF-3E00-420E-9EC6-6D12AF81E3E7@icann.org> <CAOdDvNpOPE7rD6Hqeeo-xf1co6HG2+Jx_BSFG4hLeFA9GC4=HQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABWuLVetY+2ocnVAn-AhfuJ=GqEQFqmHtsapXE9Ef7uyaM4JEA@mail.gmail.com> <20170106110522.7f181abf@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <CAAedzxrui3ayuurjYxv+d1A1ghnaQWS1-VXFuOVpLKm+CB2jEQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170117182815.70957a27@pallas.home.time-travellers.org> <CAAedzxpsx-W2yx9sWZZFPYaT8PxZjTRFMpaTm=VMrPQyoZ0A9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:45:35 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNp55kCbB205421D4pvyto4LqM+Z69-LUvxX71WLPKunfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNp55kCbB205421D4pvyto4LqM+Z69-LUvxX71WLPKunfg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1149430ecbf9630546506104"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsoverhttp/LtCeTPaaBeUOtQYiwDzrwqpRgoY>
Cc: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org>, "dnsoverhttp@ietf.org" <dnsoverhttp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsoverhttp] [Ext] DNS over HTTP: next steps?
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: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:45:39 -0000

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:

> I suspect the thing to do is find the right way to refer to the right HTTP
> transport text.  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.3 and
> subsections have thoughts on this.
>
> So maybe, if this progresses, just:
>
>     - never prefix a message with 2 byte lengths (a la DNS over TCP)
>     - use whatever the HTTP transport wants to use
>     - profit?
>

if that draft were to go forward I think that's right. Its the transport's
job to do the framing for you.. don't constrain it by referring to
content-length or chunking or you may find yourself incompatible with the
transport (which rather defeats the purpose of using HTTP). Even referring
to 7230 is over constraining, as 7540 (http/2) does things differently and
there's no reason to be incompatible with that.

focus on the definition of a media type, and let HTTP worry about the
transport and negotiation of alternate types (should they exist).