IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Doh] Support requirements for Get and Post

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Mon, 19 March 2018 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
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 A284812D94D for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 hS6EK6nvf2e8 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (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 3557012D779 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.235] (cpc130666-camd16-2-0-cust366.know.cable.virginm.net [82.36.141.111]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7994F6095C for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:59:32 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1521496772; bh=41d6onL1SRbZuxd9tvwpExE5iI5IUog1l+8X36K3Jtw=; h=To:From:Date; b=Cen406vt1cwuuXEMU8vhYrINdDNHxEgZtz9GglwyeKB4nwyAeL81ZHFrj5EEKagFq FAUbDWcgUFpH7WfkWVH2YCR70rM0EbZ5KRYcCCtRCID9sD+cKdiQ7wKtpeicBrcep3 tL6wckUHrs3QJMoJ9RZKhQu72VMlqfyn5BgL/w1I=
To: doh@ietf.org
References: <CAN6NTqzkUeF79y=heQ7PK7T3mQVDDk5WRtqB-npi6PuQ2s5bNQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803171337530.1331@tvnag.unkk.fr> <CAN6NTqykeU1gT0TaDKahBPeF-a8gwYG7gsAEK_aSE0fNP-AsfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNq7e5YGtUap6tHu34zX5q1PvmQjAh+fc0m=xcRDUrmKhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNqGvPRH3SzP_tkHVZHr-geacqDBa+QfoqXGVxFWW2qr2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsAkU+KKwCFpyLD40aPZLEVtRj=aEZsaC+=Y2yYwKCiEyA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNpFqavszS_OzOdOOd+e0E+ufDcqkyQzCrnAtWPZnKEZFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsBYcO_1v-dPKP8vvubqfjLyRJhZPsmHHE_ReVRiczbuYA@mail.gmail.com> <23215.63984.364570.759118@gro.dd.org> <CAOdDvNqVE3mDJ31fKs0zLY8Lu-Pt2oeZ2UtbOorz3=TeiaBxRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <958176d9-00cd-e8ba-8c74-c6c736ab99e8@nic.cz>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:59:31 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNqVE3mDJ31fKs0zLY8Lu-Pt2oeZ2UtbOorz3=TeiaBxRg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/bEmqjpM67dImnA7HjqKswgpbUgc>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Support requirements for Get and Post
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 21:59:36 -0000

On 19.3.2018 19:01, Patrick McManus wrote:
> this is an open issue I was planning to address with f2f time of the wg
> as part of the slot related to this document (of course in addition to
> any mailing list comments).
> 
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org
> <mailto:tale@dd.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Ben Schwartz writes:
>     > So does that mean that a DOH server and client that both comply with all
>     > SHOULD-strength requirements still may not be able to exchange any DNS data?
>     > That seems like a weaker guarantee of compatibility than is typical at the
>     > IETF.
> 
>     Has an answer to this question come through yet?
> 
>     > If following all the SHOULD-level recommendations is not sufficient
>     > to ensure compatibility, then as an implementor I would appreciate
>     > some clear additional guidance on what I have to do to make my
>     > client compatible with any compliant DOH server (and vice versa as a
>     > server implementor).
> 
>     Very much agree.
A subversive question:
Do we *actually* need GET and POST? Could we get away with just one of
these?

Please apologize my lack of HTTP knowledge, but it seems to me weird to
start with both (as opposed to gradual addition of new ones as necessary).

-- 
Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email