Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Tue, 05 June 2018 16:43 UTC
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 6D21B13110C for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 09:43:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=ihYP9V+n; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=UQuBbUUl
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 XqP8VsoChXdK for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 09:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31043126CB6 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 09:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E4BBDEF9 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:42:29 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1528216949; bh=/Uz/dbjn+tm+WUKkXC2VYEfRnBjbQdkxu6PwRASTWHQ=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ihYP9V+n1QM7zNYmFsVFFUKxKBFddJ/9QxTl70+hd8pvY36gnlYxgodYM3qBoHMPb xmIsIFevVVw/c31A74MBuFZ4y+gKM7XoasRL9aeI01SyZ6KYwOWggZMlreKCAY0bY+ knzwiSNEZKOU7KeVnIyCM0H/fhNe9WiPPi2MYiLY=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e0nbdP6Rz2Eb for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 16:42:28 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 12:42:26 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1528216948; bh=/Uz/dbjn+tm+WUKkXC2VYEfRnBjbQdkxu6PwRASTWHQ=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=UQuBbUUlAJYCfrgISxBkZ4lrdhwUA2CRKNrXZvho6eL2dJb7fG8fTbdqqFemlBKw2 vX3DffiIzC/yeG+KMAAASSBy4nQuxNfVCyaFBCdn8rl+DYCCViUzZEruZYvDOHdBLE zjmRysKMvpjEpKMvoSsR9mpIWOdL3KggNuSzHAwA=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: doh@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180605164226.GN3011@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20180605120510.GA29047@server.ds9a.nl> <CFEAAD6E-4F9D-4DB5-A362-21775D74F84A@icann.org> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806051515510.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <663E7B21-9107-4A2B-9DEB-E13475A4E5FF@icann.org> <20180605145029.GI3011@mx4.yitter.info> <20180605151336.3rgte7rbnghvnekq@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180605151336.3rgte7rbnghvnekq@nic.fr>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/G9utG7WQZuBu8vTe_EFZVCOkq7o>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes
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: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 16:43:02 -0000
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 05:13:36PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Clearly defined, but certainly not implemented > everywhere. <vague>Many</vague> resolvers cannot retry over TCP. Oh, for sure. But I'm not trying to fault any document for developers not implementing things :) I'm just worried that this document doesn't actually tell anyone what to do if they get such a bit, or if it does I don't understand it. (This could well be a failing in me, please let me emphasise.) > Practically speaking, for the RFC, what do you suggest? Forbidding TC? > Then, what would the client do if it still receives one? (The point of > DoH is to use DNS wire format, so a client has to be ready for > anything which is legal DNS.) I wonder whether the TC should be an indicator that the upstream resolution process got a truncated response and was unable to fetch a response that was not truncated. In such a case, the DNS API client can do whatever it would do in such cases otherwise. (Some resolvers in that case throw some kind of error, whereas others will happily give you the truncated response and let you attempt to go ahead even if you may well have poison, &c &c.) I guess I don't have strong feelings about the right answer, but I want the handling to be clear. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Star Brilliant
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Patrick McManus
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Massimiliano Fantuzzi
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Ray Bellis
- [Doh] a tad confused on response sizes bert hubert
- Re: [Doh] a tad confused on response sizes Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] a tad confused on response sizes Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Star Brilliant
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Star Brilliant
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Star Brilliant
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes Tony Finch