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

Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk> Wed, 13 June 2018 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ray@bellis.me.uk>
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 52DCB130E29 for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 06:04:34 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 dmfhf0l1ZZIf for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 06:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydrogen.portfast.net (hydrogen.portfast.net [188.246.200.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA5E7130DCA for <doh@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 06:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [88.212.170.147] (port=64516 helo=rays-mbp.local) by hydrogen.portfast.net ([188.246.200.2]:465) with esmtpsa (fixed_plain:ray@bellis.me.uk) (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) id 1fT5Rr-0008IY-Kz (Exim 4.72) for doh@ietf.org (return-path <ray@bellis.me.uk>); Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:04:27 +0100
To: doh@ietf.org
References: <20180606093212.GA23880@server.ds9a.nl> <20180608170744.GY11227@mx4.yitter.info> <03DC5A73-4BAD-45FE-AC60-C8BC82FD5690@mnot.net> <23326.43186.501116.977750@gro.dd.org> <20180611202130.GA26355@server.ds9a.nl> <23326.61211.72657.945633@gro.dd.org> <1E183D79-5716-47E5-8604-A4F5DC7588C2@icann.org> <045241e6-6d9f-162c-6ae3-0b10d59d21de@bellis.me.uk> <23328.39662.854936.357114@gro.dd.org> <157c9cfb-ed84-4635-9c67-f9726adfccce@bellis.me.uk> <20180613101600.GB14462@server.ds9a.nl>
From: Ray Bellis <ray@bellis.me.uk>
Message-ID: <a8528a5e-9ce6-8488-9828-22e0d762f8fa@bellis.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:04:29 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180613101600.GB14462@server.ds9a.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/tIA8htmz0ahk6PVWBpu2cbVNwww>
Subject: Re: [Doh] [Ext] 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: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:04:34 -0000

On 13/06/2018 11:16, bert hubert wrote:

> Indeed. This would then also have to define TCP TC=1 behaviour and how
> resolvers need to then use the third first-class transport called DOH.

which would then effectively become Mandatory To Implement, otherwise
someone's going to start provisioning RRsets that are illegal over TCP
and UDP and only capable of being carried in DoH.

This is getting dangerously close into "get off our lawn" territory.

Ray