Re: [Doh] New query formats

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 04 April 2018 05:44 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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 38BC8127078 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 22:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 L7A-iJ0oCkpw for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 22:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot0-x233.google.com (mail-ot0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9B4F12702E for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 22:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot0-x233.google.com with SMTP id h55-v6so20533569ote.9 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 22:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hZ6m6l2k5ALUwjWZslWSb/VtUrfgpYQjCmknrs+9i7E=; b=YnopcTen6kQhdgQGaMtPhCXJQY8+Bth+K9X/zwoag2tut7PfzCnRGf9oo9MyXauwyy TuvonNMvYrl9bex65Jgr+uQtaUZ+7sHDQSBDW0e3WqQ+sr5SvMvbVot+43O+gEDRHBQ4 s71M6YslkOMdHY0w2km6jm+g9wkHx1hgqT/0ICM/gQjQ/+01Owha0tVLXIzBP2U8Z+ct ioRq6AR2wCH+y4uFeR65P1oIuJ7KIx+zS6+01V+zAeYiliSTsj9LufN0DxrkCq7yYZBC YaHkOxzhEBQJJAvEYvlkeu6k754H8UQWpv4Mq8mxYvLB/MBXnLnuWUfch9oIqi84+Cmx Ydtg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hZ6m6l2k5ALUwjWZslWSb/VtUrfgpYQjCmknrs+9i7E=; b=rtI/biKsrN1ooJ0kyGubmoTd6ZpBxclFBHQS4gWfGAlyDTu/lpwgmobKMcDG29Qfx4 hYJpPfvUtddimEnw9ANXnTxnBOWtQVVjT9s8K0y1FG9y5rSEKzzODpo9Ew2JQr0QJQxG vcQpObhje/G46TYX1J6xkuPEOzwveVk7ycPcJ4/BvRlbJ3ulg8v7jZxE/gN3cFIgi4ME EmLFbfCetJuE8M+JoabvmiLuZgy9kzoQFwmengazM5kMyU4E0juutP/ISOAIs98+l29j rOTbroRvGXmJl1yx6qJT8l0NU6w0ZsG/7DvWWlLtrKXkkPW7gCfS9N1M/EK0xPvDUqvJ 0Tfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tA9gtn2/S63s6/uNCimccqK7jRZ4OmN+CELnVp7cKaZbU5FnsIt Z+qKPCPN/n4J1AZ+GcPsVSN8TrWNSdIM8QLBNN8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48itYQu2drx20WVhAhmST27DZM+oK/SzodfK/hEJrj5jiIRLPIVOEyf1Y29ZQ9g6tVjfRST/6VMRsOiU07+jHA=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:29ea:: with SMTP id g39-v6mr10333303otd.241.1522820663162; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 22:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a9d:ac7:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 22:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsB3ecOipRV6zg-pPqhuwxPPMi8mTiPjCVVBDnfgYdpzjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnVf_bEsxkTuFeCLO+PxUu6cYb1K-5j1C4LzOsrt0-V6HQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180326083031.2bco57z33vyty766@nic.fr> <CAHbrMsB3ecOipRV6zg-pPqhuwxPPMi8mTiPjCVVBDnfgYdpzjw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:44:22 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXa7w0sEtQ+CFLTOFvFk4s74L291VCveq+qLYOxcP2wDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/9O760V8BZ89wR9nFEisKUHX5NGQ>
Subject: Re: [Doh] New query formats
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 04 Apr 2018 05:44:26 -0000

I don't know about Stephane, but I can live with this.

Yes, it kicks the can down the road a little with respect to new query
formats, but it doesn't foreclose on them.  And as I said, without a
discovery process we don't really have a good path to introducing new
query formats.

Note that mostly only applies to GET.  POST can use new content types
with all the costs associated with that, or it can do the same as
proposed for GET.

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:53 AM, Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> wrote:
> This suggestion has now been implemented in draft-05.  Do you feel the new
> text achieves your goal?
>
> In particular, I will note the following sentences:
>
>> The DNS API server defines the URI used by the
>> request through the use of a URI Template [RFC6570].  Configuration
>> and discovery of the URI Template is done out of band from this
>> protocol.
>
>
> and
>
>> These examples use a DNS API service with a URI Template of
>>    "https://dnsserver.example.net/dns-query{?dns}"
>
>
> Based on this text, it seems to me that if a client is configured out of
> band with a template of this kind, and the server is later upgraded to
> support additional query forms, the client cannot exercise those forms until
> after a new out-of-band configuration update, because it does not have any
> instructions about how to map the new values into a URI.
>
> This is in contrast to draft-04's URL-based configuration, which would allow
> a client to attempt new query forms without requiring a configuration
> update.
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:30 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 02:32:40PM +0000,
>>  Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote
>>  a message of 45 lines which said:
>>
>> > 3. Specify that other parameters can be used to carry information
>> > about queries.  Servers that find unknown query parameters MUST ignore
>> > them.
>> >
>> > 4. Define a new registry for header field parameters.  (The URI
>> > template would have covered this neatly, so you could avoid that.)
>>
>> Yes, RFC 6570 is the right way to specify these parameters.
>>
>> You can get some inspiration from my (old) DNS looking glass:
>>
>> http://www.bortzmeyer.org/dns-lg-usage.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Doh mailing list
>> Doh@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>
>