Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re: DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size)

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Tue, 12 June 2018 21:46 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 024D8130EAA for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:46:51 -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 MqSyG4l6zVEJ for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:46:48 -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 91667130F39 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [88.212.170.147] (port=60469 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 1fSr7h-0001Ol-J1 (Exim 4.72) for doh@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Tue, 12 Jun 2018 22:46:41 +0100
To: doh@ietf.org
References: <20180606093212.GA23880@server.ds9a.nl> <20180608170744.GY11227@mx4.yitter.info> <03DC5A73-4BAD-45FE-AC60-C8BC82FD5690@mnot.net> <23326.43186.501116.977750@gro.dd.org> <20180611202130.GA26355@server.ds9a.nl> <23326.61211.72657.945633@gro.dd.org> <1E183D79-5716-47E5-8604-A4F5DC7588C2@icann.org>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <045241e6-6d9f-162c-6ae3-0b10d59d21de@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 22:46:44 +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: <1E183D79-5716-47E5-8604-A4F5DC7588C2@icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/KrjpY4LAifJdxpwlVLSnZOh3rFA>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re: DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size)
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, 12 Jun 2018 21:46:52 -0000

On 12/06/2018 02:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> The DNS message format is defined specifically for two transports.
> Looking at the format without looking at the transports, one can
> imagine a message that cannot be carried in either format. However,
> the original specifications and all the ones since have always
> treated the message format as being handled in one of the two
> transports.
> 
> When we define a new transport that allows messages different than
> the ones we have always assumed, gatewaying those different messages
> will be different than gatewaying between the two current transports
> and thus have an impact on the rest of the DNS.

I do think it would be helpful to consider in more detail where DOH is
expected to sit in the DNS architecture.

Is it going to be a new "first class" transport (sic) protocol, or is it
merely a tunneling protocol for carrying DNS messages whose sole purpose
is to provide interworking for those that cannot use the "normal"
transport protocols because either a) there's a stoopid middlebox in the
way, or b) they're a web client ?

Ray