Re: [Doh] gethostbyname?

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Thu, 04 April 2019 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 72BDD120269 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 cAdxJ0QY-fYS for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com (mail-wr1-f67.google.com [209.85.221.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B969F12023C for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id y7so5631146wrn.11 for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 15:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Zf468KCLuTSxlEkeB9jriH0ewAKlp7GXqbrkqMBL6g0=; b=O1E7PBaZP3iqwwp29dCXW393U3eHVImSNemoueenAZaGUcaxiYC78mbcWAgcKmotL/ 9XB0DK18g/rSrFwSZxxflPzE+AqBy5aRgiaDHuBB4KqOOgHClioz6eMmahjcWnUfklvd QwOWxWy/DIgvyUByqeI9CRTFrUQC9yfBxNVelzoSHgH4UADIbL1QJIcKDTnvjjIkAD1g F3c6dbi/33WluljG24zklcTb7L7et+y47g/EEok0iu/bUYI5Qugnaho08l1JtkjywsE8 f8soTh56p7phNuOx1sH8AbOUO0x0mA0vSYr6BKvGdyHw4OG+MI33FRrtp0Lk5bDygLeR FcvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUgufguZm/5yuwfVQR3p2XUq/nq35LM5Js74YQKaHuAqde1XaIk CBc6rx4YWL4UYdwrtQKGEpq9tLM12bC+JKW+W0k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxxghfIVP5n2J2Z/0gWMHXCD+f6L7U7Nyp0JludcuT8bADQvJimN9818nDEMFGj4GUa0yXk2+Ajx0r1Ut+xJyY=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e949:: with SMTP id m9mr5531386wrn.237.1554416429976; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 15:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7D357986-AD33-4619-8037-8BCD59687AF0@gmail.com> <CAHbrMsAvbj95kve3WQCEmt-BS70XafyKFJCg14L02Gndf4NR+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsAvbj95kve3WQCEmt-BS70XafyKFJCg14L02Gndf4NR+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:20:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqekTfkEvbX5+MEBFuhmbruADk_NmfOwgTJfS=Obbivy8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000024511b0585bbc7b6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/XkvcUWrY9UfteHwGXu2r4pxfvyU>
Subject: Re: [Doh] gethostbyname?
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 22:20:34 -0000

At Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:26:49 -0400,
Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Please avoid casting aspersions on other working group participants, even
> in jest, as it might be misconstrued and cause offense.

Perhaps the wording wasn't very appropriate, but I think it's
generally a good practice to have any IETF work assume the use of
IPv6.  It's also consistent with the overall trend to IPv6-awareness
in the IETF, e.g., as described in
https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/

The actual draft text doesn't seem to be so problematic in that sense:

   Browsers which cannot get the IP address(es) of the resolver
   configured by the operating system using APIs are still able to use
   an operating system function such as gethostbyname() or its
   equivalents to convert host names into IP addresses through the stub
   resolver in the operating system on which they are running.

since it only refers to gethostbyname() as an example and also says
"or its equivalents", and I also don't think the author lives in the
previous century given that he was involved in the development of a
modern DNS library; but I don't think changing gethostbyname() to
getaddrinfo() (or at least gethostbyname2()) doesn't do any harm
either, if it's not an improvement.  I've just sent a pull request for
this change on github:
https://github.com/dohwg/draft-ietf-doh-resolver-associated-doh/pull/6

> > I have a silly question. In section 4, the draft goes to the API level
to
> > specify how to resolve a domain name. gethostbyname was deprecated in
favor
> > of getaddrinfo (and therefore IPv6 capability) in 1999 (RFC 2553), and
is
> > now found in all common OS's including Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, MacOSX,
and
> > so on. A reference to gethostbyname in this draft comes across as
ignorant
> > at best, perhaps deliberately so.
> >
> > What do we need to do to drag the authors into the current century?

--
JINMEI, Tatuya