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

Paul Hoffman <> Tue, 12 June 2018 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49093130DD1 for <>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AfuU6Y5d4G4a for <>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2D3F130DC3 for <>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:51:09 -0700
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:51:09 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <>
To: David C Lawrence <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [Doh] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re: DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size)
Thread-Index: AQHUAe/VzBhdNBCRWEK8i8XD7rRPGQ==
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 01:51:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 01:51:14 -0000

On Jun 11, 2018, at 2:52 PM, Dave Lawrence <>; wrote:
> If there were even one solid example of how this impacts the rest of
> the DNS, I'd certainly be willing to reconsider my position.

Great! Let me try again.

The DNS message format is defined specifically for two transports. Looking at the format without looking at the transports, one can imagine a message that cannot be carried in either format. However, the original specifications and all the ones since have always treated the message format as being handled in one of the two transports.

When we define a new transport that allows messages different than the ones we have always assumed, gatewaying those different messages will be different than gatewaying between the two current transports and thus have an impact on the rest of the DNS.

The WG charter we are working under clearly says:
  Specification of how DNS-formatted data may be used for use cases beyond
  normal DNS queries is out of scope for the working group.
Creating new queries, to me, seems "beyond normal DNS queries".

--Paul Hoffman