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

Ben Schwartz <> Wed, 13 June 2018 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE840130E91 for <>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -18.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7DN7jsnPJDbA for <>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DF36130E87 for <>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a3-v6so5570851itd.0 for <>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ts6Gdrbm38qPkRuf890GBfRiezTJ0KNTRkfXpAgPomA=; b=LDofmQW30DQSk5StZnCGMxXAI+zma6l+Zw9B+/CRjZb7nco4A++sLHfDVmNUc8h8j6 l5AhNmrZpGDGSOrYdykX58iR25kwrXxjNvtPeKDVy2uJHx6dQ/VcxE2PWkhHu7ty+7FT epCmOlDRpMYE5lccsfIO+wDxoZfaF/UxUB6Fq0UlnWeEOgWmJR7uSzG7EbvHNLrzXZTQ C7/53fj36TbTf3VMlpb0ypVmxmvKpJGeANV4Ghawx3PeS3mJL2V2ibiNljYuI4brFXgh DucY6ET4chy+JWZvRRzV20KoWhIt0ZF9K3C4iSsh298qTq7J64Qp1mGeXfdrrZdz6/63 uUvg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ts6Gdrbm38qPkRuf890GBfRiezTJ0KNTRkfXpAgPomA=; b=eG4poMIbNmUXbXMKC7+5afSbMHfU0KnxJR4Debt2E3+h83Jo77+oYrL3SkxZ6AyyTi 94Yr9H9Q8bjOwXLLm2MgEyw5q0pOsyG2PEKNWKwHM8G/MPLc0sLTPhYlST6y9ZHVP9Yx DnVPAJGd9wxHi7Y6Ty82PC+Qtyd1e2Ha7ueCxLnfkE6sN7gk9CvGIYWWsBMmx3pRWYEA 6iIyMMjGRq825ofbcVAwXzp4YE0Koxp6YRoQUscmZFICTD2Phq5r1oyAY4Joy/VkOHoo iyQlWLu/t+q8YfsG5EzhBplpnv1Zh2GchRVgDTLR+BG2KY8eHVVlQNl1mXb4iEFmR9sf G4KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2kB2jhkIGRpOsiWU9WZV+U1kAGn/pk4voSJIuvl9whXi00lyKZ 7k6BsIZCkNq99G3lSh6hZ7rccwLUmmhG6vZT5VWkbf2Bng8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLDYyvjhjzY0UG5W6JiFpqQi4UMahkRucLy/6HpswXwfhlrn2E+5QmzKmG/d4jUK5a/Osol4NKC/XKzQI9U2/E=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:4187:: with SMTP id n7-v6mr966494jad.86.1528919036510; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20180613192030.GA2792@jurassic>
In-Reply-To: <20180613192030.GA2792@jurassic>
From: Ben Schwartz <>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:43:44 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Cc:, DoH WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="00000000000018e965056e8b34d5"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re: DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Over HTTPS <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:44:00 -0000

Snipped to focus on one technical point.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 3:20 PM Mukund Sivaraman <>; wrote:

> Large zone transfers are supported today using TCP continuation messages
> and the same can be encoded by DoH within the 64kB message limit.

This is currently not true, because each DoH query must return at most a
single DNS message in the response.  Therefore, there is no way to make use
of continuation messages in DoH.  I think this is a major reason why we are
having this conversation: lack of continuation messages renders DoH
strictly less expressive than standard DNS, which is a concern for gateway

Before someone pedantically points out this, AXFRs are sent as DNS QUERY
> but they're not a DNS query in the layman's sense and the charter isn't
> talking about the opcode. :P

Without veering into charter interpretation, I agree that supporting AXFR
is distinctly lower priority than typical client-recursive queries.
However, some working group participants believe that it would be valuable,
so it's worth considering if there is a reasonable way to include support
for it, or to leave open the possibility of future support.