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

Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> Mon, 11 June 2018 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tale@dd.org>
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 5BD9B13100F for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 W1qBnoSdMKj9 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gro.dd.org (gro.dd.org [207.136.192.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32EBB130E73 for <doh@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gro.dd.org (Postfix, from userid 102) id 7E7D532898; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:52:02 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <23326.43186.501116.977750@gro.dd.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:52:02 -0400
From: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
To: doh@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <03DC5A73-4BAD-45FE-AC60-C8BC82FD5690@mnot.net>
References: <20180606093212.GA23880@server.ds9a.nl> <20180608170744.GY11227@mx4.yitter.info> <03DC5A73-4BAD-45FE-AC60-C8BC82FD5690@mnot.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/sZd2_n12F8rx42ti9vSgJhz7t_Q>
Subject: Re: [Doh] Are we missing an architecture? (was Re: DNS Camel thoughts: TC and message size)
X-BeenThere: doh@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 11 Jun 2018 16:52:04 -0000

Mark Nottingham writes:
> DNS may very well need a new architecture, but loading this
> responsibility onto DOH post-WGLC is asking too much of it, and is
> unfair to the folks who brought this work to the IETF in good
> faith. 

With my co-chair hat on, it is absolutely fair for this to be brought
now.  I say that even as I appear to be in opposition to at least one
of the draft authors and on the minority side of consensus, going by a
strict counting of the dozen or so people who've offered an opinion on
the list.

What's genuinely surprising to me is that of all the interesting
architectural issues which come along with DoH, it's only message size
that caused such debate.  It's not quite bike-shedding but it's in
rock-throwing distance of it.