Re: [Doh] [Ext] A question on the mix of DNS and HTTP semantics

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Mon, 19 March 2018 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
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 DF5AC12D94C for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.233
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, 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 oy67_sc2vTlF for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode64.ducksong.com (www.ducksong.com [192.155.95.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4948812DA51 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:03:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com (mail-oi0-f42.google.com [209.85.218.42]) by linode64.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85A0A3A04F for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:03:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id u141so2852043oif.1 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7E0NBdUc7WAOUAtnO1AgK0QaZ991rb5pAlXbtmyOaKEBIF8H+JQ 6zg4AbdvOKFwtzfUvnIEaVBY9s/lGHHneXC01/k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtoZVkNlfSeXBdrUEVhXDHz4+/ofAC/rBhvy2ya4yvx8jq9CtYRaKo80waAujVvktSJV0vwYFByXjuoJWb33dA=
X-Received: by 10.202.178.195 with SMTP id b186mr6834810oif.337.1521475385248; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.74.66.212 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180319153958.GA24327@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <CA+9kkMB7awRfW9jUmY9Q-1p+w3VLtpG5DxhF3s7Q58nEMZeX3w@mail.gmail.com> <20180318164307.GB6724@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <CAOdDvNr1GstB+g3pYi4w0bXuQ=Nz8HqgTRfWUX9TGu9YAYiz0w@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMA733q3BPRbnN++0vwKrmOOCN8SBgknYwFaeEf2cvYikw@mail.gmail.com> <88AB1743-7270-4D72-8C70-0AB6B74416BD@icann.org> <SN1PR08MB1854485BF319264F51D208C3DAD40@SN1PR08MB1854.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <20180319150958.GA23411@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20180319152126.c5ylchfawn4syfwb@mx4.yitter.info> <20180319153958.GA24327@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:03:04 +0000
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNoYO=dH=bgmNqVCgjoqegsosvqXZ5s09VqiYQB+mFO3yw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNoYO=dH=bgmNqVCgjoqegsosvqXZ5s09VqiYQB+mFO3yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Cc: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ce932df53a90567c6176c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/VVs74iOhNPOzJmX06MZUsk-OoUU>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] A question on the mix of DNS and HTTP semantics
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:03:10 -0000

I agree with Stephane. DNS information in non-successful HTTP responses
(i.e. not a 2xx) is not the answer to the question you asked in the HTTP
request. I can't tell you what it is - its normally just defined as human
readable explanation. It may certainly be generated by HTTP servers that do
not understand DoH.




On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>;
wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:21:27AM -0400,
>  Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>; wrote
>  a message of 29 lines which said:
>
> > If it were actually truncated, wouldn't the message have a TC bit
> > set?
>
> Truncated for HTTP reasons (error 500 : the server crashed), not for
> DNS reasons.
>
> If the DNS answer is truncated for DNS reasons (EDNS buffer size too
> small), I would expect the HTTP status code to be 200.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Doh mailing list
> Doh@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/doh
>