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

bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com> Wed, 13 June 2018 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bert@hubertnet.nl>
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 B86AB130EB2 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 03:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 xwaHX_nM5pa4 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 03:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xs.powerdns.com (xs.powerdns.com [82.94.213.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60CF1130EAC for <doh@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 03:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.ds9a.nl (unknown [86.82.68.237]) by xs.powerdns.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 138749FB55 for <doh@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:16:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by server.ds9a.nl (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EF7BFAC5F94; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:16:00 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:16:00 +0200
From: bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com>
To: doh@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180613101600.GB14462@server.ds9a.nl>
References: <20180606093212.GA23880@server.ds9a.nl> <20180608170744.GY11227@mx4.yitter.info> <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> <23328.39662.854936.357114@gro.dd.org> <157c9cfb-ed84-4635-9c67-f9726adfccce@bellis.me.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <157c9cfb-ed84-4635-9c67-f9726adfccce@bellis.me.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/6aeBl-aWqzZDtLpUbECfKZP-ajw>
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 10:16:07 -0000

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:59:42AM +0100, Ray Bellis wrote:
> > It isn't clear to me how you could meaningfully restrict it from being
> > a "'first class' transport".  Fiat declaration sure wouldn't do it.
> 
> To be a first class transport IMHO it would have to update STD13.

Indeed. This would then also have to define TCP TC=1 behaviour and how
resolvers need to then use the third first-class transport called DOH.

It makes little sense to tell everyone they can use this protocol but leave
the semantics of inevitable downstream effects of its use undefined. 

If there were no downstream effects, for example if we restrict the protocol
to <65535 bytes, life would be a lot easier.

    Bert