Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 07:46:56PM -0400, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 05:31:24PM -0400, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> > > I'm a DNS person
> > 
> > …
> 
> You're questioning that assertion?

Certainly not!  That was very much my point -- that you have a lot of
experience with the protocol and know how far it sometimes is in
practice from what the documents say.

> Completely agree.  So if Patrick and Paul add the warning, you're on
> board?

I think if we can come up with the right words, then it'll make things
less risky, but I also worry about the deployment story unless we can
figure out what to do if something in the pipeline can't take the
"jumbo" messages.

> code should be able to avoid.  If someone is writing DoH code and
> concerned that they might be pumping a message longer than 64k
> directly into a API that you are even a little unsure of its ability
> to handle messages of that size, then don't do that.

That's the kind of risk I would rather not take: IMO the protocol
needs to say what happens in case something can't take these
new-fangled messages, I think.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]