Re: [Doh] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re: DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size)
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Sun, 10 June 2018 16:32 UTC
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
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 BA6CE130E81 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 09:32:58 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=nlDQsrL2; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=RkK8A+qt
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 n9fq6gdhbTBo for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 09:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2500A130E7C for <doh@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 09:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2EDBDEF9 for <doh@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:32:56 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1528648376; bh=gW+PjnpS1GMyi9TXDoSyZutfuwjkeTjUB9V9BLpXCLk=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nlDQsrL2mPKssq6VxtiNm/1DsivJwsLwMUyjzuCShNAOOdAkMs3/gbZ3aiV5TSAME wgEgE1wWJ4Zis+Y3ftUfKI3VJXKq/B2KBy/KoRvk2L/mcPvq1u7j4AWo9WVdciiRHr q6EiMGXeQRIIKiYowy+d/nMervmJskyJ/8NqNi+8=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6PGWgaG-nQwg for <doh@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:32:55 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 12:32:54 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1528648375; bh=gW+PjnpS1GMyi9TXDoSyZutfuwjkeTjUB9V9BLpXCLk=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=RkK8A+qtn+4SQzBo4Mz5EoJqGs/CEb/oj0IqTeMJF/0ZU5+rmc56hYgDRguHUY8u1 9KU4x+aEqP/QOyybCh5wLvoy2RH24ggp4rmGIZ8vc1Btij5qwCDWx5J1xabTR5qzO+ k2Nz0eIsnleD59DvqT/LGBc22NjheSgtNl0+5EQo=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: doh@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180610163253.GG8515@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <20180606093212.GA23880@server.ds9a.nl> <20180608170744.GY11227@mx4.yitter.info> <03DC5A73-4BAD-45FE-AC60-C8BC82FD5690@mnot.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <03DC5A73-4BAD-45FE-AC60-C8BC82FD5690@mnot.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/P5wwQRyWDsPtPapawCtPzhi4IQI>
Subject: Re: [Doh] 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: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 16:32:59 -0000
Hi, On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 03:07:53PM +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > "Cute" is a very loaded term. Apologies; I didn't mean to be loaded. I just mean that the claim is either true in a pretty unusual way, or it isn't really true. > Or we could just change "clients" to "client use cases," thereby removing the implication that it'll work when dropped in front of any existing client library (which isn't terribly interesting anyway, IMO). > Well, you might not find it interesting, but people who have been struggling with the limitations of DNS for a long time might find it interesting and might try to plumb their bog-standard DNS systems through this new transport -- especially if the document says that it's suitable for such use. > DNS may very well need a new architecture, but loading this responsibility onto DOH post-WGLC is asking too much of it, and is unfair to the folks who brought this work to the IETF in good faith. > If that is true, then it is illegitimate in the IETF context to notice a technical issue late in any document's life cycle and raise it. I don't think that's how the IETF works, and I think it would be an abuse of rough consensus to insist that, because a problem shows up late it shouldn't be taken into consideration since people brought work to the IETF in good faith and had been working on it. But in any case, my point is just that, whether we like it or don't, we are _in fact_ making a new architecture in this effort, and we're doing it with assumptions that appear not to line up correctly across the sub-communities who are working on the problem. That ought not to be too surprising: these are two important protocols that work in quite different ways, and the people who have worked on them over time, unsurprisingly, have developed different intuitions about what to expect. If we put them together, we're gong to find differences. It takes time to draw those out, and now we have drawn out an expectation that some people have because people have attempted to work through what the I-D will mean in practice. We ought to be pleased that we discover these corners now. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
- Re: [Doh] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re… Patrick McManus
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Puneet Sood
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Mateusz Jończyk
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Sara Dickinson
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Daniel Stenberg
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Sara Dickinson
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Daniel Stenberg
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Ray Bellis
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Patrick McManus
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Ben Schwartz
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Ben Schwartz
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Petr Špaček
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Ray Bellis
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… bert hubert
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Ray Bellis
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Tom Pusateri
- [Doh] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size bert hubert
- Re: [Doh] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size Petr Špaček
- Re: [Doh] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size Hewitt, Rory
- Re: [Doh] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size Benno Overeinder
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… George Michaelson
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Patrick McManus
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… bert hubert
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Patrick McManus
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Patrick McManus
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Ray Bellis
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Ray Bellis
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… bert hubert
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Robert Edmonds
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Mateusz Jończyk
- [Doh] AXFR as several messages Re: [Ext] DNS Came… bert hubert
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… John Dickinson
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Ray Bellis
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Patrick McManus
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Tony Finch
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Martin Thomson
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Mark Nottingham
- [Doh] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size Patrick McManus
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Ólafur Guðmundsson
- [Doh] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re: DN… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… bert hubert
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Patrick McManus
- Re: [Doh] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Mukund Sivaraman
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Patrick McManus
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Patrick McManus
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and messag… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re… bert hubert
- Re: [Doh] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re… Dave Lawrence
- Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (… Ray Bellis