Re: [Doh] [Ext] DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size

Mateusz Jończyk <mat.jonczyk@o2.pl> Fri, 08 June 2018 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mat.jonczyk@o2.pl>
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 C3B4C130E79 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 04:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 bMI31GOzjs26 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 04:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx-out.tlen.pl (mx-out.tlen.pl [193.222.135.142]) (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 ED891130E78 for <doh@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jun 2018 04:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (wp-smtpd smtp.tlen.pl 28976 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2018 13:21:58 +0200
Received: from acla231.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl (HELO [192.168.1.22]) (mat.jonczyk@o2.pl@[83.10.102.231]) (envelope-sender <mat.jonczyk@o2.pl>) by smtp.tlen.pl (WP-SMTPD) with ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted SMTP for <doh@ietf.org>; 8 Jun 2018 13:21:58 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mateusz_Jo=c5=84czyk?= <mat.jonczyk@o2.pl>
To: John Dickinson <jad@sinodun.com>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
References: <20180606093212.GA23880@server.ds9a.nl> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1806061501340.10764@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <F5774061-35B9-477F-ADDA-8BB3472F30EF@icann.org> <CAOdDvNq9g3ghbg9fkfhP+ZA4-6E5oDNFCGo6NN9bydqUX76cLA@mail.gmail.com> <20180607093647.GB32326@server.ds9a.nl> <CAOdDvNriZDjU9yqUQjqN4fO84ENPWO3si-QePiKRgt+7VJVK0g@mail.gmail.com> <23321.27027.73356.94056@gro.dd.org> <CAOdDvNr=kLHPCtCHRx4=rpA1oDogQqdAJ0nR156BWABiFP_bzA@mail.gmail.com> <20180607215851.GA32738@server.ds9a.nl> <CAOdDvNqNpZ8fKPCO5sEqjROBHjg4wx-GGPMYSSynode10jeC0Q@mail.gmail.com> <20180608101102.GA12334@jurassic> <28E66CE7-6F25-4074-958D-AA566DE3A0BC@sinodun.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <c0b0ca9b-4d55-27e3-fa52-754e96b3e70f@o2.pl>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 13:21:49 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28E66CE7-6F25-4074-958D-AA566DE3A0BC@sinodun.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JgqpmZUf9eAYZZ4QxkQzLcshSheoLpaUf"
X-WP-MailID: 79d14b6cc01904a48dc7613f01b563be
X-WP-AV: skaner antywirusowy Poczty o2
X-WP-SPAM: NO 0000000 [IdPE]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/SokVOFWXHY8Dq07Kb31AK-qXXYA>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] 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: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 11:22:04 -0000

W dniu 08.06.2018 o 12:33, John Dickinson pisze:
> On 8 Jun 2018, at 11:11, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 11:34:19AM +0200, Patrick McManus wrote:
>>> I'm not on board with limiting a 2018 protocol to 64KB variants because
>>> some parser of some some format might have a bug.
>>
>> It's not "some parser".. for a long time implementations have assumed
>> 64kB for message formats and these are implicit assumptions. It isn't
>> reasonable to alter this now. RFC 1035 is from 1987 and these implicit
>> assumptions have remained so for the last 30 years.
>>
>> It is ok if you want to prepare different rules in 2018, but please
>> don't call it DNS.
> 
> +1, I totally agree.

I have been absent from much of this discussion, but I also would support
limiting message size to 64kB.

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:58 PM, bert hubert <bert.hubert@powerdns.com wrote:
> In the interest of reaching consensus, can we park this discussion until
> another message type is invented and standardised that is not a DNS message
> in "wire format"?
+1


Greetings,
Mateusz