Re: [Doh] [Ext] a tad confused on response sizes

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Thu, 07 June 2018 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 C5CE4130FD0 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 14:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 IJmua_9Pnccb for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 14:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F9CB130FCE for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 14:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 88-212-170-147.customer.gigaclear.net ([88.212.170.147]:51979 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1fR2Va-0002bZ-Jn (Exim 4.72) for doh@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Thu, 07 Jun 2018 22:31:50 +0100
To: doh@ietf.org
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>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <9b4abad9-5fdb-22cd-4ad4-eb4f9ca6b520@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 22:31:53 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <663E7B21-9107-4A2B-9DEB-E13475A4E5FF@icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/IFq6Fy3jdpJ-q9kZ14ZHgpohyP0>
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: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 21:31:57 -0000

On 05/06/2018 15:48, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> In both cases, the TC bit means "here's the best I got". 'Twas always thus.

There's a school of thought that says a TC response should contain the
absolute bare minimum, per RFC 6891, i.e. the question section, an OPT
RR if there was one in the original query, and *nothing else*.

Ray