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

Ray Bellis <> Tue, 12 June 2018 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024D8130EAA for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MqSyG4l6zVEJ for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:46:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91667130F39 for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (port=60469 helo=rays-mbp.local) by ([]:465) with esmtpsa ( (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1fSr7h-0001Ol-J1 (Exim 4.72) for (return-path <>); Tue, 12 Jun 2018 22:46:41 +0100
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ray Bellis <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re: DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 ?