IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] [Ext] DoH client-server interoperability vs. strict HTTP parameter checking

Christoph <cm@appliedprivacy.net> Sat, 01 June 2019 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <cm@appliedprivacy.net>
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 D4C4F120110 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2019 09:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=appliedprivacy.net header.b=fYO5/tXe; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=appliedprivacy.net header.b=lYEbMNHt
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 0SxxuMzEUX4O for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Jun 2019 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.mailbox.org (mx2a.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:104:0:2:25:2]) (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 213AE120099 for <doh@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Jun 2019 09:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:105:465:1:1:0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 490BBA0121 for <doh@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Jun 2019 18:39:38 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d= appliedprivacy.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language :content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:mime-version:date:date :message-id:from:from:references:subject:subject:received; s= v20171117; t=1559407175; bh=DoVkuJ2tdy7yx/bz2aF8xAAQpbLalIa7axGN q1zmcow=; b=fYO5/tXerPfDa7nWJrpUe4w7AavlcHKwKkYjT+eI/B66OUrGmrDf AuGD6tp0slhBzlm8qASANbVbFEi/jzywHFURPZIXFAntcwXVBW7Mm5X6M527Rjf1 MfCRLu5S7kkKv0t5b+RwuaR4jyJeFUO+lp+wMl0gLU3hUESDzzBeoZqyt+H1361e itvXaRECwXBy7iULPQbe4UeObQv1comcrn6Es6lbTnheOj4PIhuDZVPPpsocXQ4h +LugjwHlm2Hoe7hMqQlvpyrAM9/7akElTpmvGThY85lzdETNyhjKz8RT7ceMRIRE VjEZFcZlvUKbN37cW0Rc/f7Kf4bLeJb7iA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=appliedprivacy.net; s=v20171117; t=1559407178; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DoVkuJ2tdy7yx/bz2aF8xAAQpbLalIa7axGNq1zmcow=; b=lYEbMNHt4b/7nT3fKx/Q7X5HD8h8NE865O9opl8/PyTyqh5Bg3xxNS2GmHi95Tz58NfyOc K2yurDs7k4E0Esi/EX45H6aZOv2MtC6v0cgZhv2jvVOaWVsPox1JR7juOSadtMYie9NYCH O1hEx4rHqhk7iY2bFgbfmo5Lfp4+m2yrrIBprSwJ5gJE5B3qPS75hTihKsm5ZBd8T0WUUg bUV6qj4d6rvGSomBXKeIxETJz8hbzM1j8pnrESiRS0SffDMZta3qx8KGfWJmFp1AyxBmPT f8XHimxaEjhXsEmrlGRFila+pT0Fc/axmtDWYxnnAtgYYEvTXblcq5IgsQIJKg==
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de
Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.240]) by spamfilter04.heinlein-hosting.de (spamfilter04.heinlein-hosting.de [80.241.56.122]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id hcDGr-FG2q0z for <doh@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Jun 2019 18:39:35 +0200 (CEST)
To: doh@ietf.org
References: <770d0bf0-0a93-4d9a-4cb1-1f1e44c584aa@appliedprivacy.net> <F46C6B72-BD56-4C5C-9E10-26AC9B187102@icann.org> <20190601160830.10633.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net>
From: Christoph <cm@appliedprivacy.net>
Message-ID: <5f49f8d7-0f05-e7ba-79d4-d0cf9384692c@appliedprivacy.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2019 16:39:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190601160830.10633.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/1D0wZF6qUKwKG_wXttJmVayZcI8>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] DoH client-server interoperability vs. strict HTTP parameter checking
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 01 Jun 2019 16:39:44 -0000

>>> should DoH servers be less strict and simply ignore additional HTTP
>>> parameters and proceed with processing the relevant HTTP parameters
>>> required to provide an answer?
>>
>> Yes.

Thanks for the clear reply I hope this is heard.


> Out of curiousity, what are these extraneous parameters and why is the
> client sending them? Are they relevant to the DoH query?

Before version 05, the draft had additional parameter (ct)
which some (old) clients apparently still send.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email