Re: [Doh] Support requirements for Get and Post

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Sat, 17 March 2018 13:47 UTC

Return-Path: <pmcmanus@mozilla.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 D3AE6126DCA for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 06:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 NYmkyvkbNp6O for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 06:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode64.ducksong.com (www.ducksong.com [192.155.95.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAE5E12708C for <doh@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 06:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f46.google.com (mail-oi0-f46.google.com [209.85.218.46]) by linode64.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 790CC3A021 for <doh@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 09:47:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e79so6941592oih.1 for <doh@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 06:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GtZmY6uY49pDL5D2dCXbCxKGu8zAIeylQ12TmRHGdgF6j4u+Hy sM49eCjWXrZseREIKg9eMd469RsIXaHh4+7eB8g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELteiIxSW66xPXWnTXSYvTfD96+YAdIdLMpQllVj1iia3L6kl3UTL5TMML+ES5SF/prtC1rW8Wp0rZjZpooJAPk=
X-Received: by 10.202.6.195 with SMTP id 186mr3152805oig.347.1521294438234; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 06:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.74.66.212 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Mar 2018 06:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNq7e5YGtUap6tHu34zX5q1PvmQjAh+fc0m=xcRDUrmKhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN6NTqzkUeF79y=heQ7PK7T3mQVDDk5WRtqB-npi6PuQ2s5bNQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803171337530.1331@tvnag.unkk.fr> <CAN6NTqykeU1gT0TaDKahBPeF-a8gwYG7gsAEK_aSE0fNP-AsfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNq7e5YGtUap6tHu34zX5q1PvmQjAh+fc0m=xcRDUrmKhA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:47:17 +0000
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqGvPRH3SzP_tkHVZHr-geacqDBa+QfoqXGVxFWW2qr2A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqGvPRH3SzP_tkHVZHr-geacqDBa+QfoqXGVxFWW2qr2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?w5NsYWZ1ciBHdcOwbXVuZHNzb24=?= <olafur@cloudflare.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, doh@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c13f9a097027005679bf66e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/B9dhhN2tCQegxoqm_CbNS9izUAI>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Support requirements for Get and Post
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: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:47:21 -0000

Overall I think the draft does an OK job of describing the merits of
get/post (post is more efficient but is not http cache friendly, get is
needed for cases like push and is more http cache friendly). If folks think
its imperative to have that summary in one place in the document I'm happy
to make that change.

I would think most clients relying on http caches for performance would use
get, but if they have a DNS cache they are populating they would use post.
A server can choose not to implement one of these (and "method not allowed"
is the right response for that imo), but its limiting what clients can
achieve with it.

-P


On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>;
wrote:

> push #1: anticipate other needs of the client (as mentioned)
>
> push #2: its a different way to express additional records if that's a
> desirable thing (e.g. ttl granularity)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Ólafur Guðmundsson <olafur@cloudflare.com
> > wrote:
>
>> What is the usage case to Server push of DNS answers ?
>>
>> Olafur
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>; wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
>>>
>>> Post MUST be supported Get MAY be supported, when GET is not supported
>>>> the error code retuned should be 405 (HTTP RFC 7321, section 6.5.5).
>>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't say this, and it is a side-note about methods, but I still
>>> wanted to just mention that when imlementing support for HTTP/2 server push
>>> for DOH, you want the server to send that as a GET so that the query string
>>> tells the client about the request it also sends the response to...
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>  / daniel.haxx.se
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Doh mailing list
>> Doh@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>>
>>
>