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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Tue, 12 June 2018 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
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 C29CA130FDF for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 aeEJlwuux5ii for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (unknown [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D712130EE8 for <doh@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:19:03 -0700
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:19:03 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
CC: "doh@ietf.org" <doh@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re: DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size)
Thread-Index: AQHUApbj6sr7HpgoCUqfpeUX7P+jQqRdpuYA
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 22:19:03 +0000
Message-ID: <6BB0D47F-2BA3-4D9A-A125-1D1E180B06E0@icann.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> <045241e6-6d9f-162c-6ae3-0b10d59d21de@bellis.me.uk>
In-Reply-To: <045241e6-6d9f-162c-6ae3-0b10d59d21de@bellis.me.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <289DDDA2E449D24BBD31C8B429D252DC@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/SLTCL7_GNSzjI3eQNtFvFnQ_CGs>
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 22:19:07 -0000

On Jun 12, 2018, at 2:46 PM, Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>; wrote:
> I do think it would be helpful to consider in more detail where DOH is
> expected to sit in the DNS architecture.

This is the DNS: "is expected" almost always turns out to be wrong. (No smiley appended.)

The same can be said for HTTP.

> 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 ?

These are good questions, but if we try to base our protocol on what "is expected" and our expectations turn out to be wrong, we will probably design the protocol badly. 

--Paul Hoffman