Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re: DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size)

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org> Wed, 13 June 2018 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <muks@mukund.org>
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 3780E130F15 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 2qcTPMz78pZj for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.banu.com (mail.banu.com [46.4.129.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D6E130E87 for <doh@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jurassic (unknown [14.194.235.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.banu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0364732C0972; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:30:16 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 01:00:11 +0530
From: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org>
To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: petr.spacek@nic.cz, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180613193011.GB2792@jurassic>
References: <03DC5A73-4BAD-45FE-AC60-C8BC82FD5690@mnot.net> <23326.43186.501116.977750@gro.dd.org> <20180611202130.GA26355@server.ds9a.nl> <23326.61211.72657.945633@gro.dd.org> <1E183D79-5716-47E5-8604-A4F5DC7588C2@icann.org> <045241e6-6d9f-162c-6ae3-0b10d59d21de@bellis.me.uk> <6BB0D47F-2BA3-4D9A-A125-1D1E180B06E0@icann.org> <53c320bc-6ea0-21f4-c7a1-1da34bbdb38d@nic.cz> <CAHbrMsBoKE-pfz97ZDb9ReLKMedk2KJ7xLCw_MPmxVtqF7PcuA@mail.gmail.com> <20180613192030.GA2792@jurassic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180613192030.GA2792@jurassic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/03LXaamVZTze_fxAUP5yFmiApig>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re: DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size)
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: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:30:21 -0000

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:50:30AM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> and we're talking about zone transfers. Zone transfers are not DNS
> queries. So what's the limit of this charter?

Before someone pedantically points out this, AXFRs are sent as DNS QUERY
but they're not a DNS query in the layman's sense and the charter isn't
talking about the opcode. :P

		Mukund