Re: [Doh] A question on the mix of DNS and HTTP semantics

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Sun, 18 March 2018 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
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 C89C712D88D for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:03:59 -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] 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 Mn3G-HRzGZPJ for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) (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 D1BC312DA09 for <doh@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 04:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:39041) by ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.136]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1exW6V-000EJs-e4 (Exim 4.89_2) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:03:55 +0000
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:03:55 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, doh@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNpeLRcFZGop7uEVMsJuvD8GFk4UCauEh+90LtR27O8bwA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803181052000.16965@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CA+9kkMB7awRfW9jUmY9Q-1p+w3VLtpG5DxhF3s7Q58nEMZeX3w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803181007050.16965@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAOdDvNpeLRcFZGop7uEVMsJuvD8GFk4UCauEh+90LtR27O8bwA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/cpSAObsv20--66H4I4u_kGyIwBA>
Subject: Re: [Doh] A question on the mix of DNS and HTTP semantics
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 11:04:02 -0000

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>; wrote:
>
> we should have a look at section 4.6 of bcp56bis - which warns against
> defining a laundry list of error codes in application protocols like DoH.
> For each of these cases HTTP has an appropriate code, which can be consumed
> by other HTTP clients in the HTTP ecosystem to mean the same thing. There
> might be more than one way to express something at the HTTP layer and, as
> long as the consumers follow the HTTP definitions, that's ok and doesn't
> need specification by DoH.

Right, that makes sense. Regarding "more than one way to express
something", the DoH draft describes two fairly specific ways to express a
DoH request, so it seems to me that it would be right to be equally
specific about the error cases, as well as the success case. Maybe there
is some way to explain what to do without being as verbose as I was :-)

Re. Accept:

> so the server certainly has the option of just returning 200+wireformat.
> Realistically given the size of wireformat that's probably the right thing
> to do both paths seem legal.

Being lazy, I'm happy that you say I don't need to implement any Accept:
processing :-)

Thanks for the helpful reply!

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>;  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Forties, Cromarty, Forth: East 5 to 7, backing northeast 4 or 5 later.
Moderate or rough, occasionally very rough at first except in Cromarty. Snow
showers. Good, occasionally poor.