IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 05 June 2018 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: doh@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A842C13111A for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 1WKIiNuLM2Mu for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 3DACE13112E for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id B2D102806C8; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:23:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id ACB142806D1; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:23:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59912806CC; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:23:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28BF6427BE0; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:23:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 97107401BD; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:23:55 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 17:23:55 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>, "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180605152355.6tlbeqvt7luklwjl@nic.fr>
References: <20180605120510.GA29047@server.ds9a.nl> <CFEAAD6E-4F9D-4DB5-A362-21775D74F84A@icann.org> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806051515510.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <663E7B21-9107-4A2B-9DEB-E13475A4E5FF@icann.org> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806051604150.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806051604150.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.4
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-6-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000007, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2018.6.5.151516
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/-Bf92CkZcw-pQvYlQKxTERxkD_s>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <doh.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/doh/>
List-Post: <mailto:doh@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh>, <mailto:doh-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 15:24:05 -0000

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 04:07:42PM +0100,
 Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote 
 a message of 25 lines which said:

> No, TC means "I have more to tell you but it wouldn't fit in your buffer".

TC is supposed to be hop-to-hop but DoH makes things more complicated,
the HTTPS link having different semantics. For DoH, it means (I quote
the -10 draft) "I was not able to retrieve a full answer for the query
but I give you the best answer I could get"

PS : what happens when a DNS-over-TCP client receives a truncated
answer over TCP? It is technically possible and nobody expects RFC
7766 to address this point.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email