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

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 05 June 2018 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 06418126F72 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 VomSOVXkMT_s for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64C2C128CF3 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:34818) by ppsw-32.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.138]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1fQGI4-000Mp9-0t (Exim 4.91) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Tue, 05 Jun 2018 19:02:40 +0100
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 19:02:40 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
cc: "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <61406BA8-2C05-4BBC-8F88-92C21A23D294@icann.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806051855030.1809@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> <61406BA8-2C05-4BBC-8F88-92C21A23D294@icann.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/Py0gC7AAQta6veFbnwdJJynWXZ0>
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 18:02:45 -0000

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>; wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>; wrote:
> > RFC 1035 implies that (over TCP) TC must not be set
> > by a server and must be ignored by a client.
>
> I don't see that implication in RFC 1035.

On the server side, RFC 1035 does not say that the TC bit is for TCP
transports, therefore it is left clear. On the client side, TC only has a
defined meaning for UDP.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>;  http://dotat.at/
Fitzroy, Sole: Northerly 4 or 5, becoming variable 3 or 4, then southerly 4 or
5 later in west. Slight or moderate. Showers at first, rain later in west.
Good, occasionally poor.