Re: [Doh] special meta QTYPEs

Tony Finch <> Thu, 07 June 2018 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2071310C7 for <>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 03:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ohxwAaj1hvYI for <>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 03:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADB8C130ED0 for <>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 03:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
Received: from ([]:45445) by ( []:25) with esmtps (TLSv1:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1fQsa2-000OOw-11 (Exim 4.91) (return-path <>); Thu, 07 Jun 2018 11:55:46 +0100
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 11:55:46 +0100
From: Tony Finch <>
To: Ben Schwartz <>
cc: DoH WG <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] special meta QTYPEs
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: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 10:55:52 -0000

Ben Schwartz <>; wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:50 PM Tony Finch <>; wrote:
> >
> > I think it is reasonable for an implementation to support TKEY or MAILA or
> > MAILB if it wishes. I don't think it's possible to fit AXFR or IXFR into
> > DoH because their responses involve multiple DNS messages.
> Do you believe this is an intrinsic property of DoH, or can you imagine a
> future media type that could represent AXFR in a single HTTP response?

It's possible (of course!) but yes, it would require a different media
type, and a document along the lines of RFC 5936 (the AXFR spec) that
describes it.

Maybe your question implies a way for better forwards compatibility:

    A DoH server MUST return a DNS error response, either RCODE=1 (format
    error) or RCODE=4 (not implemented) if it receives a request with an
    unknown meta-QTYPE between 128 and 254 inclusive. The meta-QTYPE 255
    (* or ANY) SHOULD be supported. The meta-QTYPEs 251 (IXFR) and 252
    (AXFR) SHOULD be treated as unknown.

    This is because meta-QTYPEs can affect the way a DNS response is
    framed; for example, AXFR and IXFR responses can span multiple DNS
    messages, whereas an application/dns-message responsecan only contain
    one DNS message.

    Future specifications might extend this protocol to support more
    meta-QTYPEs over HTTP; these are likely to require media types other
    than application/dns-message; so the content type of the response MAY
    depend on the OPCODE and QTYPE of the request.

That last MAY is a biggie, I think, and probably needs to be mentioned
prominently up front.

f.anthony.n.finch  <>;
oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality