Re: [Doh] [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: Alternate proposal for transport indication in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http

[Ray Bellis <[e-mail]>]

On 04/04/2018 15:54, Paul Vixie wrote:
> ray, i won't engage on the question, should i want to do this. the
> working group mantra is interoperability -- as in, if you want to do
> this, here's an interoperable way. i'm not asking that the working group
> ratify the intent, or recommend the method. (as went ECS.)
> 
> the proxy is transparent. we list it in resolv.conf or as a forwarder.
> it regenerates the queries on the far side. it has to differentiate
> between tcp and udp because the unmodified client is making strategy
> decisions and implementing those using that transport choice.
> 
> this is not a service. DOH is a service. this is a proxy, which i would
> like to have be interoperable. please don't ask me to change what i want
> to build; that would be out-of-scope.

I'm not sure that we're talking about the same sort of proxy.

I'm more concerned with the sort that might sit on the (far) server side
of the equation, proxying between a DOH server and a real DNS server
where those two servers are cooperating.

This is (IMHO) a likely deployment model for DOH, until such time as the
major OSS DNS server implementations include DOH natively.

I'm therefore also concerned with how transport (or pseudo-transport)
properties affect how those real DNS servers make policy decisions about
their responses.

Ray