Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Thu, 07 June 2018 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 291E1130F1F for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 06:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 vLmoypZMo8AZ for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 06:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) (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 C0A98130F01 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 06:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:49770) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1fQvGw-000HBX-12 (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Thu, 07 Jun 2018 14:48:14 +0100
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 14:48:14 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
cc: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5B71AC15-80F4-427B-BABA-1BE3C514145F@icann.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806071447040.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <20180606093212.GA23880@server.ds9a.nl> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806061501340.10764@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <F5774061-35B9-477F-ADDA-8BB3472F30EF@icann.org> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806071121350.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <5B71AC15-80F4-427B-BABA-1BE3C514145F@icann.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/2_l2eLuv3BkaC5xcxY4J2KDUvrY>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] 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: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 13:48:20 -0000

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>; wrote:
>
> > EDNS buffer sizes need to be handled the samee as for TCP as well.
>
> RFC 6891 says that the payload size is for transport over UDP, not TCP.
> What change are you requesting here?

An explicit note that it doesn't apply to HTTP either. Maybe that is
obvious enough from RCF 6891 that it doesn't need restating?

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>;  http://dotat.at/
partnership and community in all areas of life