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

Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org> Thu, 14 June 2018 04:41 UTC

Return-Path: <muks@mukund.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 3C15513102F for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:41:19 -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 0C4qzTxWPILq for <doh@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.banu.com (mail.banu.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:140:644b::225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22224130DDD for <doh@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jurassic (unknown [49.203.216.227]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.banu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4139C32C09D5; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:41:16 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:11:13 +0530
From: Mukund Sivaraman <muks@mukund.org>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Cc: Ben Schwartz <bemasc=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Petr =?utf-8?B?xaBwYcSNZWs=?= <petr.spacek@nic.cz>, DoH WG <doh@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180614044113.GA27115@jurassic>
References: <1E183D79-5716-47E5-8604-A4F5DC7588C2@icann.org> <045241e6-6d9f-162c-6ae3-0b10d59d21de@bellis.me.uk> <6BB0D47F-2BA3-4D9A-A125-1D1E180B06E0@icann.org> <53c320bc-6ea0-21f4-c7a1-1da34bbdb38d@nic.cz> <CAHbrMsBoKE-pfz97ZDb9ReLKMedk2KJ7xLCw_MPmxVtqF7PcuA@mail.gmail.com> <20180613192030.GA2792@jurassic> <CAHbrMsACdaz13v=2jbpZq1RU-_CP36Cgz13iFFWVj8qrjQ0b=g@mail.gmail.com> <20180613205637.GA23215@jurassic> <CAOdDvNr0ob_zhMw1BT_h8n77ecx5vht8WJ7OiwwDPrj0Wxf8SA@mail.gmail.com> <20180614042217.GA25915@jurassic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180614042217.GA25915@jurassic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/doh/tzliz2cndElJJWi4Riz9j8Yttq4>
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 04:41:20 -0000

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:52:17AM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> It would help participation, get to more consensus if the usage patterns
> are better understood.

As an implementer, it is unclear where this is all going, which is what
I'm curious about over DoH. If there's more description of different
usage patterns, we can better plan how it would fit in our projects. The
switch to DoH at the application layer seems suddenly upon us. I was
thinking of DoH just as a fallback transport, but suddenly it seems
almost like this is the new way to do DNS queries (a switch).

(Musing.. why did we even spend any time on DNS over TLS if this is more
or less the same thing?)

		Mukund