Re: [Doh] [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8484 (6033)

[Ben Schwartz <[e-mail]>]

The purpose of this text is to reiterate that DNS records pushed from
untrusted and unrecognized sources must be discarded.

As Barry noted, the word "simply" is important here.  It is being used as a
synonym for "merely", i.e. there must be some other good reason to use the
record.  Following a redirect seems like a good reason!

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:10 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> (1)
>
> I went with an errata because I thought the document does not contain any
> internal inconsistency, but this discussion reveals there is one. While
> waiting for a document, I do think that at minimum we need a record for
> this. Tagging this errata as "held for document update" would be
> appropriate.
>
> (2)
>
> What about this part of the errata:
>
> * How a different URI can be discovered using server push? Can you please
> provide a flow example?
>
>    A DoH client MUST NOT use a different URI simply because it was
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    discovered outside of the client's configuration (such as through
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    HTTP/2 server push)
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Paul Hoffman [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Envoyé : mardi 31 mars 2020 16:48
> > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> > Cc : [e-mail]; David Lawrence; Ben Schwartz; Patrick McManus;
> > Murray S. Kucherawy; Barry Leiba; RFC Editor
> > Objet : Re: [Doh] [Ext] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8484 (6033)
> >
> > On Mar 31, 2020, at 2:03 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > I'm now more puzzled about the intent of the document with regards
> > to redirection:
> >
> > That's fine, and you are not alone. But the proper resolution of that
> > puzzlement is not an erratum, it is a document update.
> >
> > --Paul Hoffman
>