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

Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> Tue, 05 June 2018 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tale@dd.org>
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 030A4131123 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:49:56 -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, 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 qEqh5jnQ2nfa for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gro.dd.org (gro.dd.org [207.136.192.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC298131119 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gro.dd.org (Postfix, from userid 102) id 16B4823895; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:49:54 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <23318.52546.69002.683919@gro.dd.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:49:54 -0400
From: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
To: doh@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806051759430.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
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> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806051604150.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20180605152355.6tlbeqvt7luklwjl@nic.fr> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806051710290.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <BYAPR19MB22489BE90FE768BCB13BD40B94660@BYAPR19MB2248.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806051759430.1809@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/JSJFyeE5WX6GjlFzJPBmm03Autw>
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 17:49:56 -0000

Tony Finch writes:
> The point of this discussion is what the client is supposed to understand
> by TC in a response. RFC 1035 implies that (over TCP) TC must not be set
> by a server and must be ignored by a client. DoH should be the same.

I do not read that implication at all.  What I would understand as an
implementer if I got TC on any channel is that the message is missing
information it should otherwise have had.  Whether it has enough other
information to me to find useful is a separate matter, but it is still
providing useful signal that the message is incomplete.