IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] Consensus confirmation

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Mon, 26 March 2018 08:45 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
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 156171204DA for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 01:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 e-AT4HdpO8Jy for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 01:45:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (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 96B281243F6 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 01:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 29079280287; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:45:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 22FFC280293; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:45:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (unknown [10.1.50.11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4C0280287; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:45:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:133]) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BBF6423521; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:45:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 114DC40FAD; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:45:20 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:45:20 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Cc: DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180326084520.zwwfzzvvnh4vda5l@nic.fr>
References: <CAHbrMsAs8G-eW7DTUtbdGukLszHohmk4NHhFPWw01+h3-v9Uog@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsAs8G-eW7DTUtbdGukLszHohmk4NHhFPWw01+h3-v9Uog@mail.gmail.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 9.3
X-Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-6-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.0.2142326, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2018.3.26.83916
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/Y5tN-1zeRQnUXXQHBvfUa2pjVWI>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Consensus confirmation
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, 26 Mar 2018 08:45:27 -0000

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 12:32:10PM -0400,
 Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> wrote 
 a message of 158 lines which said:

> 2. Among the GET and POST modes of operation, which, if any, should
> be mandatory to implement?
> 
> Among the participants, there was consensus in favor of making both
> GET and POST mandatory to implement for servers.

I agree with that but I note that Daniel Kahn Gillmor claimed that
clients should (SHOULD?) implement both because a DoH server queried
with POST may redirect you and GET be used. (301 and 302 allows that,
unlike 307 and 308, RFC 7231, section 6.4.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email