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

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Thu, 14 June 2018 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel@haxx.se>
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 B855513115B for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cYo1cJ4kB2BO for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (www.haxx.se [IPv6:2a00:1a28:1200:9::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C782C13116D for <doh@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (mail [127.0.0.1]) by giant.haxx.se (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-4) with ESMTPS id w5EE9kgu023298 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:09:46 +0200
Received: from localhost (dast@localhost) by giant.haxx.se (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id w5EE9jep023294; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:09:45 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: giant.haxx.se: dast owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:09:45 +0200 (CEST)
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@giant.haxx.se
To: Sara Dickinson <sara@sinodun.com>
cc: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Petr_=A9pa=E8ek?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org>
In-Reply-To: <74D48781-9F05-482C-ACB2-7AB027611489@sinodun.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1806141609050.29598@tvnag.unkk.fr>
References: <1E183D79-5716-47E5-8604-A4F5DC7588C2@icann.org> <045241e6-6d9f-162c-6ae3-0b10d59d21de@bellis.me.uk> <6BB0D47F-2BA3-4D9A-A125-1D1E180B06E0@icann.org> <53c320bc-6ea0-21f4-c7a1-1da34bbdb38d@nic.cz> <CAHbrMsBoKE-pfz97ZDb9ReLKMedk2KJ7xLCw_MPmxVtqF7PcuA@mail.gmail.com> <20180613192030.GA2792@jurassic> <CAHbrMsACdaz13v=2jbpZq1RU-_CP36Cgz13iFFWVj8qrjQ0b=g@mail.gmail.com> <20180613205637.GA23215@jurassic> <CAOdDvNr0ob_zhMw1BT_h8n77ecx5vht8WJ7OiwwDPrj0Wxf8SA@mail.gmail.com> <20180614042217.GA25915@jurassic> <20180614044113.GA27115@jurassic> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1806140728270.30130@tvnag.unkk.fr> <74D48781-9F05-482C-ACB2-7AB027611489@sinodun.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="1129329158-2137643623-1528985385=:29598"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/Y51-0QLMmuHMx8qrrJl2qOUl4WY>
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:10:03 -0000

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Sara Dickinson wrote:

> I’m not saying there is a right or wrong model here, just that there are 
> more concerns than simply what the application prefers.

Sure. And I'm saying they already existed since long before and are 
independent of DOH.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se