Re: [Doh] assorted things

Daniel Stenberg <> Tue, 05 June 2018 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DDD813100F for <>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:19:14 -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 6DtGlJM1rIk9 for <>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1a28:1200:9::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C7C13100D for <>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (mail []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-4) with ESMTPS id w55DJ7MG006331 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:19:07 +0200
Received: from localhost (dast@localhost) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id w55DJ6kj006326; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:19:07 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: dast owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:19:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Daniel Stenberg <>
To: bert hubert <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Doh] assorted things
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, 05 Jun 2018 13:19:15 -0000

On Tue, 5 Jun 2018, bert hubert wrote:

>   Some of these non-successful HTTP responses (e.g., redirects or
>   authentication failures) could mean that clients need to make new
>   requests to satisfy the original question.
> I would recommending teeth to this. Naive implementations may decide to not 
> follow 3xx codes. I would recommend making this explicit with a MUST. Also, 
> it may be worth it to explicitly say if authentication is in our out of 
> scope.

Isn't all of this basically just how HTTP works and offers? RFC 7231 section 
6.4 explains redirects just fine I think and HTTP authentication is certainly 
a part of HTTP and is explained in RFC7235.

> Here it is a bit uncertain if you'd ever prompt a user for a 
> username/password for doing DNS resolution.

To me that sounds more like a UI/program decision and not something we need to 

> In 6.3 "Server Push":
>   For HTTP server push ([RFC7540] Section 8.2) extra care must be taken to
>   ensure that the pushed URI is one that the client would have directed the
>   same query to if the client had initiated the request.
> This means an API server is free to send responses to DNS queries we haven't
> seen yet?  And should a client do something with that?

Yes, basically. See RFC 75450 section 8.2.

> Or can it ignore the pushed records?

A HTTP/2 client can always opt to either not ever accept pushed resources or 
deny them when offered.