Re: [Doh] meta qtypes

Petr Špaček <petr.spacek@nic.cz> Mon, 19 March 2018 21:56 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 0FEB412D72F for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.01 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] 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 nWavvi8LwNeR for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (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 B6462127876 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:56:55 -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 DC6226095C for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:56:52 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1521496613; bh=//nE5lG4RfxB72HzKvgPX1YNmhSkQ85hLYiKQqsIlEk=; h=To:From:Date; b=akVa+Q1SXhuHGTTHUfgxCM8ZV+GgCcY8yn5o2RQGOkjT0aCWUIvle5acSmmOV9auR PwwE7H2nhXNimd43bk5MH0CEq1QXBwHTIK5R/BIg2LaOtASO0P+r045fHwCXm3RCCE pBh2Z/ixSY61c2a/sENmh0vvqDyErPVsSwUhbf5g=
To: doh@ietf.org
References: <20180318143811.bn5kwr7oqo2ux6qm@miek.nl> <CAOdDvNoNN98zOuPAepS0=0Nt06+UAGV1ZCrxs0J2TzQaVnJz8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAN6NTqwA+Ub22Ajr_RGGh2+32aMMUMcKnPdUrUpkk8zF6TBn1Q@mail.gmail.com> <20180319131134.46hjo2eo757jqe7d@miek.nl> <16CD849A-55B3-487C-A370-CA96FF619BC3@bangj.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803191408010.20806@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <23215.52292.616186.468475@gro.dd.org>
From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0ciDFoHBhxI1law==?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Message-ID: <3a58b678-e514-b34f-f477-a3f36dbbea15@nic.cz>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 22:56:52 +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: <23215.52292.616186.468475@gro.dd.org>
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/r0EQU52OgK1V31oEKMXzdNzN3bk>
Subject: Re: [Doh] meta qtypes
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 21:56:58 -0000


On 19.3.2018 15:42, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> Tony Finch writes:
>> The problem with AXFR is [...] it [doesn't] fit into the
>> udpwireformat media type.
> 
> Setting aside the other points you brought up ... it doesn't?
> 
> I mean, sure, an AXFR would likely exceed UDP packet sizes typically
> seen in the wild, but why not a hypothetical jumbo packet,
> content-length mumblety-megabytes?  dns-udpwireformat is not defined in
> the doc as intrinsically limiting message length; multiple messages
> happen with DNS/TCP only because of the defined 64k limit for them.
> "udp" in the type only means "doesn't have the 16 bit prefix length".

Oh, but in that case the theoretical "proxy" would have re-assemble
answers from TCP connection to a DNS server into jumbo-message. Bleh,
please do not do this. DNS is complex as hell now and additional layer
of complexity in translation is going to be major pain.

Maybe we can get out first version without metatypes and add these later
on, if there is an actual demand for them.

Petr Špaček  @  CZ.NIC


> Does this too need to be made more explicit in the doc?  I don't
> recall any discussion of message size limits, or lack thereof